President Obama, Tyrant: BOTH Senator Obama and John Adams Condemn Obama and the Democrats as Tyrant Wannabes

I am almost finished with the biography of John Adams I have been "reading" (on tape). That is the biography which was made the subject of that mini-series, and I strongly recommend it. Yes, many of the same issues continue today that confronted us as a new country.


For example, as set froth in my previous article, the danger of an unrestrained majority was clear to Adams in the beginning--resulting in the "checks and balances" of our Constitution, including a separate House and Senate with different rules.


You will notice that the United States of America was founded on the view that PROCESS MATTERS. I mention that because the present Democrat/leftist "talking point" (seemingly for the purpose of convincing DEMOCRATS--rather than people in general) is that the American people do not care about "process". This, of course, is an "end jusitifies the means" argument that this health care "reform" bill--unwanted by most Americans--is so needed that it does not matter if we disregard the system of "checks and balances" envisioned by John Adams and the framers of the Constitution. All The American people want--the argument goes--is RESULTS, and the "process" is irrelevant. The American people understand "majority vote", and they are too stupid to worry about the way our government is supposed to work. Yes, this is typical leftist thinking, but I think leftists underestimate the American people.


This country was FOUNDED on "process". John Adams was appalled by the French Revolution--the section of the biography I read right after posting my previous article--after my own comment pointing to the French Revolution as an example of TYRANNY and TYRANTS resulting when you ignore "process". John Adams thought the French Revolution was a perfect example ow what happens when you have an unrestrained "majority". Adams stated: "An unrestrained majority can lead to a tyranny as bad as the worst despot who ever lived"


. Adams would, of course, be proved right about the French Revolution. It was an object lesson in how process matters. It was one of the worst-if short-lived--tyrannies in history. It would lead to an individual tyrant: Napoleon--as the people recoiled from the unrestrained actions of tyrants supposedly acting for the "majority" of Frenchman.


Did John Adams call call present day Democrats and President Obama "tyrants" (at least tyrant wannabes)? Sure he did. After eloquently defending the filibuster as the bulwark of liberty, when Republicans wanted to go to a majority vote on the appointment of judges (see previous article), Democrats are suddenly all for an unrestrained majority. Further, they are pushing the idea that would have APPALLED Adams: the idea that "process does not matter". As far as Adams was concerned, "process" was all that stood between America and the TYRANNY of the French Revolution. If the Senate becomes just like the House, it would destroy one of the central concepts Adams believed would save us from an unrestrained "tyranny of the majority" like the French Revolution. In the case of health care, of course, it is a MINORITY of the country trying to impose its will. However, like the French Revolution, it is a majority of what regards itself as a ruling cabal--like the leaders of the French Revolution--who want to impose their will be disregarding all of those checks and balances beloved of Adams.


As our Founders noted, democracy does not always produce a better result than a tyrant. Democracy--especially a democratic republic--is all about PROCESS. The idea is that it is ONLY the process that ultimately matters, and not the individual result. That also, by the way, happens to be the idea of free market theory. So long as the process is self-adjusting, and not subject to the whims and passions on individuals, the results will eventually take care of themselves.


SENATOR Obama said that the filibuster was essential to protect us against the tyranny that can result from an unrestrained majority. John Adams told us that an unrestrained majority can result in tyrants and tyranny as bad as any despot. France, in fact, would end up PREFERRING the despot (Napoleon) to the unrestrained majority cabal.


When Democrats say that Americans do not "care" about process--meaning Democrats don't care about process-they are asserting that Americans do not care about the essence of this country. The one single principle that most characterizes all of the principles upon which this country was founded is this one: PROCESS MATTERS. Unlike Democrats, I believe that Americans do ultimately understand this--not only as to the checks and balances in Congress but as to the idea that Federal Government control of our lives on the promise of RESULTS created/imposed by fallible human beings is a bad idea.


P.S. The filibuster rule NO LONGER EXISTS if Democrats manage to pass major legislation like this health care "reform" by majority vote. Forget "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Forget John Adams and his "checks and balances". The filibuster has changed over the years, since "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" talked abut it is a great bastion of liberty. Yet, Senator Obama was still able to talk about the filibuster in the same terms a few years ago--in effect condemning Prescient Obama, and Harry Reid as they contemplate an "end run" around the filibuster. As Obama said, once you eliminate the filibuster, the House and Sent ate are basically the same, and you have destroyed one of the main protections against a temporary majority imposing tyranny over the minority (or, in this case, over a majority of the country). Why are Democrats flirting with this violation of our founding principles, knowing it can be used against them in the future? Easy. They are dishonest HYPOCRITES. They have such a low opinion of the American people that they believe that they can simply argue what I am arguing next time--what they argued when they accused Republicans of trying to do away with the filibuster rule (what DEMOCRATS called that great protector of freedom). They expect the American people to forget wheat they said last time, and they expect that--with the aid of the mainstream media--they can get the American people to forget what they said this time (about "process" not being important when it gets in the way of majority vote). Plus, despite Massachusetts and polls, Democrats still think that they will rule FOREVER, because they deserve to. Nope. Republican politicians are often hypocrites--the nature of politicians--but Democrats and the left have taken dishonest hypocrisy to a new level.


Nope. The filibuster is DEAD if Obama and the Democrats manage to do what they are planning: A secret deal--among Democrats--which produces a final bill (or bills) that Democrats will try to push through Congress by majority vote in a matter of days after it is unveiled (a vote they will think they have wired among Democrats). Dead forever. Unless, of course, it becomes obvious that Senator Obama and John Adams were right, and that something like the filibuster was necessary for our freedom. In tat event, however, our country will have been pretty much already destroyed. So we might get anything, as punishment for abandoning the "process" upon which our country was founded. We might even get Napoleon (or his equivalent).