The Argus misLeader

The Argus Leader again misleads its readers with an editorial regarding legislatyion intended to address two initiatives approved by the majority of South Dakotans who voted. Here is the introduction:

Some legislators appear ready to take dead aim against South Dakotans - to the point of reversing decisions made by voters.

Bad idea.

Two citizen initiatives - approved by voters Nov. 7 - are the target:

The tobacco tax increase, adding $1 to a pack of cigarettes, which voters OK'd, 61 percent-39 percent.

The limits on the use of state airplanes for public business only, which voters approved, 55 percent-45 percent.

Both initiatives were galling to some of the folks in Pierre. They'd been asked before to raise the tobacco tax - and refused. And the initiative concerning use of state airplanes - while it affects all planes and all administrations - came about because of revelations that Gov. Mike Rounds, a private pilot, used state planes for personal trips.

Fair enough. Nobody says you have to like the will of the voters. But it's more than a little arrogant to turn around and tell South Dakotans their votes don't count.

Here is more regarding the cigarette tax:

And while no bill has been introduced, state Rep. Garry Moore, a Yankton Democrat, has talked about legislation that would reduce the tobacco tax just approved by voters. He never liked the idea, no doubt because he's in a business that sells tobacco products.

Here's a better idea - just follow the will of the voters.

Later, the Argus Leader says, "But once voters decide at the ballot box - that should be the end of it". They clearly are misleading their readers into thinking that America is a democracy where the majority rules. But that is not the American way. Anyone who knows the pledge of allegiance knows that America is a Republic, and that is not the same as a democracy. Here is an explanation:

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

What the Argus Leader is promoting is a tyranny of a democracy against the minority (those who consume tobacco):

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority.

And the Argus Leader is guilty of "falsifying history":

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent.

Now here is the republic that the Founders established:

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

So know we have the majority of South Dakota voters denying the unborn their unalienable God give right to life. So why doesn’t the Argus Leader provide that viewpoint? The answer is simple. The Drive-By media wants to not only promote its worldview, but to also have it forced upon all Americans by misleading the voters, and then mislead them again into thinking that they have more authority than the Constitution. Here is more about the Constitution:

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

So now we understand that the Argus Leader is anti-American. Randell Beck is using the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite to implement the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority.