![[Image]](http://www.calconco.net/blood.gif){kind=small}
CALCONCO
![[Image]](http://www.calconco.net/modernn.gif)
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" -Plato
DANGER, DANGER, WILL ROBINSON: THE DEATH OF THE REPUBLIC IS VERY, VERY NEAR!!
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all!"
THIS FOLLOWING IS EXACTLY WHY AMERICA NEEDS THE GREAT RON PAUL! A REPUBLIC IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.
Plato spends much of the book talking of the Ideal State. But what about other forms of government? Plato talks of four bad forms of government: timocracy, oligarchy (also called plutocracy), democracy, and tyranny (also called despotism).
Timocracy
Socrates defines a timocracy as a government ruled by people who love honor. He portends that this form of government results from the offspring of parents with differing Socratic metal compositions. The honor at the foundation of this gilded government leads to a desire for possession and wealth.
Oligarchy
These temptations create a confusion between economic status and honor which is responsible for the emergence of oligarchy. In Book VIII, Socrates suggests that wealth will not help a pilot to navigate his ship. This injustice divides the rich and the poor, thus creating an environment for criminals and beggars to emerge. The rich are constantly plotting against the poor and vice versa.
Democracy
As this socioeconomic divide grows, so do tensions between social classes. From the conflicts arising out of such tensions, democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it. The poor overthrow the inexperienced oligarchs and soon grant liberties and freedoms to citizens. A visually appealing demagogue is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower class.
Tyranny
The excessive freedoms granted to the citizens of a democracy ultimately leads to a tyranny, the furthest regressed type of government. These freedoms divide the people into three socioeconomic classes: the dominating class, the capitalists and the commoners. Tensions between the dominating class and the capitalists causes the commoners to seek out protection of their democratic liberties. They invest all their power in their democratic demagogue, who, in turn, becomes corrupted by the power and becomes a tyrant with a small entourage of his supporters for protection and absolute control of his people.
Ironically, the ideal state outlined by Socrates closely resembles a tyranny, but they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. This is because the philosopher kings who rule in the ideal state are not self-centered but are dedicated to the good of the state. Tyrants, however, are greedy. Clearly, overcoming greed is a difficult proposition. It requires an intricate system of mythology, concealing birth parents, and extensive state education (about 30 years, from age 20 to 50).
ONE GIANT STEP TOWARDS WETBACK, BEIRUT OSAMA, HILLARY, JUDEO-DEMOCRATIC MARXISM!!
THE REAL REASON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE MUST BE SAVED!!!
Sam Francis: "A REPUBLIC is...a form of government in which people govern themselves--not just periodic voting but by actually taking part in government at all levels all the time and also...by governing themselves in a private, nonpolitical sense. A republic is not an easy form of government to maintain...It requires immense self-discipline...constant and continuous attention and involvement in public affairs, a high enough level of education that citizens can understand and take part in public affairs intelligently and--most of all--independence. Independence means being in a position to take responsibility for yourself and your family and your livelihood--supporting yourself, defending yourself, controlling yourself, governing yourself. Rediscover and teach the chivalry of past ages."
BY CHANGING (WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT) THE ELECTORS TO VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE WITH THE MOST NATIONAL POPULAR VOTES, YOU TAKE WAY THE ORIGINAL INTENT (and current and longstanding method) OF HAVING STATES COMMIT ELECTORS TO THE CANDIDATE WHO GETS THE MOST VOTES FOR PRESIDENT AND NOT THE NATIONS' POPULACE. IN EFFECT, THIS NEGATES THE STATES ELECTING THE PRESIDENT.
STATES MUST ELECT PRESIDENTS AS STATED BY THE CONSTITUTION -- and ELECTORS GIVEN FREE CHOICE REGARDLESS!! -- AND STATES CANNOT WITHHOLD THEIR COMMITTED ELECTORAL VOTES UNTIL AFTER THE POPULAR ELECTION (EVEN THOUGH THEY OFFICIALLY CAST THEM ON THE FIRST MONDAY IN DECEMBER) AS, ONCE AGAIN, IT VIOLATES THE STATES RIGHTS OF THE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES INVOLVED IN THE ELECTION TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATE!
