The Islamic Invasion of Europe

by

       Phillip Todd



    The trickle of refugees began many months ago. They came to Europe at the invitation

of several countries that were experiencing a declining population and wanted to be sure that they had enough workers for the future. The trickle turned into a stream which has now turned into a raging river. The alarms went off early as the first wave reached Europe. There was something odd about these refugees. Most were male between the ages of 15-35. One reporter remarked that over 80% were " fighting age men"without families. European Democratic Socialist leaders ignored this warning sign as they often do. This will prove to be a grave mistake. "Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide," wrote James Burnham in his 1964 "Suicide of the West." Burnham predicted that the mindless magnanimity of liberals, who subordinate the interests of their own people and nations to utopian and altruistic impulses, would bring about an end to Western civilization


      Since 9/11, the Western world's academic, media, political elites have done their best to portray Islam in a favorable light, treating it very differently from all other religions.

Criticism of every doctrine, religious or secular, is permitted, often encouraged. But not of Islam. Only positive depictions are allowed. Why the special status? Could it be that it is treated differently than religions be because a cult is not a religion?  There is only one possible reason and that is Political Correctness -- Western elites bending over backwards on behalf of Muslims and Islam in ways they never would for any religion.  Perhaps the most egregious example of a Europe's elites treating Islam differently from religion took place in the UK. Between 1997 and 2013, at least 1,400 girls, as young as 11 years old, in the small English city of Rotherham (population 275,000), had been repeatedly gang raped and sold as sex slaves. The UK government acknowledged that these atrocities were allowed to go on solely due to the fact the perpetrators were British Muslims.The fear of the islamic cultists around the world on a daily basis is unbelievable to the sane.


      The refugees flocking into Europe are not just from

Syria or other mid-eastern countries, they are from Africa, Indonesia, and eastern Asia. When the Europeans leaders allowed immigration and opened up their countries they never expected a deluge of muslims from around the world. It is not immigration, it is an invasion. Immigrants assimilate, invaders do not.
     
        Anjem Choudary is a British Muslim social and political activist. He expresses the views of a western Muslim about the new beginning for Europe. He spoke first about changing

western laws, "The difference between divine law and man-made law—in other words liberal democracy, moralities, and liberties—is that divine law can’t be changed. We can’t change the Koran, we can’t change the sayings of the Prophet, which include insulting the Prophet and the consequences. But you can change your laws…If the West’s laws are not change, he warned, we’ll have a “blood bath.”

      This week, in Paris, we had that bloodbath. Choudary explained that Muslim scripture made clear that those who insult the Prophet, like the French journalists at Charlie Hebdo, must be punished: “Those who would insult the Prophet, kill them.” Sharia Law he said, clearly requires any who would insult those Muslims deem “prophets,” be tried in court and punished. This a system, he added, that Muslims are willing to “fight for and even die for.”  Choudary said he wanted Sharia Law in

its entirety to be imposed on Western governments because it was a “better” system. When asked what the cult of islam thought our right of freedom of expression he stated, "Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires."

      
      In the 21st century, it is a true shock to be reminded that anyone could regard a cartoon

as a legitimate cause to slaughter human beings. Muslims who treat offensive depictions of the prophet Muhammad as grounds for execution are the most conspicuous examples of that tragic failure to evolve. These are not the actions of sane individuals. It is killing for killings sake, legalized murder and barbarity in the name of a false, so-called, religion. All of us have been confronted with pronouncements and images we find despicable or unspeakable. But we have overcome the barbaric impulse to use violence to punish or silence the offender.

     

    

   Violence such as we have seen in Paris is only the beginning of what is to come. The Islamic State group released a message purportedly from its leader, which stated, "Islam was never a religion of peace. Islam is the religion of fighting," he said. "No one should believe that the war that we are waging is the war of the Islamic State. It is the war of all Muslims, but the Islamic State is spearheading it. It is the war of Muslims against infidels. O Muslims go to war everywhere. Kill the non- believers, It is the duty of every Muslim," the speaker said.

