Democracy in Action

Democracy in Action

March 21, 2007

Continually, in the course of our daily lives, we are subjected to the term “democracy”; the connotation being that the United States of America is a democracy. Listen to President George W Bush pontificate on any given day and you will hear him use the word at least once.

The United States of America is an emerging democracy; it was not founded as a democracy. In fact, our Founding Fathers made their aversion to democracy well known. James Madison in Federalist #10 had this to say about democracy:

“From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short I their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretical politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Their disdain was apparent; the why of their disdain was also apparent.

To the end of protecting the people against the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party, to protect the rights of property, to provide personal security, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were carefully written and enacted. Those first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights, providing equal access and equal protection under the law.

The judicial system, established on the rule of law was to be blind, ruling according to law, equally for all. Under democracy the judicial system becomes a legal system with activist judges who rule not according to law but according to their own passions, opinions and prejudices. The result is that the Bill of Rights has been pretty much nullified.

In our emerging democracy, the transformation of the United States of America from a constitutional republic to the United States of Amerika, a democracy in which the rights of the minority are at the whim of the majority, no better example exists then a recent incident involving a professor at North Idaho College in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

As some will recall, the Coeur d’Alene area of Idaho was, in the not too distant past, the home of Richard Butler of the Aryan Nation persuasion. Butler and his neo-Nazi followers had a compound there, attracting the attention of local and federal law enforcement including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Butler’s followers would, on an annual basis, parade through downtown Coeur d’Alene proudly displaying their flags bearing swastikas, dressed in their Nazi uniforms adorned with the same, and displaying the stiff-armed salute known to be the Nazi sentiment honoring Hitler. They would always draw a crowd of protesters, some without fail carrying signs announcing boldly and passionately “stop hate”.

Nazi-ism is a euphemism for “national socialism”, a system of government in which the rights of the minority are at the whim of the majority, incompatible with the rights of property or personal security; and as so adequately displayed under Hitler, spectacles of turbulence and contention—violent in both its life and death.

In short, national socialism is synonymous with democracy. One has to wonder if all those protestors, carrying signs proclaiming “stop hate”, are as adamant, as passionate in their zeal to stop democracy from taking over their country.

Recently a North Idaho College student requested a refund of her course fees for an English class. Her story appeared on local television stations with articles appearing in both the Spokesman Review out of Spokane and the Coeur d’Alene Press out of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

According to an article published in the Spokesman Review, the professor is quoted as saying:

"I believe in the death penalty … First we line up everyone who can't think and right behind them, anyone who's ever voted Republican."

The professor than is quoted as saying,

"Most (comments) were said facetiously in an attempt to get my students to think … Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that anyone would take it seriously … They were always said with a smile."

What the professor actually said, however, was reported more fully by the Coeur d’Alene Press article in which the above offending quote was reported as follows:

"Republicans should be executed. I believe in the death penalty. I love it. I think we should use it every day. First we line up everyone who can't think and right behind them, anyone who's ever voted Republican."

But no one should take it seriously or be offended?

That level of enmity, vehemence, is not “tongue in check”, cannot be relegated to the realm of “teasing”, both definitions of “facetious” as used by the professor in “explaining” her actions. It becomes obvious that the professor’s comments were a matter of her own personal intolerance toward Republicans voiced to a class of students over which she, as a professor, has influence and control. As reported on television, remarks such as these were apparently standard fare for the professor, making it apparent that the professor had a personal intolerance toward anyone Republican.

The student’s remarks, made during an interview for television, relegated the professor’s remarks to the realm of “stupid” and questioned why anyone should have to pay for “stupid.”

The reaction of North Idaho College was to declare this teacher’s actions to be a matter of “freedom of speech”.

But others were offended and responded to the professor’s remarks in kind. An article published in the Coeur d’Alene Press stated that the professor began getting correspondence from “across the country”. A sampling of that correspondence as reported by the Coeur d’Alene Press:

"You contemptuous excuse for an instructor. If you are trying to start another civil war and it comes about, I hope your family will be targeted first. As a Republican, I take umbrage at your suggestion that I should be shot. You'll find that Republicans can shoot back."

"Screw you, Communist (expletive deleted). Even though you are entitled to your opinion we all have freedom to vote anyway we please. You would do well teaching in Iran hating Jews. Bottom line I feel the same way about Liberal (expletive deleted) such as you."

"I hope you lose your position and cease poisoning the flower of our future who enroll in your class with your leftist indoctrination."

North Idaho College responded by contacting local law enforcement who contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); NIC claiming the above to be death threats.

This is a perfect example of democracy in action.

This professor mouthed what amounted to a death threat against Republicans or anyone who ever voted Republican. Not only that but she did it to a group of students under her influence and control creating a situation of possible incitement of students so inclined to act on her personal intolerances.

North Idaho College deemed her behavior “freedom of speech”.

But when people across the country responded in kind to what NIC deemed the professor’s First Amendment right of freedom of speech, North Idaho College deemed those a threat against her life and notified local law enforcement who contacted the FBI.

Under rule by law, if this professor’s actions are deemed “freedom of speech” than so should the above reported responses; if the authors of the correspondence to this professor are prosecuted then so should this professor be prosecuted.

Democracy, however, says that the professor’s actions are freedom of speech because, well, “we agree”; but when her actions elicit in kind responses such isn’t freedom of speech but threats against her life because, well, “we don’t agree.” The message, intended or not, is that the powers that be agree that all Republicans, or anyone who has ever voted Republican, should be put to death.

In the politically correct climate of America today, would this professor have dared make this comment about any ethnic group but whites, any political group but one that is supposedly conservative and Christian? If she would not have dared, why is such being tolerated because she made the comment against whites who are supposedly conservative and Christian? Such is the reality of democracy and why democracy is as short in its life and as it is violent in its death.

So it will be with our emerging democracy in America; a democracy which has all the trappings of, and will be no different than Germany under Hitler, the USSR and China under communism — communism being nothing more than socialism in a hurry.

Note: This author does not condone death threats, from professors or anyone else. Neither has this author been a registered Republican since the early to mid-90’s when she discovered, much to her chagrin, that the Republican Party was pandering to the big business take-over of education for the purposes of producing a dumbed-down work force willing to work for minimal compensation for the greater good of the collective whole while CEO’s collected millions in bonus’ and other compensation; the feudal system of the Middle Ages.