AND LIKE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TERM LIMITS THIS "POPULAR VOTE ELECTOR" GIVES WAY TOO MUCH POWER TO LARGE MAJORITY-MINORITY STATES LIKE MD, NJ, NY, PA, FL, TX, and CALIFORNIA TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE REST OF THE NATION!
ARTICLE TWO OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution
12th AMENDMENT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Amendment
ELECTORAL COLLEGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College
HEY CORZINE! Please wear on a seat belt next time, the blow to the head must have knocked a left-wing screw loose . . .
THE FOLLOWING IS A GREAT READ...ah, NJ, MD, DEMOCRATS, BUSHICANS!
US CONSTITUTION ON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html
This (MD NJ, et al) clap-trap cannot hold up in Federal court, but beware of both the 20 Shades Of Darkness and the Gang of 8 and the 7-Step Judaic/Liberal/Progressive Culture War described below -- and amazingly the progresses went after the Pledge of Allegiance through the 9th District of San Francisco.
It's an attack by progressives, other Jews, Democrats and Bushicans on the American way of life. This is also NOT about States Rights as they will whimper and whine, (like they did when they screamed for horizontal stare decisis with respect to bologna-pony puffers getting married in NH and mASS) it is DIRECTLY stated in the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the 10th Amendment does not apply here.
Combine this and the Culture War (again, see below) and you are under attack America!
County by County Presidential Election 2000: Republican Red, Democrat Blue!
County by County Presidential Election 2004: Republican Red, Democrat Blue!
County-by-county map of 2000 and 2004 election returns. Counties won by Bush appear as red; Gore's counties appear as blue. Source: USA Today/Real Clear Politics. In 2000, Bush won 60% of the states, 80% of the land mass, and 90% of the counties! How can this be if Gore got 500,000 more MARGINAL (See Carville/Begala below under Bushicans below too! Marginal votes are the last and least useful of voters [saltwater and freshwater wetbacks, illegal-legals, socialist welfare-clingers, rump-rangers, taco grinders, etc.] and their mostly Democratic votes, i.e., the courted classes of untouchables garnered through Clinton-esque triangulated [see C. Hitchens] lying and outright political deceit! - clb) votes and Kerry even close? Who were they mostly? Answer, Mexicans. Millions of (prematurely and illegally) naturalized SOCIALISTIC Mexicans from 1996-2000. Medicaid was ravaged, education further ruined, culture ruined, and drugs abound. Almost 1,000,000 of these 10,000,000 socialists had criminal records, were muling drugs and increasing violent, especially sexual crimes, that now haunts America. And the Mexican-by-injection Bush family is not stupid and they play along just fine. So where did these illegal AZTLAND ILLEGAL and so-called LEGALS settle?
Look at the blue in both . . . It's Aztland!!!!!!!!
Now there are 38,000,000 illegal wetbacks! (Updated, guess what? 20,000,000 illegal wetbacks was a typical BUSH/CLINTON/DEMOCRAT lie!) violent, socialist, mostly Mexican wetbacks -- see the Majority Minority State link below.
If enough states join this crap from NJ and MD then an American born "anchor baby" Wetback can get the PLURALITY of votes and be elected President! Christ in a cartoon, most wetback and kneeegroes vote for their own kind if it bes a democrat. HILLARY Trotsky, Beirut Osama, Democrats, even BUSH (Do you think he cares? Hell no! See below about the George Puta Bushicans) and the rest of the Socialists want popular vote only.
Imagine if an ardent Mexican Roman Catholic, radical Protestant, or Sharia Moslem were elected by PLURALITY POPULAR VOTE?
HOW REPUBLICS KEEP AMERICA SAFE FROM THEOCRACIES/OLIGARCHIES/AUTOCRACIES:
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Republic_according_to_Wikipedia
ONE WORLD GLOBAL SOCIALISM:
From A Site Dedicated to Plato's Republic: http://www.friesian.com/plato.htm
NOTE: Read James A. Buchanan's (a REAL Nobel Laureate) Constitution Economics and Public Choice Theory Under Calconco's Tenet's Below!