       With the hundreds of thousands of muslims pouring into Europe will Old Europe even be recognizable by midcentury? I'm afraid it is already too late. The New York Times reported Monday,there is no end in sight to the coming Third World and Islamic migrations to Europe. The invasion has begun.

      

The Federalist Papers and Bill of Rights

by

       M. Richard Maxson


    The United States existed as a sovereign nation beginning with the signing of the Declaration of Independence from England. A full eleven years passed before the colonies ratified the United States Constitution. In the summer of 1787, the Framers labored to set up a political regime that would not only secure liberty and republicanism, but also bring energy and stability to the national government. Because of the failures of government under the Articles of Confederation, American political institutions were at risk.  State legislatures routinely encroached on executive and judicial powers. In order to secure these institutions, the Framers constructed a Republican form of government that—among many other important features—instituted a new form of federalism  The Framers divided the legislative branch into two parts—the House and the Senate. In addition, they differentiated them as much as possible, consistent with the principles of Republican government, with the goal of preventing tyranny and encouraging good government. This formalizing of the union was a hard sell, as every state valued their freshly earned sovereignty. Each of the 13 original states owned a distinct culture and set of values, sharing the common priority captured succinctly in Thomas Paine’s pamphlet, "Common Sense".  Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote 85 essays, now known as the Federalist Papers, to promote the idea of uniting the union under a common constitution.

      Written between October 1787 and August 1788, The Federalist Papers is a collection of

newspaper essays written in defense of the Constitution. Writing under the pen name Publius, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay explain the merits of the proposed Constitution, while confronting objections raised by its opponents. Thomas Jefferson described the work as “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.” In constituting a new government, the Framers knew that written rules—what Publius calls “parchment barriers”—would not be enough by themselves to protect liberty and prevent tyranny. Instead, Publius looks to the “interior structure” as the best means for keeping the branches properly and effectively separated. Separation of powers, the most important of the Constitution’s “auxiliary precautions,” works to prevent governmental tyranny, and by keeping each branch within its proper sphere of authority allows each branch to do its job well.

     

    While the Constitution grants the federal government its powers, many felt it necessary to

augment this framework with a minimal set of rights preserved for the citizens. The

primary motivation for constructing a Bill of Rights was citizen apprehension over the formation of a centralized federal government. From his post as the American Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am glad to learn that the new Constitution will undoubtedly be received by a sufficiency of the States to set it a going. Were I in America, I would advocate it warmly until nine should have adopted it, and then as warmly take the other side to convince the remaining four that they ought not to come into it until the declaration of rights is annexed to it. By this means we should secure all the good of it and procure as respectable an opposition as would induce the accepting States to offer a bill of rights.”

     Twelve amendments to the constitution made it through Congress and were proposed to the states all at once in 1789, just two years after ratification of the original Constitution. The two amendments that did not receive sufficient acceptance from the states addressed the number of constituents for each representative and compensation for Congressmen. The colonies were far more interested in establishing for themselves those guaranties of individual freedoms. The first ten amendments to the Constitution were ratified as The Bill of Rights, having been proposed to the states as follows:

      The Congress of the United States, begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
AmendIment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      This has been the basis of our country for over two hundred years and it has served us well.

These self evident truths are what the Progressive Democrats are out to destroy. They claim these documents are "outdated" and no longer relevent in today's world. Fellow Americans, fellow Constitutionalists, these documents created the greatest nation ever known to mankind. Millions of peoples try to get into our country every year for just the opportunity to live under the principals outlined in the Constitution. Patriots must fight to retain their rights before there are abridged and twisted to forward an Leftist Progressive agenda that will mean the end of history's American experiment.

We are Pro-American and We Must Print the Truth

By

      M. Richard Maxson

      To our readers: I am finding that we here are continually having to bring to light the constant anti-Russian propaganda that has enveloped our media. This government has deludged the public with so much mis-information and out right lies that it may seem that we are a pro-Russian site. That we are not. We are pro-truth and are shocked and alarmed that this deliberate propaganda is being pushed daily in the media. As readers from around the world confirm - We are not alone.

