March Towards Socialism Part 2 UPDATED!

socialism1So we continue on the path to understanding what exactly is going on in today’s political environment. I think this is an important series to be covering. Folks like Adam, who jump in and throw around insults and bemoan being called socialist, need to be educated. More importantly, everyone needs to be educated. The media and the Democrats tend to try to make anyone who applies the “socialist tag” to anything out to be right wing radicals who are just fear mongering “like Republicans do”. People need to understand that socialist isn’t meant to be a negative label, at least not from me. It is meant to be an accurate label, that accurately describes what is happening in today’s society, right under our noses. I am fine with socialism, just not in America under a constitution that expressly forbids it. If people want to give socialism a shot, I can roll with that, just not here, move to some other country and try it there. HERE, constitutional law forbids socialism.

So let’s start by defining socialism, shall we? It is important that we get this definition correct lest we be calling a bird a fish. There are distinct differences between socialism, communism, capitalism, democracy, and constitutional Republic, etc. So what are the terms we are talking about? Let’s lay them out here, all from Wikipedia (with additional info from me in blue):

  1. Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation. (modern definitions say under socialism, some companies are still privately owned, but also government controlled in order to ensure that, hypothetically, the people all receive equal benefit regardless of level of input or output, this is a falsehood, see fascism below).
  2. communismCommunism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, and stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. (modern definitions say that under communism, the state owns and controls everything, and hypothetically, the people all receive equal benefit regardless of level of input or output).
  3. Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than state owned and controlled. Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded by private individuals either singly or jointly, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing, and supply of goods, comodities, and services are determined by volutary private decision in a market economy. (This is how the US was intended to operate according to the principles of individual freedom and liberty)
  4. democracy_will_come_to_youDemocracy is a form of government in which power is held indirectly by citizens in a free electoral system. There are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. (much to the chagrin of those who claim otherwise, we are a democracy, albeit a special form of democracy deemed constitutional republic)
  5. Constitutional Republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens. (Ah, the good ‘ol USA, elected representatives representing their constituents, and attempting to circumvent constitutional law wherever possible)
  6. Fascism is government control of the essential means for the prodcution and distribution of goods, through the use of the private sector (THIS is privately owned but government controlled companies. Notice that “modern definitions” of socialism have come to mimic fascism. This is an attempt to tell you that you have been “living under socialism for so long already, see, it isn’t so bad”. Don’t fall into the trap. We have been living under fascism for so long in reality, not socialism, and neither one is acceptable)

So there are the definitions of the different forms of what we are talking about. Again, I think it was important to define them so that as we refer to what we see and what is going on, we can easily refer back to these definitions in order to classify what is happening. So if someone has a dispute with the definitions, by all means speak now so that as we move forward we can be on the same page. Some important things there: notice that in both socialism and communism, government “owns”, not privately owned. Also notice how the “modern definition” of socialism is identical to fascism, as they changed the modern definition to privately owned, government controlled. This is an attempt to confuse Americans (and one that is working). It allows proponents of socialism to get you to accept socialism as something that we have already been living with for years, when this is not the case. We have been living under fascism for years. My belief is that once they get you comfortable with the term socialism, they will go back to the old definition and institute that (government OWNED industry).

So where did things go wrong? There is no doubt that the founders felt that a powerful central government was the biggest threat to individual liberty. Individual liberty was held by the founders to be of the highest priority, above that of government. Yet they also understood that government was necessary, as discussed in part 1 of this series. So the founders settled on a constitutional republic as the government they would institute. They felt that this was the government type most likely to be controlled by the people, and they were right. But they were factoring in the sentiment of the people of then, not now. 18th century Americans were patriotic and valued their individual freedom above all else, and worked to keep government from infringing on it. Today’s citizens (my readers aside) have no such motivation. In fact, many will gladly surrender their liberty for little more than convenience.

gettysburg-addressSome of you previously have pointed to the Gettysburg Address as a turning point with Lincoln’s statement of “The United States” replacing “These United States”. This was merely a statement of sentiment. The turning point came several years previous with the moves by the federal government and the resulting war between the states. A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the “Tariffs of Abominations.” A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain’s Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

lincoln-portraitThen came Lincoln’s campaign for Presidency in 1860. His opponent was Stephen Douglas who faced down Lincoln and most northern politicians. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to “impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government” that “place at defiance the intentions of the republic’s founders.” Douglas was right, and Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed. Lincoln cared not about slavery, contrary to the teachings of our esteemed public schools. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so.” During the Civil War, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.” This was the overriding sentiment throughout the northern states.

Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs (it should be noted that several southern states were already seceding and therefore had no “anti-tariff” representation in Congress to fight this passing). That’s when the South truly seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was very similar to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs and business handouts, and further mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures (We could use a measure like this these days couldn’t we?). For those that study the history of the civil war, we have found that to be true. 

Thus began the Civil War, which is a misnomer. A civil war is a conflict between two or more groups of people trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis had zero interest in taking over Washington. Davis, and the southern states, were seeking independence. I grew up in the next town over from Gettysburg, PA. Those visiting here from my hometown can tell you we often had school trips to the battlefield. So I was excited when the movie “Gettysburg” was released. I have never forgotten the scene where Pickett explains that the position of the south is that they simply want to be allowed to leave the country club. They were not allowed to do so. Let us not forget the great words in the revered Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…. it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

civil-war-soldiersYet, when the southern states felt that their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not being secured any longer by the federal government, they were not allowed to secede and put in place their own government. The great principles put forth in the Declaration of Independence was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states’ right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined. The framers knew government could get out of control, but I don’t think they ever could have imagined the sheer magnitude “out of control” would reach by 2009. 

The problems that led to the war between the states are the same problems today—big, intrusive government. The reason we don’t face the specter of another Civil War is because today’s Americans don’t have yesteryear’s spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply. States should again challenge Washington’s unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun (Williams,1998).

Thus began the true era of government taking the rights away from states and centralizing power in the federal seat in Washington. Once power began to be centralized, there was no turning back. And the result was what we saw in the early part of the 20th century. Now I ask those who claim that the public education system has not been skewed towards indoctrination into the system, how many of you received this education and information on the civil war when you attended school?

This concludes part 2 of the “March to Socialism” series. In part three we will cover the imposition of the income tax and the most important lesson: FDR and the New Deal. That was the greatest expansion of government in history, and it is scary how much that period in history mirrors what we are seeing right now. Once we finish that, we will move on to modern history and the current administration’s tactics and plans to take us well past the point of no return in the death of individual liberty in today’s America. I look forward to everyone’s thoughts. 

Reference:

Williams, W. (1998). The civil war wasn’t about slavery. Vindicating the Founders. Rowman and Littlefield Publishing.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. All I got to say is WOW. Great information USW. And no, I did not get any of this information in school. The grand scheme of things really sums up doesn’t it. What I and all my classmates were mainly taught was that it was about slavery. This sheds new light onto everything I once thought was true.

    You know this also reminds me of how Fox is doing a piece on the lies being taught to children in school “Liberal lies in textbooks” is how they put it I do believe.

    So, now this gives me more pride for the fact that I live in the South. It also makes me wonder if another civil war will someday come to fruition. You can bet I’ll be on the side saying no to big government. Reverting back to how this country should be.

    As far as Socialism and Communism are concerned. The main reason these types of governments never work is the plain and simple fact that man is not perfect. There can be no leader, with a set of morals strong enough, and his cabinet, that would be able to resist the power they would have running a government this strong in power. This is why North Korea, China, and other countries are so strict on their populace. This is why they are so limited in their freedoms. Slaves to the system.

    I for one will not stand by and let this happen to this great country. When the time comes, I will be there, standing against a tyranical government.

    Will you?

    • On another note as far as Socialism and Communism are concerned. They are strikingly similar. But on top of that. The fact that there is no reward for hard work. No matter how much you put into the system you get the same, the same as the guy sleeping at his desk at work and putting half the effor forth. I can already tell you what will happen in that case. Nobody will be willing to work hard. Why would you? What is there to gain. You can get the same benefits by just piddling around all day. THAT is when the government will change to a Communistic regime. Slave drivers turning all of us into slaves. Ensuring work output is at optimal level. Welcome to the new world.

      I hope I’m dead wrong and this is not what this country is headed for. I hope we’re all completely wrong and this is just a coincidence, that it just appears to be moving towards Socialism. For if any of us are right about these things….God help us and our children. There will be a long dark road ahead, my friends, if this is what is to come.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        It’s wrong as far as Me and Mine are concerned Jake. I am not a leader, just someone willing to fight and die to keep my freedom safe. If this Country were to turn that far, somebody’s gonna have to walk through a hail of lead to get to my family. Let’s just say I hope it doesn’t get that bad.

        • I hope so too Eso. I truly do. It would be a sad day for us all if this happens. I just hope freedom shines through, and this country goes back to the principles it was founded on. Freedom. Peace. Prosperity.

      • Your right on point…we are all destined to slavery, genocide, ect…those that accept will be spared and those that oppose will be killed or sent to concentration camps.

  2. Great post USW, I always learn something, from everyone who comes here. Would like to comment on HCR 50 (TEXAS). Texas was the first to reaffirm it’s rights under the 10th Amendment. I have no idea what it actually means, but it sure has my interest. I know that Ohio has similar legislation ready to go, I would love to hear everyones input on this. I take it as Texas telling the Feds to “go #%^k yourself!”

    G!