"Recent economists in the area of Public Choice theory [e.g. James M. Buchanan and the Virginia School of Public Choice], have described how the politicization of economic goods inevitably creates increased public conflict as the sense grows that wealth is something to be seized and distributed through state action. As everyone comes to believe that their prosperity depends on political success and consequent government largess, such a dynamic will tend to destabilize democracy, since in politics there are always losers and they begin to think that they are victims of the regime and have no stake in it. Capitalism is often disparaged as a system with "winners and losers," but the losers in capitalism are just the unsuccessful businesses, while the winners do win by providing what is most agreeable to consumers. In politics, the "winners and losers" are both consumers, and the losers are those who are then legally robbed to pay off the winners, who have the power of the state to take what they want (if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can at least get Paul to vote for you). One would think that the United States Constitution shuts off any drift towards a regime of seizure and redistribution because of the "Takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Takings clause, however, was an early casualty of enthusiasm over the New Deal and has steadily eroded ever since. It is only now that a movement has developed, and received some attention from the Supreme Court, to enforce it -- though the recent Kelo v. City of New London decision represents a setback . . .[sic] UNTIL NOW!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_mundialization
This New World Order/UN Globalism is one reason why Democrats AND Bush are against the Electoral College! The Electoral College, as originally intended by the Founding Fathers, was to keep TYRANNY out of the hands of the majority (especially a Majority Minority) by embracing Federalism and States Rights. The Founders always intended for the States, not the People, to elect the President. That is PRECISELY why Democrats Hillary Trotsky, Beirut Osama, Bush and Al Gore want to kill it! Then, independents notwithstanding, only a PLURALITY of the people need to vote for a MARX, LENIN, ORTEGA, CHAVEZ, ANNAN, CLINTONS, POT, MAO, GORE, TROTSKY, OSAMA, OBAMA, CASTRO, EDWARDS, and he would be elected!
Thus, they could create a tyrannical (again, marginal vote) majority-minority constantly fed by illegally naturalized , socialistic Mexicans, Wetbacks, Chinese, Koreans, and violent, socialist, welfare-class Blacks. End of story!! You had better get wise and fight this to the Supreme Court or throw the tea in the harbor!
Majority Minority States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_minority
HISTORY- Here's how Clinton(s)/Gore and the Democrats began the ruination America for a few votes in 1996 (Now it is 10X worse thanks to Bushicans!). READ: CLINTON/GORE 1996 INS FRAUD - AZTLAND INVADE AND AZTLANDIAN, RACIST, ANTI-WHITE QUOTES from mainstream powerful MEXICANS living in our America including former California Lt. Gov Cruz Bustamonte!
E.g., North Carolina - Democrats use swarms of illegally naturalized Aztlandians to elect socialist Edwards and then tried for Bowles. Look at the number of white, anti-goy, Yankee liberals that have invaded the state the last 10 years. This is their doing! CofCC Reports-AZTLAND takes over N. Carolina! The same will soon be true for Texas, Florida, California, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland Georgia, New Mexico, Arizona, et al. Welfare, third-world mindset, violent crime, drug dealing, terrorism, that IS Mexico!
The maxim that most aptly describes the Clintons, AZTLANDIANS, BUSHICANS, the Gores, Beirut Osama, their friends, and all of their supporters: "Thank God for jury nullification." - CLB
READ THIS AND BE VERY AFRAID!!
YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Electoral college bypass approved by 2nd state
'Current way to elect president no longer serves America well'
Posted: January 15, 2008
1:00 a.m. Easter
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
A second state has approved a plan that would bypass the U.S. electoral college, giving the presidency to the winner of a national popular vote.
The move came this weekend when New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine signed legislation that specifies the state's 15 electoral college votes would go to the winner of the popular vote.
Maryland, with its 10 electoral college votes, earlier approved a similar plan. Both are contingent on enough other states approving the plan to provide absolute control over presidential elections.
Another state plan also is headed for the desk of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich after lawmakers approved it just days ago.
Opponents say the plan threatens the nation's republican form of government and would give unstoppable control over the White House to any coalition the major population centers would choose to create.
It would allow New York City to outvote much of the Midwest; Los Angeles could determine the course of a national agenda for the Pacific Northwest.
Several other state plans are in various stages of legislative progress, with dozens of other proposals beginning the review process, according to the group National Popular Vote, which is lobbying for the change.
Among states whose lawmakers have considered proposals in recent months are Hawaii, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, Montana, California, New Mexico, Louisiana, West Virginia and Connecticut.