R.W. Emerson II     I'm American.  Please do not think that all Americans are stupid.  //// Many of us are well aware of the way our country has been taken over by corporate fascists hell-bent on manufacturing a world war that will possibly destroy the human race.  We know that the system uses fictitious "Threats" to justify its own aggression around the world.  The current fictitious "Russia Threat" is no exception.

JET2015 - You know, I live in Russia. Have for two years. The situation here is nowhere close to as bad as the Western media wants you to believe. Don't drink the kool-aid. Please, think for yourselves, and consult numerous media outlets to inform your opinions. Don't rely on the slant of just one.

PattyDs50 - I'm an American and I'm all for Russia invading my country . In fact I would ask President Putin for   aslyum!  My country is funding Ukraine to slaughter its own people and then blaming Putin! I'm embarassed by my country's behavior !

draculardw - Putin is not doing anything the US is not also doing under the guise of patriotism and national security.. The only difference I see is the Russian people see it for what it is and the people in the US do not..

USAproRussia  - Only ignorant citizens here hate Russia. The reason our establishment hates Russia so much are ..

A) They stand up to the global bankers and are an economic competitor and stand up to Western imperialism.

B) They are an economic competitor of Saudi Arabia and stand in the way of their imperialism
C) The Neoleft can't stand their embrace of Christianity and standing up to the Neoleft's pet projects like the endless pushing of homosexuality.
D) Western politicians need a new "enemy" to use as a focal point for their lies etc.

These are the main reasons.

  

Hab - Lehigh Acres, Fl - Please tell us more! As an american i am astonished that i had to search this far to find any real reporting outside of press-ti-tute amer-cain obomb'a handler spin mafia. - Timothy

William Mount     We the American People are aware that the Eastern Ukrainian States have exercised their treaty obligations set forth in 1991 and have voted to rejoin Russia. We are calling on the world to arrest the Corporate Leaders of the United States Corporation for sending Americans to Eastern Ukraine to kill for their perverted corporate interests. - US Ambassador Mount Jacqueline Brunder - I'm all for the Russians not interfering in Ukraine, if indeed they actually are, when the US stops interfering in the Ukraine, Scotland, England, France, Germany, Cyprus, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Puerto-Rico, the Marshal Islands, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and on and on and on and on. While the US exists none of the rest of us will ever be free. Lisa Diane -  I would LOVE to see a Pravda English news channel in the US!!! Then I could at least start watching news on TV again, instead of finding and reading REAL news online! .Something that really annoys the NeoLeft establishment is how popular RT and Voice of Russia are becoming as alternative news sources. They are able to tell the truth about Washington that our media simply cannot say. Its actually delightly fully funny. There is absolutely no need to tell lies or use propaganda to make Washington look bad. All that is needed is the TRUTH. Simply point out the truth about all of Americas illegal wars, drone killings. NSA spying, shredding of the Constitution, ridiculous homosexual agenda, anti-Christian policies, etc etc. Larry Lund - Oh, please! You get more honesty sad to say from Pravda or RT then you do from the MSDNC, CNN or any of the alphabet news channels. Even fox isn't as great as it use to be years ago. Not with 13-15 liberals a day on FoxNews. As far as commies go, you may want to do a research on who Obama was counseled by growing up.

       
somanysmidgen - Russian's don't need any help recruiting anyone (spies) as long as New Yorkers continue to vote Communists into power.

d.carns - Russia is the only Humanitiarn in this situation. Ukraine do not want aid to East Ukraine as they are the facist coup in charge right now. USA and EU are supporting the illegal coup for political reason not Humanitiarn ones. When will the World realise who the real terrorists are. This people are freedon fighter trying to be independent. Just Like America was 200 years ago.??

hjmarrangoni  - The US GOV leaders are hypocrites - the only end game here is increasing the US market share of the EU natural gas supplies and increasing and justifying Defense spending by fabricating enemies. All for the benefit of corporate america. What is really sad is that blaming Russia through the American Government propaganda for the war created by America and the EU is believed by most Americans.

