From the president on down, the Democrats have been claiming that Donald Trump will “end democracy.” There are two problems with this claim. One is that they won’t say HOW Trump would end democracy and the other is they don’t tell us what they mean by “democracy.”
Can the President of the United States “end democracy?” Does the president have that power? An essential component of “democracy” is elections. Elections for federal offices (president, vice president and congress) are conducted by the states and territories. The US Constitution specifies that the members of congress are chosen by the people of the several states. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution enumerates that the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States and the People.
The Constitution does not grant the authority to the United States government to hold elections therefore the President has no authority over the states with regard to those elections. The president cannot end elections as it is not within his sole power to control.
Although the Constitution does not provide for martial law, in the event of the breakdown of civil authority most states have that provision in their Constitutions so the president could declare martial law but he would need the concurrence of the several states to implement it.
But what is this “democracy” the Democrats hold so precious? The word “democracy” is not found in any of our founding documents or the Constitutional Amendments. It is found numerous times in the Federalist Papers where our founders discuss the problems with “democracy.”
In Federalist 10, James Madison writes “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 in 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 be at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
A democracy manifests the menace of the herd and is intrinsically unstable, which is why in their wisdom our founders gave us a Republican form of government where laws protect the minority from the passions and greed of the majority.
When Democrats say they are trying to “protect our democracy” what is it exactly they are trying to protect? We must assume that what they are trying to protect are the systems and policies in place in Democrat controlled states and municipalities. Some examples of Democrat “democracy” include:
In Georgia there are over 558,000 likely invalid voter registrations including: illegal aliens registered as residing at their processing centers, voters with invalid addresses, voters who registered on a Federal holiday, and voters who moved, died, or list a Post Office as their residence. Apparently “democracy” includes voter registration fraud.
The Attorneys General in Virginia, Missouri and Wyoming are investigating the Democrat fundraising organization ActBlue for what is essentially money laundering. It is reported that Act Blue has taken large donations from undisclosed sources and distributed them to candidates via small donor ghost accounts. It is alleged that these ghost accounts are actual people whose donations are made in their names without their knowledge or consent. Apparently “democracy” includes violating campaign finance laws.
In 2019, then candidate Harris promoted a study “The new roadmap to citizenship for Dreamers” which proposed that by not deporting illegal immigrants it “could provide sizable contributions to the margin of victory in swing states.” Apparently “democracy” includes importing voters who support your agenda.
Democrats have a long history of using lawfare instead of ballots to defeat their opponents. Obama won his senate seat only after using lawfare to disqualify the incumbent opponent. Democrats have used multiple instances of lawfare against Trump to eliminate him rather than face him in an election. Apparently “democracy” means jailing or assassinating your opponent are legitimate options.
During the run-up to November, most states held a Democrat Presidential primary or caucus. During that process Biden received over 14 million votes and sufficient delegates to the DNC to secure his nomination. The presidential debate revelation that Biden is severely cognitively compromised and his subsequent replacement demonstrated that we really don’t have a president at all. What we have is an unelected oligarchy controlling a titular puppet. The fact that the only person less popular that Biden, Harris, could be seamlessly inserted into the nomination destroys and pretense of “the will of the people.” Harris is now the presumptive nominee without ever having received a single vote. Apparently “democracy” means they will do whatever they need to do to maintain power.
As Madison said “Democracies (are) incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”
If Trump wants to have free and fair elections where voters are citizens and qualified electors, where donations to campaigns are reported honestly, where paper ballots are tabulated accurately, where the media reports are true and unbiased, and the will or the people is reflected in the results then we can see why Trump is a threat to how Democrats practice “democracy.”
We can’t hear Democrat’s words because their actions are so loud.
To survive as a nation we must defend and protect our Republican form of government as guaranteed by our U.S. and State Constitutions.
It’s just common sense.
One reply on “Democrat Democracy”
“…Constitutionalists insist the United States government is a republic, not a democracy, but they never stop to consider that the two are virtually the same regarding sovereignty.
“Christian Constitutionalists further insist republics are Biblical. However, because republics (like democracies) rely upon the majority vote of the people for the selection of their leaders, rather than upon Yahweh’s choice (as per Deuteronomy 17:15), republics are not anymore Biblical than are democracies. Both democracies and republics culminate in a government of, by, and for the people rather than a government of, by, and for Yahweh. The same is true with other issues voted upon by the people: ultimately the majority’s will is exalted over Yahweh’s will.
“As demonstrated in Chapter 3, both republican and Christian governments are ultimately theocracies. As a result, they are incompatible and hostile to each other. A republic looks to the people as its sovereign; a Christian theocracy looks to Yahweh. The very definition of a sovereign, or supreme ruler, excludes simultaneous sovereigns….”
For more, See Chapter 7 “Article 4: Republic vs. Theocracy” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html