Although it was not the first time, George W. Bush's 2000 victory with fewer popular votes than Al Gore spurred activists. Bush won because the concentration of his votes enabled him to collect the necessary 270 of the 538 total electoral college votes for the presidency. Electoral college votes are equal to the size of a state's congressional delegation. States award the votes in different ways, but they generally are distributed based on the state's popular vote winner.
An analysis of the issue by Wallbuilders, a Christian organization with expertise in historical and constitutional issues, said the opposition to the electoral college doesn't hold up.
"As the Florida situation (in 2000) proved, individual votes are tallied sometimes several times," Wallbuilders said.
The group warned that under a national popular vote one would need support only from population centers in a handful of population-rich states to win every presidential election.
Republicans call the idea a constitutional "travesty."
"It's a backdoor end-run of the federal Constitution," New Jersey Assemblyman Richard Merkt told the Associated Press.
Critics worry the plan to dispense with the electoral college could take hold by legislation passing in fewer than a dozen key states.
Already, legislative bodies in Arkansas, Colorado and North Carolina have given tentative approval to the proposal.
National Popular Vote explains that under the electoral college system, candidates "have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of states that they cannot possibly win or lose.
"This means that voters in two-thirds of the states are effectively disenfranchised in presidential elections because candidates concentrate their attention on a small handful of 'battleground' states," the group says. "In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80 percent in nine states, and over 99 percent of their money in just 16 states."
"The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes that is, enough electoral votes to elect a president (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)," the website says.
Critics, however, point out that under such a plan, a coalition of just 11 states or fewer California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, North Carolina, Michigan, Illinois and Georgia would have enough vote power to control presidential elections, leaving the other 39-plus states and the District of Columbia to fall into line.
Wallbuilders also quoted Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate who said getting rid of the electoral college would reduce political campaigns in the U.S. to "television advertising" and "tarmac."
"There would be virtually no incentive to try to mobilize constituencies, organize specific interests or devote any resources to such things as voter registration and education. What we would have is a political system that combines the worst of network television with the worst of the modern campaign," he concluded.
Wallbuilders noted that given a direct democracy one person with one vote and winner-take-all "candidates would logically spend their campaign courting voters in the most populous urban areas, such as Chicago, San Francisco, New York City, Washington, D.C., Miami, Seattle, etc., rather than visiting cities in more rural areas cities like Wichita, Birmingham, Amarillo, Cheyenne, Springfield, Tulsa, etc."
The group said that under the electoral college system, "it is possible that a candidate can win the presidency by carrying a majority of only the 11 most densely populated States (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina and either Georgia or Virginia). However, under a system of direct elections, this number could be reduced to even fewer states, particularly if they happen to be the largest states and could deliver overwhelming margins of victory, such as Washington, D.C., did for Gore by the lopsided 86 to 9 percent margin."
Officials point out that besides the 2000 election, the winner of the popular votes in 1824, 1876 and 1888 was not the same as the winner of the electoral college vote. That is what the system was designed to do, Wallbuilders said.
Wallbuilders noted that along with proposals to have Congress or state legislatures choose a president the idea of a national popular vote was discussed by the authors of the Constitution and deliberately rejected.
"This idea was rejected not because the framers distrusted the people but rather because the larger populous states would have much greater influence than the smaller states and therefore the interests of those smaller states could be disregarded or trampled," Wallbuilders said. "Additionally, a nationwide election would encourage regionalism since the more populous areas of the country could form coalitions to elect president after president from their own region. With such regional preferentialism, lasting national unity would be nearly impossible."
Wallbuilders said the electoral college specifically was chosen to maintain a republican form of government, as opposed to a strict democracy. And it provides more influence to areas with lesser populations, similar to the way the division of Congress into Senate and House provides a balance.
"In the Senate, Delaware has the same power as California with each State having two votes; but in the House, Delawares single vote often is completely negated by the 52 from California. Because of this different source of strength in each body, the votes in those two bodies on the same piece of legislation may be dramatically different. In such a case, before that legislation may become law, there must be some compromise some yielding of the Senate to the will of the population and some yielding of the House to the will of the States," Wallbuilders said.
But Common Cause, in a website statement, insisted the change is needed.
"The current system for electing our president no longer serves America well. The state-by-state method divides the country into so-called 'safe' states where voters are all but ignored while the election is determined by a relatively small number of swing voters in 'battleground' states.