Revolutionaryy - If you believe Russia want's to Invade Europe then you're deluded.. Trust me, I live in East Europe, and NOBODY is afraid of so called "Russian aggression" Not because people believe Russia is weak, but because no body believes the USA, or the current Ukrainian government.

Alan Smith - Q. What Govt destroys it's own infrastructure as if attacking another Country ,and kills its own citizens if they openly disagree with their agenda?

A. A Govt completely controlled by another , like so many others that have met the same fate with their resources taken over by Large Western Corporates and those Countries left with huge destruction and debt . All for the greed of a few ,as to them enough is never enough. Would any of these Celebs want to be involved , who knows and who cares frankly.
      The agenda of the Democratic Socialists is what you are reporting. You know you can't turn the US Communist overnight. It takes time to destroy the middle class. This is what is happening in America but the  public is brainwashed through their media and educational system that is fully controlled by the Leftists. They still believe that they live in a Republic based society. The goal is not Soviet style Communism but a Democratic Corporate Socialism that thrives and profits from war around the world.

* Editor's Note: Truer words were never spoken as the last paragraph by Alan Smith, Constitutionalists, we are not alone, but time is running short for us and the world.

What is the Difference Between A Democrat and a Socialist - Communist?

by

       George Sontag

               

      This was the question recently asked of the head of the Democratic party Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. If there was a difference a person would logically think that there would be an exact response - but there was not. Instead the question was never answered. The subject was changed every time it was put to her - why? The explanation is simple. There is no real distinction between today's Democrats and Socialists and they know it. It's the common knowledge that no one wants to talk about. Newsweek, in 2009, ran a cover story with the headline: "We Are All Socialists Now." The silence was deafening.

                                                     Polls show that most Democrats are quite comfortable with

Socialism. A recent poll found 52 percent of Democrats had a favorable opinion about Socialism. The problem is that the word Socialism or Communism is still taboo with the older generation. The fact that older Americans vote at a higher level than other age groups was one of the reasons that they changed the name to "Progressive." From its beginning, the promoters of "Progressivism" have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of the term.

      Today’s “Progressives” are pushing the failed ideas that are nothing but retreads of the notorious 19 and century command-and-control tyrannies that killed about 120 million of their own citizens.  To push these ideas their preferred ploy is to ridicule critics when they out the undeniable parallels between the goals of today’s "Progressive” movement in the Democratic Party, and the of the early, and very much still alive, Communist movement.

      Their tactics have been to discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. Discredit the American Founding Fathers by presenting them as selfish aristocrats, slave owners who had no concern for the “common man.” They belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history in our education system. They belittle it by presenting "new facts" and that it our history was exaggerated and that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.”

      The slogan of "fundamentally transforming America” has become their rallying call. The final goal is Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism as “a branch of western Marxism, different

from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as ‘multiculturalism’ or, less formally, Political Correctness. Cultural Marxists endeavor to scrub America of her Judeo-Christian, constitutional-republican founding principles, subversion of the moral culture, especially the elimination of the natural family by means of government dependency programs, and to adjust, to their "new vision", the U.S. Constitution.

      

      That fact  is that the shift of the Democrat Party sharply to the left have helped to pave the way for the advent of the Progressive era. Democrats have a strategy, a battle plan they’re willing to do anything to advance. They set about changing America's culture and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Today, the left controls virtually all of the

opinion-molding organs of American society: the media and the arts, public schools, foundations, seminaries, museums, libraries, higher education, the federal bureaucracy, and the legal profession. This era is highlighted by the willingness of the people to elect – and re-elect –the most anti-American, anti-constitutional, radically left, lawless president in American history and allow the government to pick and choose, rewrite, and selectively enforce the laws of the nation. It would appear that the progressive transformation of America is nearly complete. If we do not slam on the brakes and initiate a reversal of the transformation soon – very soon – then it will be too late and the United States of America – the most noble and successful experiment in human freedom the world has ever known.