    • revolution2010 says:

      G-man,
      I love that you admitted that you have no idea what that means! I did a Blog post on this a while ago (sort of) and if memory serves me, this is what I know. When the USA was formed, it was very important to make sure the states had their sovereignty. There were many different geographical areas with many different concerns. The states and the founders understood that to function in their intended way, the states would have to have some autonomy and the federal government would be there to back them up… the most major reason for the fed was militarily, we would be much stronger as one than as many when considering attacks from our neighbors such as the Spanish, French or British mostly. If they wanted to pick a fight with Louisiana for her ports, they would think twice if it were 13 territories instead of one territory. (Just as a simple example) So the States were meant to hold most of the power, which made sense, because if you look at farming communities, they might have completely different laws than maritime or industrial territories. For those reasons, the Federal government was to take a back seat to the States governments. As USWeapon mentioned, I am sure he will talk about the turn in the tide in his next post.
      Since 1995 or there about, over 20 states have enacted or at least proposed legislation invoking their 10th amendment rights so as to pull back their power from the federal government when the time comes. The states need autonomy and now it is most important. The most recent situation, which has given rise to, the Texas situation is, that the Porkulus bill gave states federal funding. It didn’t allow the state to pick and choose which monies it would take… it was take it or leave it. Some of the governor’s were smart enough to realize that the legislation would increase state programs such as TCA or food stamps… the problem was that once the federal funding ran out, the state would be hung for continuing that program at it’s current rate. The only way for the state to fund the burden would be to tax their citizens for the additional necessary revenue. In light of that, knowing that it would mean higher taxes in the future for their citizens, they wanted to refuse the funds. The Administration apparently came out and told the state legislatures to create legislation to override their Governor’s authority and take the money if their governor wouldn’t. THAT my friend is what pissed off Texas!
      Hope the info is accurate; it has been a while since I researched it. I will include a link that I found with much of the legislation though I will claim no authenticity or accuracy since it is not mine and I did not have time to research it… sorry.

      http://newworldliberty.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/majority-of-us-states-join-sovereignty-movement-assert-10th-amendment-rights/

  3. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Another great article US Weapon…

    I am ashamed to admit that I have been tricky with Democrats in the past and have stated to them, “Well…you know, Abe Lincoln was a Republican”. I’d always get that “deer caught in the headlights” look from them. What I would leave out is that somehow along the way, the naming conventions (as we loosely define them today) of the two platforms got switched. If Abe Lincoln (a Whig before becoming Republican) were running today, he’d be a “Democrat”; had Ronald Regan been running pre-civil War, then he would have been a Democrat.

    I’ve pretty much given up on telling people that the Civil War started, not because of Slavery, but because of a State’s right to secede from the Union. Slavery became an issue to help justify war and murkatize (new word – to make murky) the water; probably at the urging of the followers of Acorn (ooops, meant John Brown’s followers).

    DISCLAIMER: I am not pretending to be a great historian and I can be somewhat sarcastic…plus I do try to joke around — that’s just me. The fact that I’m not a great historian is one of the reasons that I do enjoy this site as I learn something new everyday.

    US Weapon…Just an idea…do you think it would be beneficial to have a “Glossary Page” on your site (purely for convenience)…or would that be duplicating works such as Wikopedia, Dictionary, other great articles that you’ve written, etc.?

    Thanks and kind regards,
    RS

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      First off – well written piece. I am not steeped in all the historical elements presented so I will assume them to be true.

      In the context of this ‘move to socialism’ line of thought, and what seemingly permeates many other topics discussed here is this – the key assumption is this – the majority of voters (voters mind you – not people) elect representatives (Congress, the President, State and local officials) that via their campaigns and subsequent actions have made it at least somewhat clear what they intend their actions to be, thus, the proposition offered here is, in USW words:

      “Today’s citizens (my readers aside) have no such motivation. In fact, many will gladly surrender their liberty for little more than convenience.”

      There may be different ways to interpret this, but it comes down to, all those people that voted O’Messiah McSocialist into office are just lazy, apathetic, don’t care, want a free ride, so on and so forth. The pleas I see are centered upon how does this now, minority, convince this new majority that not only are they wrong, but they are consitutionally wrong? True, they voted, but they were wrong, they didn’t know what they were really doing, they need to, I don’t know, recall this guy and all the Congressional Socialists that will wreck this country forever? Is that where this is going. How do we not look at where we are, right now, today, and say, by at least part of USW’s definitions, the system as the Founders designed it worked?

      when it is said that “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…..” do we mean the People should be “mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all measures (We could use a measure like this these days couldn’t we?)”. Contextually I am saying that are “the People” ALL the People or just whomever decides they don’t like what the voting majority has decided? Would we consider a group of Randy Weaver types as qualifying as “the People”?

      Let the roasting begin. 🙂

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        This was meant as reply to main thread, not to #3 specifically.

      • I am not sure that I am following you Ray. So a few questions and clarifications from me. You stated:

        There may be different ways to interpret this, but it comes down to, all those people that voted O’Messiah McSocialist into office are just lazy, apathetic, don’t care, want a free ride, so on and so forth. The pleas I see are centered upon how does this now, minority, convince this new majority that not only are they wrong, but they are consitutionally wrong?

        I have never at any point said all. Would you contend that there is not a very large portion of voters that are lazy, apathetic, etc.? What I contend is this: Politicians are good at what they do. They have the ability to create issues where none exist as a way to get the population to act in a predictable way. Hitler convinced a gigantic portion of the population in Germany that Jews deserved to die, and got them to act on it. Was he right because the people were swayed by him? Did the fact that the majority of Germans agreed make the action of killing the Jews right? Of course not. Politicians have done a great job of spending the last 100 years building to this point. Americans, in general, have ZERO idea what is happening. They are too concerned with telling us once an hour what their kids are doing or what the latest quiz revealed about them on facebook. They do not take the time to understand government, or look at the issues with any level of critical thinking. I applaud that you and the other readers here do so, regardless of what your conclusions end up being.

        Some examples of where I see the flaws in the current path. We are creating a dependency on government, which will continually increase the amount of revenue that the government needs to take from the people in order to provide whatever the people depend on. It is a constant cycle of growth and dependence that has moved from a 1% income tax to where we are today. We are seeing government intervention and control of private business. We are seeing an increased level of rhetoric designed to induce class warfare and demonize those that work hard and do well for themselves. I, feel these things deserve a rating of “bad”, so I feel the need to be the guy walking down the street who stops and points out to the crowd with the money in their hands that the snake oil salesman is dishonest and the potion won’t work. If they choose to buy, I can’t stop them, but I can at least try to point it out. In the end Ray, if socialism is what America truly wants, they will have it. But I think when they realize what it really is, they won’t want it. I am trying to tell them before they hand the money over and it is too late. If I fail, I will be left with a choice: stay and adapt to the new system with drastically reduced individual liberty or find another country to live in. I will try to avoid option 2 if at all possible.

        If I could ask a favor of you? I would really like for you to take the time to write an article with these thoughts. I want to understand them better, and I think that taking the time to hear your argument in full is important and warrants everyone reading it. Most of my articles are 1000-1500 words and take me 3 hours or so. You can research or not. It seems to me that your argument here amounts to “this is what the Constitution says can happen and the majority are creating what they want, to the detriment of the minority on this site who are simply frustrated that their beliefs are no longer the desired way forward”. I am interested in hearing your argument out and giving it a voice as a post. I hope you will take me up on it.

  4. NC Storm says:

    For those who don’t know the the bill Lincoln signed to make the war over slavery was not because he was against it. He sighned as a way to keep Europe out of the war(specifically Britain who was close to coming to a decision on whether to help the South)becuase they had already banned slavery and could not appear to support slavery by supporting the South. In other words, the emancipation proclamation was nothing more than a way of isolating the South.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      The EP was also to cause problems in the Southern States with their slaves and to mollify Abolitionists to keep supporting the war. One result of the EP was that some Units of the Northern Army (1 instance, 10th Michigan) refused to fight for a while because of it. It was unpopular in a LOT of the North. The 10th Michigan stated that “they were in to fight to preserve the Union, not free a bunch of slaves!”

  5. The Civil War was not fought over slavery. It fought over the North wanting control of the economy and they wanted the full right to industry. If you read your history you will discover this. And when it came to slavery the free black person was treated worse up North then they were in the South. Yes there were some who mistreated their slaves but there were more who did not. And slavery has gone on since the beginning of time starting with the Isreal people, going all the way Europe with the bond slaves. Slavery is not about the black people slavery is about all people. Slavery did not start with the black people nor will it ever end with them. What do you think Obama is doing with Socialism It is putting people of all race, color, or religion back into slavery. That is what Hitler tried to do before the beginning of World War I, that is what Castro has done, that is what Chavez is doing, and that is Extreme Muslins are doing, and that is what the all Muslin faiths do especially when it comes to women. Any thing that takes away a freedom whether it be speech, right to bear arms, taxation without representation, and the right to think for ourselves is slavery.

  6. CWO2USNRet says:

    A note of clarification (or question?) concerning Democracy vs. Constitutional Republic. If I’m wrong on this please correct me. In a Democracy the rights of the minority are subject to the tyranny of the majority. As an American, this is not good. A Constitutional Republic is designed to overcome that problem by protecting individual rights, enshrined in the Constitution, as ammended, from the tyranny of the majority. This is the essence of America.

    • CWO: It is the constitution that protects them not the form of the govt. The thresholds for amendment, the longer terms of the Senate, the veto of the Pres, the authority and terms of the Supremes were all mechanisms they employed to counter their concerns about majority rule. Oh…there was also the Bill of Rights.

