To Grover Cleveland: SIR, --- Your inaugural address is probably as honest, sensible, and consistent a one as that of any president within the last fifty years, or, perhaps, as any since the foundation of the government. If, therefore, it is false, absurd, self-contradictory, and ridiculous, it is not (as I think) because you are personally less honest, sensible, or consistent than your predecessors, but because the government itself --- according to your own description of it, and according to the practical administration of it for nearly a hundred years --- is an utterly and palpably false, absurd, and criminal one. Such praises as you bestow upon it are, therefore, necessarily false, absurd, and ridiculous. Thus you describe it as "a government pledged to do equal and exact justice to all men." Did you stop to think what that means? Evidently you did not; for nearly, or quite, all the rest of your address is in direct contradiction to it. Let me then remind you that justice is an immutable, natural principle; and not anything that can be made, unmade, or altered by any human power. It is also a subject of science, and is to be learned, like mathematics, or any other science. It does not derive its authority from the commands, will, pleasure, or discretion of any possible combination of men, whether calling themselves a government, or by any other name.

'splain "Real Democracy"!
We have a System here in Switzerland that comes about as close to Direct Democracy as you want to go,and it's mostly a Pain in the Butt!
While it has it's advantages,Amendments ,or a total Revision of our Constitution is far too easy!
So,think before you wish!
You were given a Constitutional Republic,If you can Keep it,to paraphrase one of your Founders!

The Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution.
The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.
The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A––––, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children.
Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of “
"the people of the town of A––––," should assent to this
contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.

lol.. i don't care who tracks me, i'm legal...

What good does it do me, after all, if an ever-watchful authority keeps an eye out to ensure that my pleasures will be tranquil and races ahead of me to ward off all danger, sparing me the need even to think about such things, if that authority, even as it removes the smallest thorns from my path, is also absolute master of my liberty and my life; if it monopolizes vitality and existence to such a degree that when it languishes, everything around it must also languish; when it sleeps, everything must also sleep; and when it dies, everything must also perish?

There are some nations in Europe whose inhabitants think of themselves in a sense as colonists, indifferent to the fate of the place they live in. The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved. They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.

When a nation has reached this point, it must either change its laws and mores or perish, for the well of public virtue has run dry: in such a place one no longer finds citizens but only subjects.
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

so is just being on the WWW!

Your affection for making up words and names, and your inability to provide proof of your statements, makes it clear that your commentary is nothing more than self-indulgent fantasy.

Well, the whole Electoral College deal, was part of the same fundamental distrust of the common people and real democracy that our ancestors in power had. It's the same reason why originally, we weren't allowed to elect our own Senators.

I think that a decision on something like this, requires appreciation of the full ramifications and consequences.

I prefer real democracy, myself. Even when a majority of the people around me are clearly idiots masquerading as grown up human beings, I'd rather have our fate be determined by our own willingness to at least pretend to take responsibility for ourselves.

I know that a bunch of Presidential elections would have been a lot closer, had there been none of this winner-take-all stuff (only two states apportion electors proportionally), and only one in recent memory would have been reversed (Bush Gore).

It MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT stop some Presidents from deluding themselves that they have a 'mandate from the people' which they clearly don't have.

Are you ok with the electoral college determining the winners in an election or do you prefer the popular vote to determine an election..?

it's called GOOGLE... it's your friend...

not sure why FBI and swat are on a misdemeanor warrant anyway...

Such schools should be closed down!

Where is the source of the story? Is there something to verify this with?

A Virginia school district is defending a classroom assignment that required students to practice calligraphy by writing the Muslim statement of faith, “There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”

Female students at Riverheads High School in Staunton, Virginia, were also invited to wear Muslim clothing -- a story first reported by The Schilling Show.

The school district convened a meeting on Dec. 11th to discuss the assignment with outraged parents.

“Neither these lessons, nor any other lesson in the world geography course, are an attempt at indoctrination to Islam or any other religion, or a request for students to renounce their own faith or profess any belief,” the district said in a statement provided to Fox News.

The Muslim-friendly calligraphy assignment took place in a world geography class. The teacher had the kids copy the Muslim statement of faith, also known as the shahada.