The Truth about Vladamir Putin and Russia

by

       Phillip Todd

      Today we have an interview with Angela Stent author of the book "The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russia Relations in the 21st Century.” With the anti-Putin and anti-Russia propaganda that our government influenced news media is drowning the American public in, (Ex.-In Yahoo News it is almost 40% of it's daily content) we at The American Constitutionalist feel it is our duty, once again, to dispense the truth.

AC: Ms. Stent, Angela, how long have you known Vladamir Putin?
AS: So I’m part of a group. And we have met with Mr. Putin for the last 10 years. We have had dinner with him, occasionally lunch. This time we stood overlooking the beautiful Black Sea on this spectacular terrace in his government mansion there. As we stood there he explained to us that Russia, you know, had come back, that the 1990s and all the humiliation, where the U.S. was able to — quote, unquote — “dictate to Russia” what it should do, was over. Putin’s claim to fame, his appeal to his population is that he has brought Russia back, that Russia is now again a great power, and also that Russia really offers a different model to the world.

AC: What do you mean a different model?
AS: Putin has now claimed a turf for Russia, saying that Russia is sort of the leader of a new conservative international system. He blames the United States and the Europeans for having lost their way, that Russia is now the harbinger of traditional family values, in fact Russia is now the harbinger of true Christian values, and that it respects the absolute sovereignty of other countries. It doesn’t go around the world telling other countries how they should live or what kind of political system they should have. And he blames the United States and the Europeans for behaving like the Soviet Union and trying to impose their value system and their political system on other countries.

AC: This is not what the American people are being told about him and Russia. Has the U.S. always  been laboring under a basic misconception of Russia?
AS:  I think that is part of the problem. It’s a very big part of it, that in the ’90s we really thought that Russia wanted to become like the West, wanted to adopt our values, our political system. It became increasingly clear that it didn’t. And the Russians have always wanted from us an equal partnership of unequals. We haven’t understood that or we haven’t been willing to accept that as a condition of improving the relationship. And that’s been a huge problem for the last 22 years.

AC: After 9/11 Putin attempted to form a sort of counter terrorism alliance. What happened to that?
AS: Putin thought that the U.S. would recognize Russia as an equal, a strategic partner, that it had special rights in its neighborhood, it served privilege interests, the former Soviet states, and that we would cease to sort of tell Russia or suggest to Russia how it should run its domestic system or criticize it for its lack of democracy and human rights. This whole relationship fell apart because the Russians looked to NATO enlargement to the Baltic states which was directed towards Russia, and so that their expectations were really mismatched then.

AC: Why do you think that Russia granted asylum to Edward Snowden?
AS: Well, I think, for Putin, this was a golden opportunity, when Edward Snowden landed in Hong Kong and needed somewhere to go and went to Moscow and then stayed there, because Putin was able to say, ah, the United States, you’re criticizing us for lack of democracy. You’re criticizing us for the way we treated protesters against me, against Vladimir Putin, and criticizing us for spying on our citizens. What are you doing? You’re doing just what we are doing or even much more than that.

AC: Looking ahead to the future, to what degree do you think Vladimir Putin actually represents the aspirations of the Russian people, including all those Russians who came out to demonstrate against him? Is he a throwback, or is this really the Russia of the future that we need to get used to?
AS: I think Putin represents the aspirations of about half of the Russian population, who support a strong state, a strong leader and who want to see Russia back on the world scene, and not necessarily accepting, embracing Western values or even interests. He doesn’t represent the aspirations of the educated urban elites who would like to live in a more modern society with better governance. But even those people, even a lot of the younger urban elites do want to see Russia as a strong international player. They have national pride. I think that there will be slow evolution in Russia, that Russia will eventually become a more modern and probably a more democratic society on Russian terms. But it’s going to take a very long time.

AC: A long time indeed with the United States using them as a threat, an enemy to justify it's enormous defense budget and it's continuing interference in their allies internal affairs. Angela Stent, thank you.

What Did Your Child Do Last Summer?