      JAC

      • revolution2010 says:

        I chose to respond here so I could hug both you guys at one time! Here I am!
        Yes, to answer your initial question, that is the basic difference in the Democracy and Constitutional Republic. I like to think of the Constitution as the “mother trump card”. While the majority can make any laws they choose, they may not overstep the Constitution. This gets sticky in that there are MANY laws that overstep their bounds. It does not matter until they are brought to the Supreme Court and found UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Until then, it is assumed that everyone is just OK with them. It sheds a whole new light on judge appointments, doesn’t it? In my opinion, it is one of the most important jobs in our nation if not THE most important.
        The problem is that in schools all over, in fact if you ask many adults, they will tell you that we live in a democracy… I am sure that they learned that in public school. They will in some cases argue with you until you ask them to say the Pledge of Allegiance and then look at you really funny as the word Republic is uttered from their lips. Then they will ask you what is the difference? The fact that our children are not being taught the difference is HUGE in that they may not understand that there is recourse. Alas, it is our job as patriotic parents to make sure our children understand our form of government better than most 40 year old’s, that they may protect themselves when the time arises. If you ask my 3 year old why he has a gun (should he be holding anything that might resemble one while he is shooting at fake bad guys that are hiding behind the cat scratch post) he will return the answer, “Because it is my second amendment right”. Need I say more?
        Sorry I have been absent. I am going to make a run for the HOD and I have been tied up getting it going. In my real life, I am a stay at home mom and that takes precidence… I am well, btw JAC, Max did end up having tubes put in last week. (mild hearing loss which they expect to go away once the fluid drains.)Thanks for asking about me CW!

  7. CWO2USNRet says:

    Does anyone know what happened to Rani, aka Revolution2010, author of Coup D’Etat by Monkey Wrench and frequent writer here? Not heard from in quite awhile on either blog.

    • USWeapon says:

      CWO, She has been quite busy lately. I talked to her yesterday. Her site is secondary. She is preparing for run for delegate in MD. I talk to her quite regularly, as we have known each other since we were kids. Trust me, it certainly is not that she has lost her passion, LOL

  8. Great history lesson USW! I know you’ll hear some, but the way you lay it out with the definitions, I don’t know how anyone will be able to argue with the direction that we are heading. Very scary!

    I’m off to the Madison Tea Party – I’m just hoping that enforcement of that new DHS report that came out isn’t happening, or there could be a lot of us taken away in a paddy wagon! (That might be a topic for another day – the report is incredible!) We’ve been told to ask for ID’s if approached by any “media” as apparently lots of infiltrators might be there to sway the reporting.

    Have a great day all!

  9. Kristian says:

    US,

    Thanks for a great post! I’ve lived in the south all of my life and never knew that about the War of Northern Aggression. Now I understand why we call it that here. It makes me proud to be from the south. As to our march toward socialism, I think it may be too late to stop it. It’s been happening for some time now and the people have been lulled into complacency. I’m not even sure what it would take to wake them up. I know that these tea parties are going on and that is a great thing, but they aren’t getting the coverage that they need to get and the MSM is NOT going to help in this cause. They like things just as they are. So, how do we get the word out there?

    • Kristian,

      I think people will wake up when they begin to feel the unpleasent effects of Obama’s plan. My dear boyfriend whom I love and respect very much, is quite liberal in his politics. (we have some doossie discussions) Right now he’s all for Socialism because he’s sure the ‘rich people’ will be paying for it. I’m not sure its occurred to him that there ain’t enough rich people in the country to fund what’s being done, and that its just a matter of time before someone like him is deemed ‘rich’ and cleaned out. So, unitl my honey feels Obama’s hand in his pocket, he’ll steadfastly defend the Messiah.

  10. Most if not all here know I am constantly harping on definitions. My studies, and others, indicate a deliberate effort to revise definitions we need to accurately communicate concepts with each other. As an example lets look at the definition of socialism posted by USW this AM.

    “Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation. (modern definitions say under socialism, some companies are still privately owned, but also government controlled in order to ensure that, hypothetically, the people all receive equal benefit regardless of level of input or output).”

    If one goes to the library and finds an older dictionary, or use your Webster Collegiate you never threw out, you will more than likely not see any reference to “and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation”. The definitions I have seen stopped at describing the socio/economic model as public, or state, ownership of production and distribution.

    Next note that US points out the modern definition also includes “under socialism, some companies are still privately owned, but also government controlled in order to ensure that, hypothetically, the people all receive equal benefit regardless of level of input or output”. Thus the intellectuals, with their propogandist counterparts, have gradualy turned fascism into socialism, by the simple stroke of a pen (keyboard).

    Now why might they do that? If we have been living under a fascist system (govt control of production and distribution) but your goal is socialism what better way to convince the public it is harmless than to convince them they already live under a “socialist” system.

    I urge everyone to start paying close attention to the blogs and drive by comments of those folks who describe themselves as “liberals”. I do, and I have noticed a major change in the past couple of months. They don’t decrie the label anymore, they argue that “socialism has been propping up capitalism for decades” or “socialism has saved this country and you need to get over it” (these two are quotes from another site). You will see similar statements here the past couple of weeks. Do not for one minute think that such a change in basic argument and rhetoric is an accident.

    Also note that “democracy” is now defined as “indirect” control, thus allowing representation not direct vote and control. It is the latter that was the traditional definition and is what the founders feared. It was believed that it was “democracy” that eventually led to the destruction of the ancient Greek city states, such as Athens.

    My hypothesis, and mine alone, is that we will soon see new definitions of capitalism put forth that incluce fascist or socialist components. In the not to distant future we will be living in a “Democratic Nation” where “Democracy” is our form of govt and “Capitalism” is our form of economics and we will not be slaves but “Citizens”, sorry….”Happy Citizens”. Those who are not happy will be sent to “Graduate School” for retraining.

    This is a war on the human mind. Our ability to think, reason, communicate and thus survive.

    P.S. to USW: I am curious why you didn’t include fascism in your list as this is the system we have been living under, and why ignore Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. They were the first to really implement the principles of the early progressive movement which spawned the fascist politics. Also, the key component of the concept “republic” was the existence of sovereign states organized under a limited federal govt, hench republic instead of just “representative democracy”.

    Hope everyone is having a great day.
    JAC

    • JAC,

      Not including fascism was an oversight that I am going to correct in the next hour. I try my best when writing these things to keep all the stuff in my head straight. If I were writing a book, I would have an outline and several editing periods. With these posts, I start writing and researching. When I get to the end it is usually late and I do a quick edit and hit “publish”. Too often that is meaning that I forget to add something I thought of earlier. I am not ignoring Teddy or Wilson. We only went as far as the Civil War here, Nest part will have the 20th century and will include wilson and TR, but FDR was big and I just highlighted that part of the upcoming stuff.

      Plus if I hit all the parts, what would all of you guys have to correct me on? LOL

    • Disgusted in Cali says:

      I too have noticed the change in wording on lot of blog sites about how we are already a socialist country and how calling yourself a liberal has turned into a badge of honor for some. They hold up Medicaid and Social Security as their primary support for our countries socialism. I have more than once tried to point out how Social Securtiy is paid into by the individual through their employment deductions but for some strange reason 8 out of 10 times I try to post this it wouldn’t let me. Big Brother at work? Could be…

  11. Did some looking on Youtube, just typed in Socialism and it brought up a slew of videos by Glen Beck and others. One in particular I found interesting. Here’s the link, it’s a video created by another site, like this one, that’s out to wake up America to the Socialist movement. I think this is catching like fire! People are starting to see that we are headed down a path to destruction.

    Here’s the link, enjoy!

  12. Good post USW!
    Yes, I learned about the Civil war from a college professor who insisted that we do our own research. He was very adamant about the true cause of the war and he made me a Civil war history buff. Something else if you study the Republican and Democrate format you will find their political positions have changed…thus the republicans act like the old Democrates and the Democrates act like the old Republicans….funny. We were designed to be a republic to become anything else makes our Constitution useless. All of America should be up in arms concerning what has taken place for the last 100 years to our Constitution and our government. If our country takes on Socialism we may as well burn the papers our forefathers worked so hard to establish. The blood that was spilled was for naught because we were to lazy to defend and protect what they had given us. There is no country greater or as free as the USA. We can continue to be apathetic or we can protest, fight and shout from the roof tops that we do not intent to take this anymore.

    • revolution2010 says:

      Couldn’t agree more. What are the chances we can elect a group that will abolish everything that was done to the original Constitution and Bill of Rights and start over with a clean slate of just the Constitution and the BOR? I am asking too much, aren’t I? LOL just a dream.. everything seems so simple as originally written… we have really mucked it up!

  13. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    If you like government control, you are going to love the things that are coming in our near future. Some of them SOUND pretty outlandish (because they are), but don’t be fooled, there are plenty of people out there that want to control you to a ridiculous extent.

    Carbon cap and trade: Energy output that also involves carbon output (e.g. coal-fired power plants, anything that uses oil or gas, etc.) will be required to pay for carbon credits due to emitting CO2 into the atmosphere at levels above some imaginary and arbitrary “standard” promulgated by the government. This will cause the price of energy in general to skyrocket (Coal provides roughly 50% of all electricity in the United States currently) and these costs will be directly passed on to the consumer (us).

    “Green” Food: It takes more energy to produce a hunk of meat than it does to produce the caloric equivalent in vegetation (the cows have to EAT after all, and they do not convert 100% of what they eat into useable food products… darn inefficient creatures that they are!), so look for non-vegetarian/non-vegan foods (i.e. MEAT) to be taxed heavily because meat is an inefficient food source. (If you think that one is weird, search the internet! You will find several sites that are dedicated to just this premise already in existence!)

    Cigarettes/Tobacco: (This one already happened). When I started smoking back in the mid-1980’s, the price of a pack of Cigarettes in the State of Indiana was about $1.10 per pack, all taxes included. Now, the FEDERAL tax alone on a pack of cigarettes is $1.01. The price of a pack in Indiana (where cigarettes are still RELATIVELY cheap) is now around $4.50 per pack or higher. That is about a 400% increase in the cost of cigarettes in the past 25 years, almost all of which is attributable to taxes. If the government were actually concerned that smoking is BAD FOR YOU, they would simply make tobacco products illegal to produce and use. That is not what they are interested in at all! They villify smoking as bad so that the general public will see it as a GOOD thing when the government imposes more taxes on tobacco and uses it as a cash-cow. They excuse this behavior by claiming that this money is going to smoking cessation programs, anti-smoking programs, child health care, etc. The reality is very little of this money is going to any of those things. The government doesn’t want people to QUIT SMOKING, that would hurt revenue.

    Legalization/Naturalization of Illegal Immigrants: Pelosi’s proposal of giving welfare to illegal immigrants didn’t go over so well, so what is the answer? Let’s just fast-track all 11 or 12 million of them to become US Citizens! Why? So they can pay their fair share of taxes? Umm… no. So the government can give them hand-outs in exchange for their now-legal votes!

    Health care brought to you by the government: Tired of paying those high insurance premiums? Can’t even afford health insurance? Don’t worry, the government will take care of that! Never mind that it is going to cost TRILLIONS (far more than what it costs per person to pay for private health insurance), and never mind that you are going to have to wait 6 months for bypass surgery even though the doctors said you only had a month to live….

    These are just a few examples of what is coming, and unless freedom-loving people find a way to put a stop to it, these things (and a whole lot more) are going to be rammed down our throats and almost impossible to repeal within just a few short months.

    • Good post Peter

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Great Post Peter!!

    • revolution2010 says:

      I agree absolutely, though I think that we are all missing the really important piece… I see the smoking thing as more evil than what you posted. Most of the people who will really be affected are the poor who smoke. It is so addictive, they will not have the means to find care in helping to quit, they will continue to spend money they cannot afford to spend on smokes and “feel” more poor than they are… feel as though they need help and they cannot make ends meet… they are doing similar things with the cap and trade in my opinion. People with money will cut out a restaurant night here and there, the poor will feel victimized and run to the first politician that promises them help to put food on their table or healthcare card in their wallet. No need to waste a good crisis! The Socialist realizes they cannot forward their agenda with out a victim class… they are currently setting them up.

  14. CanadianFox says:

    I give up. I guess I just do not understand or grasp this argument. For one thing this is a “paper”, “document”, “theory” or “concept argument”. Second and most important of all it is based on the past world not the present one. As time moves on and more people are involved, a democracy (even one based on liberty), has to be adaptable and/or flexible based on population increases, the makeup of that population group (diversity, ethnicity, demographics) etc. Anything else, then you are talking about an ideal fantasy land or utopia – of which we all know by this point in our lives – does not exist anywhere. So I am saying I believe it is unrealistic to compare our world today with one (where the main arguments come from)that existed 300 some years ago.,

    • “The piece of paper” was built as a living document. Meaning it can be changed as the need arrived. Problem with this living document is that Judges think they are the only ones smart enough to understand it. (pure poppycock)

    • I completely disagree, but I am guessing you already knew that. So let me explain. If the principles that form the basis for that 300 year old document and form of govt are sound they do not become outdated. If you seriously study the issues of the time and the solutions they proposed you will find that not all that much has changed. The size of the population, our ethnicity, and the sophistication of our technology does not change a single thing. The reality that poweful central govts will always work to undermine the principle of individual liberty has held true over centuries.

      Please explain why the principle of freedom and liberty are somehow outdated because we are bigger, more diverse and more complicated.

      The details or logistical issues may change but the underlying principles and the genius of the document do not. And, you seem to forget it allowed for change, but one where we all had to be engaged in the decision to make that change. Not to have it handed to us by a bunch of power hungry politicians, especially after we told them not to (TARP, Stimulus, Immigration Bill, Bloated Budget, etc).

      You need to decide whether you want liberty or no-liberty, which is where statist govts wind up. It is not a cliche, it is reality. If you want some form of servitude that is fine, I suggest Europe since its more peaceful than Russia or China or Cuba or Venezuala.

      If you decide you want freedom then join us and help us figure out how to address modern problems from that traditional point of view. I think you will find it enlightening.

      JAC

      • CanadianFox says:

        Jac, plase explain to me how the “underlying principles and the genius of the document” means any thing at all to the 12-15% unemployed and the 50 million people who are uninsured because they cannot afford decent health care. My point is this. That document was based on/in the 18th century. How arguing about it in todays world when it comes to relevancy for answers to problems that confront us, I just do not get it. To make it even clearer, it means nothing to me other than it was good for its time. Constantly referring back to it , however, just muddies up the arguments as to what we need to do to solve today’s issues and problems. I believe you and others are getiing “lost” in your quest for “freedom” and “liberty” as you define it.

        • USWeapon says:

          CanadianFox,

          You said “Constantly referring back to it , however, just muddies up the arguments as to what we need to do to solve today’s issues and problems. I believe you and others are getiing “lost” in your quest for “freedom” and “liberty” as you define it.”

          And that says a lot about your frame of mind. I personally don’t think it is ever “getting lost” to seek liberty and freedom. Understanding the past and discussing it is a key part of understanding the future. I am sorry you don’t see it that way. However I submit to you this: the 12-15% unemployed and 50 million uninsured are a result of thinking just like yours. Those numbers are CAUSED by government’s intervention and control, exercised over the last 100 years. You are forgetting one essential piece of the argument:

          THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT WAS NOT TO END UNEMPLOYMENT OR PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE. IT WAS, AS STATED CLEARLY, TO ENSURE THE LIBERTY AND FREEDOM THAT I, AND THE OTHERS ON THIS SITE SEEK AND DEMAND.

          Your problem is that in your limited vision, the only solution to those things lie in government solving all of our problems and exercising control to do so. I applaud you taking a stand, I just think the one you are taking is one of limited vision and even further limited critical thinking applied. The idea of individual liberty was not “good for its time”, it is timeless. It is a natural right that we are born with. To take it away is not only going against the ideas of the founders, it is going against the inalienable rights endowed at birth. Have you read “1984”? It is an extreme vision I admit, but exactly where would you draw the line between accepted socialism, which is where you are, and the world that Orwell described. When will they cross the line that you have in the sand. They have obviously already crossed the line many of us had in the sand long ago. Yours is further along, but have you figured out where it is? What will you do when they cross it? What will you say to us when we tell you “we might have been able to stop them if only you had listened to us when we told you then that they were going to cross your line too”?

          My ideal of individual liberty may be old, but it is not irrelevant in today’s world. It will ALWAYS be relevant. And I will tell you this: Many years ago, some men got together and decided they would rather die free men than live in subservience to anyone. You can pick that battle wherever you choose. The Revolutionary war or a good viewing of “Braveheart”. But like those men, I would rather die a free man, or fighting for my freedom, than to live in a world where I am not permitted to be so. THAT is why I served my country in the military. And it is why I serve my country again, albeit in a different fashion, today. We will still welcome you to the cause when you find yourself in their crosshairs as well.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            USW,

            Great clarification there. The point is (and it is a VERY important point), that the GOVERNMENT was never designed to, and never SUPPOSED to “solve all of today’s problems” or the problems of any other day for that matter!!!!!!!!!

            The PEOPLE are supposed to have the freedom to come up with solutions to problems free from government intervention! It is when we decide that we are no longer capable of independent problem-solving that we have finally givin up our freedoms and admitted that the government should take care of us. Sad days….

          • CanadianFox says:

            US Weapon, Neither you or any one else will ever get me to be a Don Quixote and joust at a windmill over the “true” definition of the meaning of freedom and/or liberty. That is just asking for a fight that does not ever have to be waged. If you and others here truly believe that we are headed in a “socialist” direction I encourage you to get involved in the political process we have at our disposal. You will never get me to be “reactionary” and “knee jerk” in my desire to solve the problems of today – especially when I first would have to waste my time fighting over the definition of two words. That is simply a waste of time. The best you and others who think like you will ever be able to do is form some type of “splinter” group that, while their arguments might sound good, they will not ever achieve much at all – except maybe winning debates. And that is not for me. We live in a great nation (that can always be made better) but divisive thinking and infighting will destroy it before anything the current administration will do. As far as “lines in the sand go” you had better be an extremely intelligent and perceptive individual to know when and where to draw them. Otherwise you might end up “fighting” when all it took to change something was a little patience, tolerance and compromise. If I got a little too confrontational here, I apologize. I personally do not believe my vision is limited at all. I have always tried to think in big picture terms. The difference is that as I have aged and gotten wiser, I believe I have a better understanding of what is realistic and achievable and what is not. Oh by the way, thanks for this forum. It sure beats Fox’s.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Congratulations, your entire argument, all the way from premise to conclusion was simply false. Freedom and Liberty are not some bizzare abstract concepts that we have any need to fight over. Freedom and Liberty are pretty darn clear concepts.

              Also, the government of the United States was designed to ENCOURAGE divisiveness and infighting, lest the government become too powerful! The idea of the founders of this country was that too much government control over anything was a BAD IDEA, and building mechanisms into the government to make it slow, inefficient, and highly argumentative with itself were considered a necessity in order to prevent it from becoming a monster.

              What this administration is trying to do is to rapidly turn it into that monster before most of us freedom-loving folks have time to react.

              • CanadianFox says:

                PetrB, Whoa don’t get so stirred up here. I would say that my “thinking” is only “false” according to you or those that think like you. I for one believe in the President we have now. He has grown up pretty much like the rest of us. A middle class individual and thinker who realizes that as the world becomes more populated and ages, the problems become more complicated and require different approaches to solve. Just wait until the economy does start oving again and he comes back to BOTH parties and demands cuts and sacrifices. I do not think many were listening when he said that. In any event, he is the most intelligent, best communicative middle class individual we have had in this office in my lifetime. Oh,by the way,I am not a democrat and I do not consider myself a liberal. I do consider myself a realist and always attempt to be pragmatic in my thinking.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Oh, I attempt to be pragmatic in my thinking as well. I simply attempt to be pragmatic in my way of thinking in ways that conform to the Constitution of the country that I live in. Sorry if that is bad.

              • CanadianFox says:

                PeterB, you and how many others? And therein lies the problem. You are a fringe thinker not a realistic, “present” thinker. I just believe that that type of thinking does you or anyone else (in today’s world) any good. That is the only part I see as “bad”.

              • CF,

                Surely you are jesting. Freedom is what this country is all about. Our inalienable rights as men and women, created in Gods own image. The bill of rights say it all. So you think that the bill of rights should be changed as well? Because I promise you, there is no way that a Socialist country can keep the same rights for its people as we have now.

                If you know anything about governments then you know that history is great teacher. History repeats. The best way we can predict the future is in the actions of the past. What Socialist country do you know of has had the ability to resist its own power? How many do you know of that HAVEN’T gone pure communistic? Socialism is a step from Communism. It’s happened before.

                Our forefathers designed our country KNOWING that government cannot be controlled once it gets too powerful. Knowing this, they designed the bill of rights to limit the government. It wasn’t ever supposed to be about the government helping the people. Welfare, social security. None of that was around in the beginning.

                If you study your facts, you will see, that since the inception of these programs the populace of this country has only grown more dependent on the government, for EVERYTHING.

                My closing argument is this.

                Freedom is not an ignorant idea. If you think so, please leave this country. And I will get downright rude to you at this point. The reason being. Tens of of thousands of Americans died to protect that. Our military today still does the same. If you think freedom is an outdated ideology, then you are dead wrong, and not only that, you have insulted the memory of those that have died, those that have served, and those that are serving to protect it for us all. God bless them, for they are the defenders of freedom.

              • CanadianFox says:

                Jake, what you have you said is very eloquent but to me it is just words. The only people who think like this are those that think we are losing our freedom. I do not. I do believe the world has gotten more complicated and none of us have been very good at facing the issues or compromising to find solutions to the problems for quite some time. Instead we have allowed those that have their own agendas divide us with emotional style rhetoric. A good example? Conservatives who do not want to be called Republican any more. That group right there (made up of many different types of “conservatives”) are tearing that party apart. And what stimulates them? Words like what you are talking about. Their discussions do not center on what is right for today’s world, it is all about the past and what those words meant at that time in history. Flowery words and phrases do not mean anything to me unless you apply it in realistic terms in today’s world. I am just one individual who refuses to be brainwashed by words. Our country does not need to splinter off into any more wild-eyed minority groups.

              • I see you still did not answer my question. There is nothing flowery about the word Freedom. Freedom is in itself never changing. If you take freedoms, one after another from someone, does that not mean that their freedoms are now limited? Does it not mean that they have less freedom than before?

                Do you honestly believe limiting our freedom is the right thing to do?

              • USWeapon says:

                So if the Republican party stops serving the needs of those who call themselves a conservative, they are wrong for leaving the party and refusing to any longer be called Republicans? Where is the logic in that CF? You and Lincoln would have gotten along famously. Don’t like this political party and want to leave it? No way, it is bad for America if you do. That might be the stupidest thing I have heard all day. But it does explain your diehard devotion to the Democratic cause.

              • esomhillgazette says:

                CF,
                US, and Peter are just 2 on this site of hundreds of like minded individuals. That’s not very many. But, if you look on the internet, or better yet, on FoxNews today; you will see that there are hundreds of THOUSANDS of us. And the number is steadily growing. It may be too late. The damage may already be done. But we’re not going to give up. Eventually, even if it’s too late now, the govt will be forced to notice us. Then we will see what we will see won’t we?

                If you want to be passive and sit and watch America swirl around the drain, that is your right. But please don’t encourage others to sit there with you. We “dreamers” need more converts, not passivists.

              • esomhillgazette says:

                Oh yeah, I also add that there are not just Conservatives at the Tea Parties, but people of ALL Parties and Liberals too. Some are starting to see that Obama was a bad mistake.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Example of WHY Government intervention in something that they have no business messing with works:

            Company A is a very large company. They are doing very well, and can afford to provide 100% health care coverage through a private insurer.

            Company B is a smaller company, and, although growing, is not doing well enough to provide 100% health care coverage through a private insurer, so they only cover 50% and the employee must cover the remaining expense.

            Joe works for company B, and his neighbor Jim works for company A. Joe finds out that Jim is getting his health care “for free” and is highly upset that company B is not providing him with “free” health care as well!

            This is unfair! The Government must get involved! Let’s have a rule that says that company B is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide the same coverage to it’s employees as company A does! Furthermore, since company A makes more money than company B, let’s raise the taxes on company A to help company B pay for healthcare! Sounds good, right?

            The logical fallacy here is that Jim was getting “free” health care in the first place. It wasn’t free, the business that he worked for was doing well enough to provide it to him at THEIR COST.

            So now what happens? Company A has their taxes raised, which causes them to either hold prices steady and lose money, or raise prices and possibly lose customers. As a result, their bottom line is hurt, and they can no longer afford to give all of their employees 100% health care coverage; however, this is now mandated by law, so they have to lay some people off in order to stay profitable.

            Meanwhile, company B is supposed to be getting tax dollars from the government in order to help pay for 100% health care coverage for their employees, but somehow, the check never arrives from the government because… well… apparently the government spent the money on someting else and forgot to send the check. Since company B is a small company and is now mandated to provide 100% healthcare to its employees by law, but they aren’t getting the check from Uncle Sam, they have to close their doors entirely.

            So now Jim has been laid off, and Joe lost his job too since his smaller company just shut down, and now neither one of them has ANY insurance whatsoever.

            Well ok, obviously the way to solve that is to have the government TAKE OVER THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY COMPLETELY!

            The initial meddling in the problem made the problem WORSE than it was initially, but CERTAINLY, if they just take over the entire system, that will MAKE IT ALL BETTER!

            Yeah… lemme go get some Kool Aid…

            • You are attempting to put forth the argument against governemnt involvement in business. But I too have an example. What if one company was dumping toxic waste into your neighbourhood? For Instance Hooker Chemical dumped 21,000 tons of toxic waste into your neignbourhood. And let’s say one of your children developed epilepsy , also asthma, urinary tract infection and had a low white blood cell count.
              If there are no government controls on this, what you going to do?
              This is just an example to support the concept that (unfortunately) the government has to deal with such issues and put in place environmental laws to protect the citizens from businesses doing harm.
              I am sure all who visit this site wish liberty, prosperity, and good health. But maybe a more realistic strategy needs to be considered in order to march towards these goals.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Back in the Clinton Administration, the Government attempted to limit what Opthalmologists could charge medicare and medicaid recipients for a particular procedure.

                Some Doctors were charging $20,000 for this procedure, other Doctors were charging $15,000 for the same procedure, and yet others were only charging $10,000 for the procedure. Instead of coming in and mandating that doctors could charge no more than $12,500 for the procedure (for example) the Government instead simply mandated that ALL doctors cut what they were charging by 20%. Therefore, the Doctor charging $20,000 had to cut his charge down to $16,000, the Doctor charging $15,000 had to cut what he charged down to $12,000, and the Doctor who only charged $10,000 to begin with had to cut what he charged down to $8,000. Many of the Doctors that only charged $10,000 to begin with decided to discontinue offering this procedure to ANYONE (you cannot offer it to someone with private insurance and then NOT offer it to medicare/medicaid recipients, so NO ONE got it anymore from these Doctors) because it was no longer profitable for them if they could only charge $8,000 for the procedure.

                As a result, EVERYONE had to then go to Doctors who were charging $12,000 to $16,000 for this procedure. This ended up costing private insurers more money than it had in the past, and ended up costing the Government more than it had in the past.

        • Lets start with this:

          “12-15% unemployed”: OOMPAH

          “and the 50 million people who are uninsured”: BULLDOOKEY

          The fact you used these numbers tells me you are tied into the left wing propoganda machine. As the campaign of the last two years unfolded the uninsured number went from 20 million to 40 million, now 50 million.

          FACT: As of election time, Nov 08, there were an estimated 10 million poor people in this country who did not have insurance but wanted insurance. The other 30 million didn’t want it or are covered by existint programs like CHIP.

          You have obviously decided you prefer slavery, so enjoy it as best you can. I will not spend another minute trying to disuade you. Just don’t expect me to go along willingly.

          JAC

          • CanadianFox says:

            JAC, you are picking on the wrong person here. My wife has worked in ahospital at a very high level for almost 35 years. I will tell you that my numbers of uninsured are much more accurate than yours. But then again, I choose to live and function in a real world, not one created by FOX news blogs or right wing pundits with their own agendas.

            • USWeapon says:

              Silly CF… I think you sir, have picked the wrong group of people to spew liberal rhetoric to without any facts to back them up besides “my wife works in a hospital and told me so.” My mother has been a hospital administrator for 35 years as well, yet I don’t think I will use her as my reference for argument. I will do my own research. I suggest you do the same. And check for bias in your source, it may help you later. We welcome an argument based on facts, as soon as you present one.

              • This has turned into a one-sided argument. Those who chose to speak for a Republican agenda put forth little facts to bear up their argument. Or else they use unreliable sources such as FoxNews. But when an opposing argument is put forth, it is demanded they provide valid proof. Geez, there isn’t really a discussion on ideals and principles, it’s one side putting up a wall to defend their beliefs while ignoring any differences in opinion. Hopeless, this place is no better than FoxNews forum.

              • Interesting sentiment Dave. Yes the site tends to be a bit one sided. People like discussing things with those who do so honestly and respectfully, which is not what happens at Fox News Forums, mostly because liberal trolls come in and post horrible disrespectful things there. I don’t allow that here from either side. I am sorry you disregard Fox News as a source. i don’t, nor do I disregard any other news outlets as a source. But I verify what I say with far more than Fox News. In fact I don’t think I have used them as evidence once in all the time I have done this site.

                It is an interesting ploy to simply say “everyone here has biased sources, so I am not going to back up anything I say.” This is typical and why so many from your side don’t last long here. If you don’t like a source someone provided, then why not provide a better, less biased source that refutes them? If you can do that you win points here and people will listen to you. Otherwise we simply write you off as a bitter liberal not willing to engage in honest debate.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The United States was never desinged to be a “democracy”. It was designed to be a Constitutional (Representative) Republic.

      There is a huge difference between these forms of Government.

      Please understand this before attempting to frame an argument based upon our form of government being a “democracy”, which it was never intended to be.

    • Do you go to church or are you religious? Think about how long ago the Bible was written…

      • CanadianFox says:

        Terry, Was that question for me? No I do not go to church. I used to but it holds no special meaning for me today. And that is because today’s variety of religion is man-made. As far as being religious, that is an extremely subjective question that each person must answer for themselves. Not with a bunch of people who gather together one day out of the week and all think alike. That does not do it for me. It is also a great way to stop thinking for yourself. The creator gave me my mind to think with and I will always be thankful and exercise that option.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          CF
          What you just said let’s me know that you indeed do not understand “Religion”. I do go to church. I can tell you that even we who go to the same church do not think alike. And we still think for ourselves. We just all go to church for the same reason, to worship God. That is what Religion is all about.

  15. I love this site. I thought I was the only one that thought like me. Thank you to its creator. The way the regular media puts things, I was beginning to think I was a “Right Wing Extremist”. Just because I think differently than most democrats. Again, Thanks

    • Terry,

      I understand how you feel. If you pay really close attention, you learn a lot here too. These are some of the smartest people it has ever been my pleasure to be aquainted with.

    • I learn alot too! Did you know that you are now considered an “extremist”?

      • Kristian says:

        Yeah, I heard about that. Fun isn’t it? Kinda makes you wonder what the hell they’re gonna come up with next.

    • I love this site too……and I felt just like you until I found it. I know I don’t comment much, but I certainly enjoy the learning. Thanks, USW et.al.

    • There are evidently 2 of us…this is the first post I have seen from another Terry…

    • Welcome aboard! Always delighted to have more opinions thrown into the mix, makes for an excellent conversation. I learn something new everyday on this site and there are some incredibly intelligent folks on this site, always willing to discuss the things they have found, discuss others ideas and concerns. If you don’t believe what others do, no sweat and no problem, we all discuss our own personal sides and come to our own decisions on what we believe. It’s truly an enlightening experience.

      Keep it up guys and gals!

  16. Well now, It seems that Department of Homeland Security has decided that I am an “extremist” because I am “stockpiling” ammo and food. I am also a veteran with skills they are concerned with, that being a weapons technician and accomplished marksman. This current Administration has yet to do or say anything that I can agree with. How can this March to Socialism equate to me being compared to a terrorist? If this is what socialism is, then it is a cancer, and it needs to be erradicated.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hi G-Man…

      Yes, I saw an article about that…

      If the brownshirts come around, I’m going to lie and tell them that it is my hurricane preparation. Not sure how I can explain the weapons though (even though they aren’t supposed to be maintaining a list of my weapon purchases).

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Weapons? What Weapons? Oh those. You know some theif broke in and stole all of them! Dang nasty Methheads! I swear those folks will steal the pennies off a dead man’s eyes!

        Give you any ideas RS?

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hi Esom…

          Well, I was thinking about “selling” them. I’ve considered the “stolen” deal, but since I am a law-abiding citizen, how would I explain that I didn’t report them being stolen.

          Wish I had a winky smiley face to paste!

          Regards,
          RS

          • esomhillgazette says:

            Why didn’t I report it? Well. It’s not like you guys are going to catch them is it? What would have been the use in reporting it? I can give you the Serial numbers if you really think it would do some good! wink! wink!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Echelon?

    • I guess I’m an extremist too. Same boat as you RS! Former military, stocking on weapons and ammo. I do not plan to sit idly by for this fight, and I believe it is coming. Soon.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Tongue in cheek?

        I only suggest you guys take a big giant step backwards and ask yourself – does this sound even a little peculiar? Stockpiling weapons, ammunition, ready to fight…..

        Rings of a Randy Weaver, or David Koresh

        Scary stuff

        Think anyone is watching this?

        • Personally I don’t own a gun, at all. And that isn’t for anyone watching, that is the truth. If the world turns upside down I will have no trouble procuring one. But I have not owned a gun since I left the military. I can do OK without one.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I only suggest for my comrades on this board to consider discretion in expressing thoughts when it comes to passionately sharing your political views, your dislike of the CIC all while describing your personal arsenal. That’s all. 🙂

            • esomhillgazette says:

              Well Ray, as I understand it, the 2nd Amendment allowas all us citizens the right to own as many guns with as much ammo as we want to. So Far.

              And if dislike of the President is against the law, they sure as hell didn’t enforce it when Bush was President did they? They’d have had to arrest nearly the whole Nation! Of course, I guess they might enforce such a law now that The Messiah is President.

              Notice though that NO ONE has threatened the CIC. Nor would we.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Easy there – an interpretation of the 2nd allows one to think the FF had in mind that we should amass large supplies of weaponry for when a mistaken threat comes forth. I was merely offering a helpful suggestion to consider how much information about your weapons stores is shared when the emotion of these political discourses gets spun up. There is always someone watching.

            • esomhillgazette says:

              And I don’t own any more guns than I have for 20 years. 2 Deer Rifles, 1 1905 Win .22, and a double barrel .20 gauge.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

          The text of the Declaration of Independence states that is is our right and our duty to throw off a Government that has evinced a design to reduce us under absolute despotism.

          Patriotism is not blind support for one’s Government. Patriotism is a dedication to the Rights of Man, ordained by the Creator, to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If the Government is infringing upon these Rights, it is our right and our duty as Patriotic Citizens to throw off that Government.

          It is not the freedom-loving people who are dangerous to the Government. Rather, it is the Government which is a danger to freedom-loving people. Thomas Jefferson understood this. It is highly unfortunate that today, Thomas Jefferson would be seen as a radical right-wing extremist with tendencies to become a domestic terrorist threat.

  17. Black Flag says:

    First comment, more coming..(of course);

    The Civil War was fought over a horse.

    The mad Roman emperor Caligula had his horse made a consul. This act had a distant echo in Lincoln’s fateful decision of 1861: Confederate troops at Fort Sumter fired on Union forces, killing a single horse, and Lincoln took the occasion to launch a war that killed over 600,000 young men. I think we may consider Lincoln’s horse amply avenged.

  18. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    In the view of the Honorable President Barack Hussein Obama, the vast majority of us on this site probably are seen as a “terrorist threat” and “right-wing extremists”. You see, we do not agree with his “vision” which he wishes to become our reality.

    Opposition to a totalitarian government by those seeking freedom is necessarily seen as treason (Just ask Joe Stalin). We are not quite a totalitarian government yet, but we are being rapidly steered in that direction; therefore, those in opposition are not yet seen as traitors, merely a potential domestic terrorist threat.

    People who can think for themselves (and advocate that others attempt to think for themselves as well) are very dangerous to totalitarian governments.

    Articles like the one that recently came out about the increasing domestic terror threat from “right wing extremists” are JUST THE BEGINNING of the propaganda you are going to see from this government in the next 3.5 years.

    • In less than 100 days, most of us have gone from hard working, tax paying, patriotic Americans, to “Right Wing Extremists” and “Radicals”. I don’t know how you feel about that, but it pisses me off to no end. Maybe they want a war.

    • CanadianFox says:

      PeterB, I realize I am going back in the past for this one but I think it applies: “Methinks that doth protest too much”. Be careful what you wish for, you just might be creating a “self-fulfilling prohecy” with that train of thought. I do not see things that gloomy at all. Not as long as we stay engaged properly.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        It is my sincere hope that if we stay “engaged properly” things will not be nearly as gloomy as what I made them out to be in that post; sadyly, however, I feel that far too many people are currently watching Entertainment Tonight and have absolutely no clue how to be “engaged properly” when it comes to truly important issues.

        It is easy to paint thinking, freedom-loving people as right-wing extremists to the general population of sheeple that get their sound-bites on the nightly “news” and actually believe that it IS news.

        Maybe I am being too pessimistic… I hope I am!

        • CanadianFox says:

          PeterB, take hope. I recently saw a statistic tht said approximately 70% of people have never watched American Idol (close to Entertainment Tonight).

    • Friends, take this quote to heart.

      “In the beginning, a patriot is a scarce man, hated, feared and scorned, but in time the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” -Mark Twain

  19. JayDickB says:

    Good post/discussion.

    I have never understood Lincoln’s logic that states could not secede. If they formed and voluntarily joined the union, why couldn’t they leave it?

    I have never seen the pre-civil war history laid out this well. I had heard that tariffs that helped the north were an issue, but I had never heard that South Carolina nearly seceded in 1832.

