① government by the people; especially: rule of the majority.
② a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
word origin: 1576 – Middle French from Latin-Greek. Political system origin: circa 400 BC, Athens and Greek city-states; Roman Republic period. Majority rule is the key characteristic theme.
The following senators do not believe in democracy, despite belonging to the Democratic Party, where a minority dictates the political collectivism and decisions that affect their lives. These five senators and one House member supported the ending of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” which afforded homosexuals the chance to serve in the military without transgressing the rights of others serving the United States Armed Forces and not hindering the important discipline required in any military unit. Those congress persons are:
The senators and representative listed above should not continue to hold office and the people in their states should elect someone, hopefully a constitutionalist and believer in America as a democratic republic, to replace them. They have violated their oath in representing ALL citizens and transgressed against the rights of the majority for special interest groups and minority.
National security organizations and veteran groups protested against this policy, authorized by President BH Obama, commander-in-chief of US Armed Forces. C. Edmund Wright
These Senators and this one Congressman knew about a Marine Commandant saying their vote would cost the lives of Marines; they knew about a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying their ‘yes’ vote could break the military. They knew about three sitting service chiefs saying this was a terrible idea. They had statistics from a Pentagon survey showing almost 40 percent of Marines said they would leave or consider leaving early and 25 percent of the Army saying the same if this policy was changed.
By instituting this policy, a minority (homosexuals) are instituting rights that counteract against rights of others, as well as weakening military structure that is dependent upon unity and discipline – the formula of success of the US Armed Forces in its history.
The majority of American citizens as counter to their religious beliefs and personal views of good character view homosexuality – Christianity is the major religion in the United States. Most Americans believe that homosexuals have the right to conduct themselves in sexual activities in the privacy of their dwellings and disagree that the government mandate laws and policies that push homosexuality upon the lives of other citizens against their will and personal values, especially since they are the majority. Thus, special interest groups, ACLU, and members of the US government have harassed organizations like the Boy and Girl Scouts of America in an attempt to force that institution and other institutions against their established policies. In addition, homosexuality is presented as subject material in government-controlled educational institutions within their sex curriculum that was originally established to inform youth about the reproductive process (which automatically excludes homosexuals) via copulation between a male and female. The government expanded the program from what is was originally intended to include promotion of premarital sex, and even to the point of passing out free (taxpayer paid) condoms. As government continues to break down society’s values, society becomes more corrupted and government corruption continues because those serving in government come from that society.
The 2010 bill held that the law would remain in effect until the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified the change would not affect military readiness. All three groups agreed and the policy ended in September 2011.
Mr. Wright and others lead a group called Defending the Force, described as a pro-military and national security oriented educational foundation. It is running radio ads insisting that the six lawmakers that voted “Yes” to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Act to disclose any meeting or contact they had with groups that were pushing the agenda before the vote in 2010 to end open homosexuality in the armed forces, signed by President BH Obama.
To pour salt into the wound, the Secretary of Defense and approval of the Commander-in-Chief, declared in the summer of 2012 that a day would be set aside to celebrate homosexuality and that it would be recognized within the armed forces of the United States. The president even invited homosexuals to attend a White House gala as a PR stunt, whose invitees spent the time demeaning the traditions of the White House and exhibiting unacceptable behavior.
In any society, any that is successfully a part of civilization, has certain taboos – guidelines for public behavior and who draw a line between what is accepted and what is not. In the case of “liberals” or those who call themselves “progressives” – there is no line drawn unless it is mandated by law. The gist of their reasoning is “fairness” – but to disregard the personal convictions and beliefs of the majority
American citizens, the majority, afford minority groups and religious organizations to exercise their beliefs in religion and in respect to freedom of speech; however, the majority, Christians, have become the target of harassment and persecution, and told they cannot exercise their beliefs in favor of special interest groups – the minority. In addition, government controlled educational institutions have pushed their policies upon the youth of America overriding parental authority and their establishment of family and social values. In example of this phenomenon: atheists are a minority, yet majority of a community is not afforded the tradition of displaying the nativity at Christmas because it offends the atheists and other religious organizations. The Christmas tree, so named for a reason, is suddenly mandated to be called the “Holiday Tree” – and it goes on.
This election, like so many others, ends up with debates and arguments that circumvent the important issues and discuss matters that are neither the responsibility nor the business of government. For example, same-sex marriage is not within the limited powers of OUR government to enforce or even consider establishing precedence. Technically, there should be no requirement to obtain a marriage license by the government, for it is the matter pertaining to the state and local governments, who should turn that over to religious institutions. If a couple would like a legal agreement, they can secure a lawyer and make a legal document through the court system, which would be the choice if one was an atheist or one with no religious affiliation. In reality, marriage is a personal agreement between two people, traditionally (as old as civilization itself) being a man and a woman. What right does any government have to establish otherwise? The issue is not just a moral one for those who are religious, but involves values established by any society within any civilization. The marriage issue would fall into the dust bin of history if OUR government would do the right thing and repeal the 16th amendment taxing income and replace it with consumption. Or, a flat income tax with NO deductions, which would make most of the issues of marriage moot. Let’s face it, like Rush Limbaugh stated: “follow the money” when looking for the gist of an issue. Single citizens pay more income tax than married couples, especially with children, because of the way the system has progressed to. Deductions is what reduces the tax burden and the system becomes unbalanced. The percentage system automatically forces those that make more to pay more, and rightly so. However, that was not good enough for government, those operating it, and the progressive tax rate was established under the theme that the “rich” should pay more than others because they have it. Yet, percentage calculations already establish that they pay more. Ten percent of $1 million is far more than $10,000. Democrats (and too many Republicans) are always crying about “fairness” – yet the tax system they approve of is far from fair. This unfairness also transcends to the corporate tax system. Some pay more than others do, and a few pay little or nothing.
Why is that “fair”?
Just like no one should be persecuted for belief in a religion (unless they believe in sacrifice and killing non-believers) – neither should anyone be persecuted for being wealthy. There was an insane forum commentary going on where a person felt that Mitt Romney should have been paying more taxes because: (1) his wealth was inherited, (2) the percentage paid in taxes was less than others were. Apparently, these people have been schooled by government-controlled educational institutions – or just plain brainwashed by its complying media and network of pundits.
The fact is that yes, Mitt’s father had some wealth he had accumulated; but Mitt certainly did not inherit his position with Bain Capital – where he made his millions along with honest investments. If Mr. Romney only paid 13% in tax rates, it is because of the tax system and the way deductions work. Yet, that 13% added up to millions of dollars – because, you got it – it is a percentage. If the whiners about Mr. Romney’s taxes paid is not acceptable – than CHANGE THE TAX CODE
. Another thing about Romney’s tax return, it showed a substantial amount given to charity. I ask those whiners – Do they spend that much of a percentage of income on charity? That is also deductible in some cases when allowed by the IRS gestapo.
If politicians are so intent upon “fairness” – they need to stop and examine what they advocate in terms of policies and legislation. Maybe they will see the hypocrisy of it all.