Guest Column

by

        Tom Purcell

      It is said that humor is founded in truth. Our children are being influenced, not only by you, their parents, but also by other authority figures that they come in contact with. Much of their tutelage comes from professionals who have taken to teach an agenda for what they see as the"betterment of mankind?" As you can see from this excerpt from Tom's book can be humorous especially when it's goes against human nature.          

- M. Richard Maxson

Dear Mom and Dad,

   It's been almost three weeks since you dropped me off at summer camp. You better come get me 'cause I'm in big trouble.

   On my first day, I was feeling homesick. So I found a piece of wood and began carving it with my Swiss Army knife the way Daddy showed me. Well, one of the counselors yelled at me to "freeze." He took my knife, then patted me down. Then he marched me off to the camp director. The director said, who did I think I was bringing a lethal weapon, a symbol of pain and death, into her camp? Then she gave me a "verbal warning."

   One day, Billy Johnson and I got bored, so we went into the woods to play. We turned a couple of branches into guns and made bullet noises as we fought the bad guys. Sure enough, we got marched off to the director. The director said there's so much war in the world because boys like us are taught to "celebrate" it from an early age. She said we should be ashamed of ourselves and that we were lucky she wasn't sending us home.

   So I figured I better stay out of trouble. But then I got in trouble at lunch. I began to say grace out loud, just like you taught me, and I was carted off to the director again.

   She wanted to know who I thought I was imposing my beliefs on others. She said my actions showed how "ignorant" and "insensitive" Americans are to other cultures; then she gave me another warning.

   Believe it or not, things got even worse. We were weaving baskets and I was sitting next to Mary Allison, the prettiest girl I ever saw.

   "Mary," I said, "you're so pretty you make me smile from ear to ear."

   Well, sure enough, I was carted off to the director again. She said I really crossed the line this time. She said my behavior was not only "boorish," but against the law. She said I should be sued for sexual harassment.

   By the way, what is a "gender terrorist"?

   I was pretty uptight by that point. But I was able to forget about played kickball. I kicked the ball really far and I got a grand slam. I was so happy,

I said, "We win! We win!"

   Sure enough, that got me another trip to the director's office. This time she said I was "insensitive" to the players on the other team. She said I hurt their "selfesteem." Then she asked me if you and Daddy are Republicans.

   By this point, I figured I'd better just keep to myself. So I got a jar out of the cafeteria and went into the woods. I caught a bumblebee in the jar and put some flowers in there to keep him happy. I was poking holes in the top to let fresh air in when I was hauled off to the director again.

   This time, she was really mad. She said, who did I think I was giving a "death sentence" to an innocent bee? She said I had no respect for the Earth and that it was people like me who were responsible for climate change. She said I'll be lucky if the world doesn't end before I collect Social Security.

   She said I better get with the program — that there is no place in this world anymore for "thoughtless," "restless," "insensitive" boys like me. She said if I mess up one more time, she was kicking me out of the camp.

   By the way, what is Ritalin?

   Anyhow, you better plan on coming back to get me. Tomorrow everybody is going for a hike in the woods. And I already picked some flowers to give to Mary Allison.

Your son,

Tommy

*Editor's Note: If you run this column, please mention that it is an

excerpt from Tom Purcell's new book, "Comical Sense: A Lone Humorist

Takes on a World Gone Nutty!"

The Difference Between a Republic and Democracy

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the

majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice. A Republic is what the Founding Fathers envisioned, as a matter of fact, almost to a man, they feared a Democracy. They understood that Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” 

                                                                                      John Adams

      The Constitution is very clear on the subject: Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion". The word democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution at all and for good reason.

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." 

                                              James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).

      Listening to our media and acadamia nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy. It is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly said that they had founded a republic. Their views on democracy are undeniable.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

                                                                                        Ben Franklin

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

                                                                                        Thomas Jefferson

      As you journey through your day and you continue to hear that we are or should be a democracy exposing democratic ideals remember that this narrative is anti-American as it was our Founding Fathers. Democracy is, politically speaking, to the left of the Constitution that this country was founded on. It is the slippery slope that tilts society towards Progressivism, Socialism, and finally a Communist form of government.