    The concepts of freedom and liberty are fundamental to our country. The principles described in the constitution are meant to ensure freedom and liberty and therefor it will never be obsolete. Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional, in my view.

    • J… I was curious about Lincoln’s logic as well. A few quotes from his speech to Congress July 4, 1861

      The entire speech is available:
      http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/lincoln.htm

      It is an interesting read.

      • sorry lost my quotes

        And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic or democracy — a Government of the people, by the same people — can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, according to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their Government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: “Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness?” “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?”


        The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. They have assumed to make a national constitution of their own, in which, of necessity, they have either discarded or retained the right of secession, as, they insist, it exists in ours. If they have discarded it, they thereby admit that on principle it ought not to be in ours. If they have retained it by their own construction of ours, they show that to be consistent they must secede from one another whenever they shall find it the easiest way of settling their debts or effecting any other selfish or unjust object. The principle itself is one of disintegration and upon which no Government can possibly endure.

        If all the States save one should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon States rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called “driving the one out,” should be called “the seceding of the others from that one,” it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to the power which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself “We, the people.”

        It may well be questioned whether there is to-day a majority of the legally qualified voters of any State, except, perhaps, South Carolina, in favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men are the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called seceded States. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any one of them. It is ventured to affirm this, even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result of an election, held in military camps, where the bayonets are all on one side of the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as demonstrating popular sentiment. At such an election all that large class who are, at once, for the Union and against coercion would be coerced to vote against the Union.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

          No matter how many safeguards were built into the Government by the Constitution, it is perhaps inevitable that the Government amass more and more power over time, and grow into a mostrous behemoth.

          If there were accountability in Government where laws and taxes could be reviewed, modified, and/or repealed on a regular basis, this would probably at least slow down the inexorable march towards tyranny, but it is doubtful that the march towards tyranny would actually ever be fully reversed or stopped. Yes there have been SOME laws and taxes that have been repealed, but these are precious few, and certainly NOT the norm.

          There seems to be an unfortunate dichotomy within the human spirit where we wish for freedom and liberty while we simultaneously long for someone else to control us so that we do not have to take responsibility for our actions.

  20. I agree about being ‘properly engaged’. However, I am becoming frustrated by folks that just refuse to have a discussion by just dismissing anyone that doesn’t agree with them…..or worse yet, devaluing the other person with labels. That is normally a tactic by folks that think only they know what’s best [aka narcissists]. I think that’s one of the reasons I like this site so much. People generally back their opinions with facts and for the most part remain respectful doing so.

  21. esomhillgazette says:

    Great Article! I think we are already well down the road to Socialism US. Maybe to far down it to turn it around. This plan of the Liberal masses has been a long time in the planning and implementation. It has been so slowly introduced over the years that almost none of us saw it happening. I will readily admit that I sure as hell didn’t! But happily for me, mt eyes are wide open now. Unhappily, they may have opened too late. It seems to me that we are a small minority in a flood of left-leaning ideology, and hatred for those of us who refuse to give up the freedom we are supposed to be guaranteed in our Constitution.

    It continually astounds me that Liberal Wackos (not you Ray) actually believe that WE are the ones who are wrong. I say “not you Ray” because, while I do consider you a Liberal, I don’t consider you a Wacko. That name I reserve for those who do the “hit and run” attacks on this site and others. All they can do is spit venom and hate, and then hop back off without giving a shred of evidence for their position. You and a couple of others will stay in and try to reason back and forth with us and for that I can only say you have my RESPECT. Let me also say that while I believe that you are sincere; you are sincerely wrong. LOL! Just kidding. You have brought out some interesting points several times in your comments. We don’t often agree, but that’s OK. I don’t always agree with my fellow Conservatives on here either.

    Being 45 and from Georgia, and a severe History Buff. I know intimately the history of the War of Northern Agression. I have said for years that the Civil War was not about Slavery until almost the end of it. I am apparently right at that line where Socialism was beginning to be taught in the School Systems as the way the Country is supposed to be. If you read School History books today, most will declare that the Civil War was ALL about Slavery and only lightly mentions State’s Rights. My Son has been shouted down by fellow students for protesting that view. Both of my sons know the truth because I have shown and told them the truth about the War. They have seen the comments made by Lincoln regarding the Slavery issue. But they are not allowed to voice their opinions in class because of ignorance on the part of Students, but more on the part of the Teachers who teach them!

    I was, unfortunately for me, unable to go the Tea Party. I wish I could have been there, but it wasn’t possible. I am watching the coverage on FoxNews right now. Amazing that no one else is covering them. There are literally THOUSANDS of people at every one Fox has shown. Hmmmmmm! Conspiracy Theories are crawling across the back of my mind again! Exactly how can they possibly be ignoring this?

    Peace Out
    EHG

    • JayDickB says:

      I was educated in the ’50s and I was also taught that the civil war was all about slavery. States’ rights were mentioned briefly, but only as a vehicle to continue slavery.

  22. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi all,

    I just got back from the Richmond, VA Tea Party. They estimated that approximately 5,000 people were there. Please note…it was rainy and cold, due to this, my parents did not go. I imagine that if the weather were nicer, then many more would have shown up. Saw a few “Acorn” type of people…but they were way, way, way outnumbered. I am so happy to say that it was a peaceful environment! I cautioned the two teenagers with me (19 & 17) to not act idiotic in anyway…to not give any news outlet a chance to portray this as anything other than what it was…I was very proud of them! We met my mother and father-in-law there…they were very excited! It all seemed very well organized — kudos to the planners!

    One of the speakers did a great job of helping us understand what the 17 trillion dollars was. She said that scientists tell us that there are approximately 200 Billion stars in the Milky Way. If every dollar was used to buy a star, then we would approximately own 55 Milky Ways.

    *** 17 Trillion Dollars ***

    That doesn’t take up much space on your screen, does it? Imagine 55 times the stars when you look up into the sky…Don’t know about you Radical Terrorists here, but that sure does put this here Radical Terrorist in awe!

    Kind regards to all,

    RS

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Oopsss…Forgot to mention…

      The speakers did a great job of commending the audience on taking a first step and addressed the “Now What” can I do to continue to momentum. Small leaflets were passed around referencing a website for what we can do to keep the momentum going. That website is:

      http://www.aftertheteaparty.com

      Bye,
      RS

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Need to edit my post…please replace “Terrorist” with “Extremist”.

      Thanks!

      • esomhillgazette says:

        RS, Why worry about it? The Obamatons will be calling us all “Terrorists” soon enough anyway. We’re never going to be a part of their vision for America. The sad part is that neither are a lot who think they will be.

        P.S. I am watching the Tea Party in the ATL now.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hey Esom…

          Well I worry because I would be devasted to cost my gracious host, US Weapon or any of his kind posters any undue stress or angst!

          I wasn’t paying attention and didn’t really proof my initial post very well…

          US Weapon and other posters here…please do accept my sincere apologies on my poor choice of a word.

          As always, kind regards to all,
          RS

          • esomhillgazette says:

            RS, if they will call you a Terrorist, US, JAC, LOI, G.A., G-Man, me and others don’t have a prayer of avoiding that classification to begin with.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      What is an “acorn type person”?

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi Ray,

        To me, an “acorn” type is a person who comes to a demonstration with then intent to disrupt/interfere in a variety of ways. Last night at the Richmond Tea Party, there was one that was driving around the plaza honking her horn over and over. That is all that I meant.

        BTW Ray…your “cautionary” post re: 2nd Amend is appreciated. Although we as Americans have “free speech”, your point of who may be watching is very valid and should be taken seriously — I personally am not interested in “getting in trouble”…Yes, I am an angry person right now over what is going on in Washington, but I am a reasonable and law-abiding person — sometimes I allow my anger to speak before I think about it…I need to be whipped with a wet noodle. Since 911, people have been prosecuted for making silly jokes before getting on airplanes (I’m sure there are many other scenarios too).

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Much as I may not agree with some of the prevailing thought here – someone honking their horn at one of the tea parties is simply a disrespectful idiot. Should have their car horn forcibly removed.

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            Ray,

            I agree, it is disrepectful. I’ll also wear the Devil’s Advocate hat on myself and point out that I don’t know for sure if the woman doing this was even “against” the Tea Parties; she could have been “for” the Tea Parties and it was her way of being supportive…I’ll never know though!

            Maybe you hit upon the appropriate word — disrespectful. In MY mind (when thinking about activism “manners”), I equate that with Acorn, because I feel that Acorn is “disrepectful” towards me as an American for their fraud (albeit a few Acorn members, not all) breaking Voter Registration Laws. I don’t like nor do I approve of their methods of Activism towards their goals.

            In addition, I feel that Acorn is disrespectful towards me (axpayers) by pushing/coercing banks/mortgage lenders (via CRA Law) into making predatory loans that really should not have been made because the borrower could not in reality afford them. I am all for home ownership for everyone provided they can afford the home that they are attempting to buy. My first home was very small and not in the greatest neighborhood, but it was what I could afford and it was all that my lender felt I could afford.

            At that time, there were none (that I was aware of) of these “strange” (i.e. predatory)loans. Banks/Mortgage lenders do need to accept responsibility, but if it weren’t for CRA and organizations such as Acorn, I don’t believe that these bad lending practices would have come into play (or at least the sheer volume of them). Culpability does exist on the part of corporations for developing/investing the housing deriviatives…which to me does equate to “Bad” Risk on their part.

            I also believe that Acorn’s agenda is socialist-driven, which I am against. Sorry…got off subject a bit!

            I guess you could safely say that overall, I’m against Acorn (which includes their activism “manners”) — maybe that’s why I equate “disrespectful” with Acorn.

