Democrat or American continued…

First, I have to respond to Michael Roland's pitiful attempt to discredit me and assassinate my character in his response to my first chapter of "Are you a Democrat or an American?" Funny how at the end of his rambling hysteria he takes time to paraphrase that icon of liberal virtue, Rodney King: "Ca-ca-ca-can't we all just ge-ge-get along?" Or as Mr. Roland puts it: "Democracy requires that we show respect for those with whom we disagree". OH REALLY? Well go ahead Michael, you first. As for me, I suggest that our very existence requires that true Republicans defeat liberal democrats like you.
Mr. Roland actually reworded what I had written and altered the meaning of my remarks. Despicable enough, but what he then did was to put quotation marks around the words of his design, falsely attribute them to me, and then refute them. Not very smart. If you want to debate yourself go ahead but don't assign my name to your drivel.
I have listened to democrats depict legitimate dissent as radical right wing extremism for a long time. Then, if they can't stifle dissent that way, they simply lie about what you said.
Very little of what Mr. Roland said deserves further debate, and as for that, he said: "It's a complicated world and democrats and Republicans make mistakes when they're in power." Maybe Mr. Roland can write about some of the mistakes he was referring to. It is those mistakes I was referring to when I said that the policies of the Democratic Party "have brought our nation to its knees".
To be specific; It was the Clinton administration's desperation for campaign contributions that enabled the purchase of previously secret ballistic missile technology by Chinese communists.
It was the Clinton administration that actually subsidized North Korea's nuclear program, enabling the development of WMDs by that terrorist sponsoring rogue state.
It was the Clinton administration's lax immigration policy that enabled 15 Saudi hijackers to get "express visas" to enter our country without any review of their applications. I could go on but for the space limitations of this newspaper.
The democratic aspects of our form of government have evolved over time. Some of those changes have been very positive, like expanding voting rights to all citizens that are of age.
But there are other changes that should not be pursued, such as expanding voting rights to 16 year olds, an idea which has been proffered by democrats in my opinion because they think they can count on union control of education to deliver votes for democrats. That type of expansion of democratic principles is harmful to the Republic.
One very important difference between a democracy and our Republic, is that our Republic incorporates an Electoral College voting system as opposed to the more democratic popular vote. The Electoral College is pivotal to preserving our Republic. Just after being sworn in to uphold the Constitution, Hillary Clinton began debasing it by campaigning for the elimination of the Electoral College.
But I think one of the most pervasive mutations of the idea of democratically elected representatives is the use of polling to determine what a majority wants and then running a campaign that promises to give voters what the polls show. The problem with this is that it is very easy for people in power to design polling data, and thus influence the outcome of an election. The founding fathers of this great nation understood that our Republic could become unbalanced if voters elected their representatives based on the specifics of what they promised to do for the majority that elected them. They stated that it is essential to the preservation of our Republic that the peoples' representatives be elected on the basis of their character, integrity and virtue, not on how well they could pander to the wishes of the majority. They were right, and we have the results to prove it.

-DRC