Parents told The Schilling Show that their children were not given the translation of what they were writing.

In other words, there were more than likely a few Christian teenagers in that room who had no idea they were writing, “There is no god but Allah.”

But the school district doesn’t seem to think that’s a problem.

“The statement presented as an example of the calligraphy was not translated for students, nor were students asked to translate it, recite it or otherwise adopt or pronounce it as a personal belief,” the district stated.

They said it was all about the art — not about the theology.

“They were simply asked to attempt to artistically render written Arabic in order to understand its artistic complexity,” they stated.

And out of sheer coincidence -- out of all the Arabic words and phrases the teacher could have selected, she picked the Islamic statement of faith?

The district said the assignment was consistent with the Virginia Department of Education Standards of Learning and the requirements for content instruction on world monotheistic religions.

And what about having the female students dressing up in Islamic garb — is that consistent with the state mandates, too?

The district said the students were taught about the “modest dress adopted by many in the Islamic faith and were invited to try on a scarf as a part of an interactive lesson about the Islamic concept of modest dress.”

“The scarf used in the activity was not an actual Islamic religious hijab,” the district stated.

The district said they also cover other religions -- including Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism.

However, one parent told The Schilling Show that while the Koran was presented to students, the Bible was not. The teacher reportedly declined to provide a Bible because all the students have either read or seen a Bible.

The district said there’s really not a controversy here. They just wanted students to participate in “hands-on activities intended to give them a better objective understanding of the region and its culture (including its religions and to allow for interactive learning.”

Perhaps the next time the kids at Riverheads High School practice their calligraphy skills they can learn a new word — “indoctrination.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/15/students-practice-calligraphy-by-writing-there-is-no-god-but-allah.html?intcmp=hpbt4

If my child were at that school, they would be meeting my attorney really fast and I would have that teachers job.

Imagine the outrage if a Muslim student were forced to write phrases from the Bible!

lol, ok, your's is soooo much better... man i'm so glad you posted the other story, the buttered up version... BTW, it does say the sheriff vaguely told her about the FBI payments for such police "mistakes"... but since you think it was all just innocent fun, maybe you will be blessed with a police raid on your home during Christmas, and maybe they will say I'm sorry, wrong house, after the damage is done...

i don't buy the cops version at all, and neither should anyone else...

I would say, in the general way you've asked, the answer is a very firm NO.

Despite claims to the contrary, here and elsewhere, that judges have CREATED laws where none were before, this does not happen. It is particularly true here in the US, that even the Supreme Court's decisions, can be challenged and made moot by other branches of government.

The traditional idea that most people have about kings and queens (which was only rarely actually true, by the way), is that kings aren't subject to the established laws of the land. There are no judges for whom that is true.

Now retired Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, said as she was on her way out, that accusations of "activist judges" creating law, were a threat to the judicial system. In particular, she pointed out that the label "Activist judge" was being applied whenever a case was decided differently than the accuser wanted it to be, and had nothing at all to do with any factual support for the claimed "activism."

Every Supreme Court decision cites the specific part of the Constitution involved, and explains how the Justices decided what the decision should be.

It is a lie to claim they ever just make things up.

Is it fairly reasonable to compare today,s judges to Kings and Queens?, in as having an unreasonable amount of power?

It is often not realized by people of all political viewpoints, that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does NOT apply to every citizen in every situation, and never has.

If it did, we'd effectively have no government whatsoever. And yes, that would be a BAD thing.

WHY IS HE NOT IN JAIL?

Seems like the only think they are good at is stealing your personal electronics items and fondling people and their children!

TSA Fails DHS Security Test, Allows Weapons, Bombs to Breach Security 67 of 70 Times

The Transportation Security Administration abysmally failed an internal investigation into its ability to stop undercover Department of Homeland Security agents attempts to breach security with potential weapons or bombs, according to an explosive new report revealed by ABC News. The report notes that the test exposed the fact that TSA officers at "dozens" of US airports failed to catch DHS "red team" members armed with potential weapons or bombs in 95% of 70 attempts.

http://truthinmedia.com/tsa-fails-dhs-security-test-allows-weapons-bombs-to-breach-security-67-of-70-times/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl

With all due respect....youre an idiot.