            Respectfully,
            RS

          • How do you know they’re not honking in support? Straight to the MORON line.

    • And your point is? The only thing you’ve demonstrated here is that you find it difficult to comprehend Very Large Numbers. Poor you. To the moron line.

  23. esomhillgazette says:

    US,
    This is a little off topic, but have you seen the “Global Poverty Act”?

    This bill was sponsored in the Senate by then Senator Obama, and fast tracked through committee by then Senator Biden. At this time it is DOA, but it is not forgotten by now President Obama. This bill, if passed, will make the U.S. and the Constitution SUBORDINATE to the United Nations and require us to send a mandated world tax to them to combat global poverty. On top of what we already give!

    Our Constitution would instantly become a worthless piece of paper. Bill of Rights and ALL. I posted an article on this on my site.

    I really, really wish I could have gone to one of the Tea Parties! But judging from what I saw on Fox, there will be more opportunities. Despite what the Liberal Morons say.

    • I’m thinking DC on July 4th? We can have a “Stand Up for America” reunion and I’ll bring some Wisconsin cheese, beer and brats!

      • esomhillgazette says:

        I’ll bring the Sweet Tea for us who don’t drink. And the Onion Rolls for the Brats Kathy.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Instead of Washington DC on July 4th, I propose Keystone, South Dakota on July 4th. I hear that the fireworks above Mount Rushmore are spectacular!

        Plus, Western SD is far more representative of America than anything found on the East Coast anymore!

    • Esom,
      Surely our congress is not stupid enough to pass this….are they????? Seems like there was some other UN acts that required a subordinate US and we would not agree to them. If our congress does this they should all be immediately impeached. Sad thing is the UN makes the acts look so good and if you do not agree to them then you are against, kids or homosexuals or helping the poor. All the UN wants is for the US to give all its power to them….so they can rule the world.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Amazed, Remember this Bill was SPONSORED by the men who are now our President and Vice President. I don’t THINK it would pass, but then I didn’t think a lot of the Bills that have passed recently would either. Go to my Blog site and read the article and then go to the web and look up the Bill. And yes. There are other Bills out there giving the UN power over our Nation.

        Judging by Obamas past performance so far, do you think he is likely to give up selling his Country out now? He sure didn’t mind when he was just a Senator. I hate to sound paranoid, but this is giving me the creeps something awful!

        • JayDickB says:

          1. Don’t ever underestimate what the congress might do, or at least try to do.

          2. Does anyone think membership in the U.N. is a net plus for the USA? I don’t. There may be some plusses (although I can’t think of any real quick) but there are some huge minusses.

    • Pony up, moron. Where’s the reference? First of all, if it hasn’t been passed it’s not an act. Where is the text of the bill? Where is the reference to its being proposed in Congress? Where are the cited passages showing this appalling and incredibly, amazingly simple giving away of American sovereignty?
      No, don’t bother. You can’t come up with them. You know why? Because you’re a MORON who has drunk Glenn Beck’s coolaid.

  24. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    We the Sheeple, in order to have a perfect union, do whatever the Government says we should do… vilify the common defense, accept Government Welfare and eschew the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our Posterity do defame and denigrate the Constitution of the United States of America.

    The Preamble to the “New Constitution” of the USSA.

  25. OK, its time someone made the point about the original subject matter.

    USW your point that the Civil War was about commerce and not about slavery is only correct if you use 1860 as the reference point.

    It is my hypothesis that had slavery been abolished in 1787, or 20 yrs later as envisioned by the founders, the civil war would never have happened.

    Of course, then These United States may not have happened.

    Does anyone remember why the states convened a meeting of delegates, that led to the new constitution?

    It was problems with interstate commerce. They realized there was some regulation needed at federal level to prevent trade wars among themselves. The delegates then concluded the whole thing (Articles of Confederation) should be thrown out and replaced.

    JAC

    • revolution2010 says:

      JAC,
      I have missed you! There were many issues that this nation dealt with through the years and the true history cannot be a civics class in 9th grade to cover it with any semblence of accuracy. I find myself more interested in reading about the Nation’s early history the more I find out about it.
      I feel a little betrayed by the educational system and in some ways used. My hope above all else is that all of the people who are waking up will ensure that they are teaching their children the truth of America’s history. Even if we should turn this around, that should be an oral history that resounds at every Thanksgiving dinner and New Years Day luncheon to keep it alive.
      I often hear people refer to the fact that they want to make sure their families heritage is taught and they are usually reffering to an ethnic(Italian, Irish, German) tradition or a religeous (Catholic, Jewish, Mormon) ritual which has been practiced in their family for years. My husband and I have decided that since our great Nation has survived as long as it has, the heritage that belongs to our children is that one that was written by their grandparents and great grandparents. To keep it alive in our home and celebrate the longest living Republic in history is a point of pride that no one else can claim.
      Great to see you again and will look forward to chatting about the history and the future.

      • Rev: Nice to see you back. I hope your other endevours are going well.

        You are so right about not having enough time in schools to teach it all. I do think they could do better though. We really don’t challenge young minds to the extent we could.

        We made sure ours were exposed to a more complete history at home. We did that by talking about things and working in the lessons whereever possible. This included family stories as well. I personally think the TV is part of our problem. When you don’t have one you usually read, play games or just talk. It is amazing what hours of cribbage with your kids will do for their problem solving and addition skills.

        My daughter and I discussed history education just last night. I pointed out that when I went to school they only taught us the good things the US did, never the whole story. By the time she went to school it was mostly about the bad stuff. Maybe someday the pendulum will stop and they will teach both. What an interesting concept. Citizens who can evaluate both the pro and con of a decision because they have a more accurate historical perspective to draw from.

        Hope all is well.
        JAC

        • Revolution2010 says:

          JAC,
          Good to see you too. My other endevours are indeed proceeding as planned. There is a lot of work to do, but I like initiation by fire!
          I LOVE Cribbage! Great that you play with your kids. I also agree about the TV. I sometimes considdering throwing ours out and probably would have if the Orioles and Ravens would not be the cause of a divorce, LOL.
          In my house, many evenings were spent around a fireplace eating dinner and talking, playing games and while there were a few shows we watched together as a family, that was the extent of TV (and Saturday morning cartoons, which I considdered to be educational… because they were back then! Long live Looney Tunes!)
          Every American should be as vigilant and perhaps it has come to a place where that will again become important… after all, they don’t even write stories as good as the ones that came out of our history!
          The pendulum will swing again, and if I have my way it may do a full circle because it will just have that much momentum.
          Good to see you, I will e-mail you soon.

  26. michaelg says:

    I just found your site and find it both intelligent and challenging, especially your views on the causes of the Civil War. To say that “Lincoln cared not about slavery” is an oversimplification. He cared about it very much, which is easily shown by other of his writings, rather than the 2 famous ones you provide. And though I agree that most people in the North did not consider the War a crusade to end slavery, the fact remains that the Confederate states included slavery in their arguments over states rights, usually vehemently so, and the annoyance they felt over Northern interference in this “right” was one of the primary reasons they themselves gave for secession.

    I consider myself a Libertarian in most things, but I will not automatically assume that states rights are holy, especially considering what those rights have historically meant in some cases.

  27. Your foundation, process and conclusions are spot on. I eagerly anticipate the continuation of this series.

  28. wow this is really boring

  29. It’s not boring. It’s appalling. Morons talking to morons talking to morons talking to morons. None of whom have the slightest idea what they’re talking about. So your ‘school’ only taught you the ‘good things’? Read a book, why don’t you? The record is there, good, bad indifferent for everyone one to see. You are sheep if you simply sit and bleat that your high school history teacher didn’t feed it all to you. Go out and educate yourselves, you half-wits.

    • Garp,

      You claim that the “we” haven’t a slightest idea.

      Yet, you provide nothing to contrast it. Therefore, your offering of zero is less than anyone else’s of anything.

  30. Anyone ever notice how CONservatives start spouting off about the Constitution when they are not in power. But of course once in power they trample all over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What a farce.

    Didn’t see all the wingnuts going crazy when G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney were busy really destroying freedom with the Patriot Act. Or how about when they were illegally spying on U.S. citizens using corporations. Where were you “freedom lovers”? Oh, that is right… You were all busy drinking the cool-aide and calling everyone traitors who didn’t agree with the fascism of the Bush Administration.

    Fools, the REAL damage is already done, thanks to Bush Co. and their stolen presidency.

    What is going on now? Oh that is right. They are trying to get uninsured Americans covered so they may not die from no medical care. What you call socialism.

    Where were you guys when Bush Co. was torturing innocent people to death?

    Your fascism makes me sick.

    • Emotional rhetoric that is not based in reality. You have no idea where anyone reading this site stands on the Patriot Act, obviously. But thanks for your attempt at reason. Sorry you just fell a bit short.

      • Typical basic reply meant to deflect what was the true intent of my post. Like most non-reality based people, you attempted to project your own detachment from reality onto me.

        Please show how the reality of Bush Co. torturing people to death is emotional. How is the truth emotional? Oh I see… because I put it in a way that doesn’t rationalize the crime so that others who agreed with this tactic can feel better about themselves, makes it emotional. LOL

        I am sure the four P.O.W.s beat to death by the handle of a hammer weren’t thinking “this guy is sure having an emotional response”.

  31. LOL! do you really think that ‘one blogger’ is the best source for someone who ‘wants to know about socialism’? Why don’t you just have ‘moron’ tatood on your forehead?

  32. Garp,

    Insults make your arguments completely menial.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Finally, if you want to know about socialism: one blogger has written about America’s march towards socialism. There are two parts: part 1 and part 2. […]

%d bloggers like this: