<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Republic … if you can keep it</title>
	<atom:link href="http://homertribune.com/2009/10/a-republic-%e2%80%a6-if-you-can-keep-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://homertribune.com/2009/10/a-republic-%e2%80%a6-if-you-can-keep-it/</link>
	<description>Homer, Alaska</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 00:46:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Ruzicka</title>
		<link>http://homertribune.com/2009/10/a-republic-%e2%80%a6-if-you-can-keep-it/comment-page-1/#comment-424</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Ruzicka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://homertribune.com/?p=5742#comment-424</guid>
		<description>Kudos to Mr. Firth for a clear and concise explanation of the differences between the two political ideologies.  A democracy and a republic are not the same thing.  A government with a monarch is a monarchy.  The presence of a monarch is irrelevant.    
Mr. Winger confuses the balancing of power between the states in the Senate and the balancing of power in the electoral process.  Apples and oranges.
This article is brilliant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kudos to Mr. Firth for a clear and concise explanation of the differences between the two political ideologies.  A democracy and a republic are not the same thing.  A government with a monarch is a monarchy.  The presence of a monarch is irrelevant.<br />
Mr. Winger confuses the balancing of power between the states in the Senate and the balancing of power in the electoral process.  Apples and oranges.<br />
This article is brilliant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: M. Stoltzfus</title>
		<link>http://homertribune.com/2009/10/a-republic-%e2%80%a6-if-you-can-keep-it/comment-page-1/#comment-418</link>
		<dc:creator>M. Stoltzfus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:04:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://homertribune.com/?p=5742#comment-418</guid>
		<description>I find it rather instructive to observe that with many Americans casting off their obedience to God – speaking of the decline of the practice of Christianity in America -- they have also cast off their desire to obey the Rule of Law of the Constitution.   

“Respect for law” is a character trait that does not stop at the steps of a church building.   So when men turn their backs on God, they also turn their backs on the stability that comes from respecting the law established by the Founding Fathers of this country.   This results in a people who do not restrain their passions and inclinations from any guiding faith within.   Such people must then be controlled from without.   

William Penn described this condition best when he said, &quot;Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.&quot; 

Many people today think that submitting themselves to the law of God is oppressive and hampers their pleasure.  They will not have long to find out that the heavy hand of men who are not restrained by the rule of law is not a particularly enjoyable alternative.   Educate yourselves, and read books written by those who suffered under Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others who ruled from their atheistic frame of reference.  Barnabas Firth was right on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it rather instructive to observe that with many Americans casting off their obedience to God – speaking of the decline of the practice of Christianity in America &#8212; they have also cast off their desire to obey the Rule of Law of the Constitution.   </p>
<p>“Respect for law” is a character trait that does not stop at the steps of a church building.   So when men turn their backs on God, they also turn their backs on the stability that comes from respecting the law established by the Founding Fathers of this country.   This results in a people who do not restrain their passions and inclinations from any guiding faith within.   Such people must then be controlled from without.   </p>
<p>William Penn described this condition best when he said, &#8220;Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.&#8221; </p>
<p>Many people today think that submitting themselves to the law of God is oppressive and hampers their pleasure.  They will not have long to find out that the heavy hand of men who are not restrained by the rule of law is not a particularly enjoyable alternative.   Educate yourselves, and read books written by those who suffered under Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others who ruled from their atheistic frame of reference.  Barnabas Firth was right on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Winger</title>
		<link>http://homertribune.com/2009/10/a-republic-%e2%80%a6-if-you-can-keep-it/comment-page-1/#comment-406</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Winger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:03:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://homertribune.com/?p=5742#comment-406</guid>
		<description>It is a myth that the electoral college was set up to balance the interests of small states and large states.  Read Law Professor Amar Vikram&#039;s book about the Constitution.  The electoral college was set up to balance the interests of slave states and free states.  The small states&#039; interest had already been solved by giving each state two US Senators.

Also, this article confuses the historical definitions of &quot;democracy&quot; and &quot;republic.&quot;  Historically, there are the same thing, except a Republic lacks a monarch.  As recently as 1910, there were only two countries in Europe that weren&#039;t monarchies, Switzerland and France, plus a sprinkling of miniature states.  A constitutional democracy does limit the power of the majority to do anything.  There is no association between &quot;democracy&quot; lack of a constitution that limits what a majority can do.  This confusion with the meaning of these terms started in the early 1960&#039;s, when the John Birch Society put up billboards saying, &quot;This is a Republic, not a Democracy.&quot;  And those billboards have managed to lull people into ignoring dictionaries.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is a myth that the electoral college was set up to balance the interests of small states and large states.  Read Law Professor Amar Vikram&#8217;s book about the Constitution.  The electoral college was set up to balance the interests of slave states and free states.  The small states&#8217; interest had already been solved by giving each state two US Senators.</p>
<p>Also, this article confuses the historical definitions of &#8220;democracy&#8221; and &#8220;republic.&#8221;  Historically, there are the same thing, except a Republic lacks a monarch.  As recently as 1910, there were only two countries in Europe that weren&#8217;t monarchies, Switzerland and France, plus a sprinkling of miniature states.  A constitutional democracy does limit the power of the majority to do anything.  There is no association between &#8220;democracy&#8221; lack of a constitution that limits what a majority can do.  This confusion with the meaning of these terms started in the early 1960&#8242;s, when the John Birch Society put up billboards saying, &#8220;This is a Republic, not a Democracy.&#8221;  And those billboards have managed to lull people into ignoring dictionaries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
