The Republic v. the Democrats

This election cycle has seen several moments of remarkable clarity, in which the enemies of the republic declare themselves openly. One such moment happened at a “Sustainable Development Impact Summit,” by the World Economic Forum (WEF). This incident made two things clear. First, the modern Democratic Party takes its cues from the WEF. Second, “Democrat” is an apt name for the party now in opposition to the Republican Party. Democrats don’t know what a republic is, and certainly don’t want a republic. They want an oligarchy, with the oligarchs choosing an enlightened “expert class” to govern. A Democrat showed this, first by appearing at that meeting, and second, lamenting what stands in the way: freedom of speech.

John Kerry attacks the Republic

John Kerry – former Senator, Presidential candidate, and Secretary of State – addressed the Sustainable Development Impact Summit over the weekend. X influencer End Wokeness captured the relevant excerpt from his speech before that meeting.

John Kerry calls for a Ministry of Truth:

"The 1st Amendment stands as a major roadblock for us right now" pic.twitter.com/1mtpjjxeM7— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 29, 2024

Miriam Judith at The Gateway Pundit transcribed several more excerpts. These excerpts show that John Kerry is barely more articulate than are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Nevertheless he reveals how Democrats think, because he is speaking before a friendly (to him) audience. That the WEF actually lets reporters attend and record speeches of this kind, shows how incredibly brazen they really are.

…I think the dislike like of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing and growing, and that’s part of our problem particularly in democracies — in terms of building consensus around any issue, its really hard to govern today.

“Consensus” is the product of social pressure. “Consensus” is not truth – but consensus never admits that it is wrong or false.

The referees we used to have to determine what’s a fact and what isn’t a fact, it kind of, you know, been eviscerated to a certain degree…

Bradlee Dean would argue that those “referees” still exist – as Operation Mockingbird in the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. That applies to the legacy media. Social media are of three types: controlled, embattled, and free.

…And people go and people self select where they go for their news and for their information, and then you just get into a vicious cycle. So it’s really, really hard, much harder to build consensus today than any time in the 45-50 years I’ve been involved in this.

In other words, the Kool Kids can’t control the discussion anymore – if discussion is even the correct word. No wonder Democrats act like the jerky jocks and catty girls we remember, none too fondly, from high school. “Self selection” means “marching to a different drummer,” with apologies to Thoreau. John Kerry wants to give that drummer and his followers an Attitude Adjustment.

Actual threats

Look, if people go to one source and the one source they go to is sick and, you know, has an agenda and their putting out disinformation, our first amendment stands as a major block to the ability to just hammer it out of existence.

“Sick?” “Hammer it out of existence”? Those are threats. But in speaking of “a major block,” he just admitted the government’s guilt. Surely the plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, as they prepare for trial, should offer this excerpt in evidence.

What we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern by hopefully having, winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.

He said it. Just win, and “we” can then do anything we want. Democracy is indeed two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.

“Right to govern” is an oxymoron anyway. No one has that right. Thomas Jefferson made that plain:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Republic is a system of laws, some of which must not change, or they defeat the purpose of government. That’s what Jefferson meant by “unalienable rights.” Obviously neither Kerry nor his WEF hosts understand that. Or maybe they do understand it, and loathe it.

John Kerry is not the only Democrat to talk of change inimical to freedom of speech. Hillary Clinton wants to put people in prison for “spreading misinformation,” i.e., disagreeing with “the consensus.” Justice Elena Kagan (Democrat appointee), in her dissent in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (the “Chevron Deference Repudiation” case), called explicitly for rule by experts. But they didn’t address a meeting of the World Economic Forum; John Kerry did.

How to respond

First, ask yourselves whether any Democrats are left who respect the values of a republic, as they said they did sixty years ago. Some might still be left, but as time passes they are leaving the Democratic Party. They are leaving it precisely to get away from sentiments like those John Kerry expressed at that meeting. Ask former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), or retiring Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

Of course, not all Democrats who leave, do so out of any love for the Republic. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is even more hostile to the republic than are John Kerry or Hillary Clinton. But he dared challenge the Clinton Clique when Hillary declared it was Her Turn to be President. He also wanted to replace the Democratic Party machine with his machine. It’s not that the Democrats are hostile to concepts like State Planning Boards (Gosplan) and Departments (Ministries) of Information (Propaganda). It’s just that he wanted a class of experts, and to apply some kind of “merit” criterion to select them. The more fool he, on two counts. First, the Democrats were never going to yield to any “merit selection.” Second, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had no such “merit selection process” either.

So when a Democrat leaves the Party, ask why. But if they stay in, after all that has happened and all that has revealed itself, consider them lost.

Remind people of what a republic is

Second, remember what a republic is, to be better able to recognize and defend against ideas unfriendly to it. A republic is more than the democratic election of legislative representatives, as opposed to legislation exclusively by initiative and referendum. As stated, a republic is a system of law. If “democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner,” then a republic is a set of laws saying none of its members can ever be “for dinner.”

Recognize, also, that democracy is unstable. Without an immutable law as an anchor, democracy inevitably leads to oligarchy. Democracy in fact differs little from anarchy, which also typically resolves as oligarchy. Monarchy, whether hereditary (like the Kings of the United Kingdom) or non-hereditary (with names like Führer, Duce, etc.), is illusory. Behind every monarch is an oligarchy ready to overthrow him if he steps out of line. Ask former Party General Secretary Nikita S. Khrushchev, or the late Emperor Nero and his three immediate successors.

Thomas Paine (Common Sense) called explicitly for a republic, when he declared, “The Law is king.” For that to hold, some parts of the law should not be subject to change. Article V of the Constitution says only that the Senate should never admit different numbers of Senators from different States. It should also have specified that the people always retain certain rights. We have a Bill of Rights, but the Democratic Party has violated all but one (the Third) in recent times.

How has the Democratic Party violated the Bill of Rights?

Examine each Amendment in turn to see how:

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.

Misapplication of the Establishment Clause, and violations of the Free Speech, Free Press, and Assembly and Petition Clauses.

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.

Gun control. To clarify, an individual, under this amendment, has the right to arm himself at least as well as, if not better than, an infantry soldier. Only with due process of law can anyone lose that right.

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.

The United States did quarter officers and enlisted personnel in private homes during World War II. But that was “in a manner … prescribed by law,” not by executive order. This is the one Amendment the Democrats have never violated.

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.

Too many specific violations to count, as many conservative activists will attest.

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.

Democrats have violated each of these clauses from time to time, but most notably in January 6 Event cases.

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.

The January 6 Event has produced the most obvious and egregious violations of this Amendment.

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 reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, and Judge Arthur Engoron of the New York State “Supreme” Court, violated this Amendment in a case involving Donald Trump. This case has now gone to the Appellate Division of the New York State “Supreme” Court. That court now has a chance to redeem the New York State Unified Court System against a charge of abandonment of the Constitution.

And more…

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ask several January 6 defendants, and defendants charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

No Democrat has ever recognized a right “not in the Constitution,” except the “right” of abortion.

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.

In response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the official position of the Democratic Party is to forbid any State to exercise its power to define the crime of murder.

The above goes to show that the Democrats do not respect either the republic or people’s rights in it. They have their twisted ideas of good government, and they’re going to stick to them, and will tolerate no argument. And the only way to stop them is with your vote.