Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Guilt of the 4 Isms
Original | 10-26-06 | Forest Glen Durland

Posted on 10/26/2006 12:56:04 PM PDT by forest

Guilt of the Four Isms  

 Democrat = Socialist = Communist = Fascist

A study of the Democratic, Socialist, Communist and Fascist National Party Platforms reveals striking similarities. Put another way, Democratism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism have common objectives. For purposes here, they are the same in that they all support a democracy and support the severe altering of the Constitution of the United States. Socialism is incorporated by all of them. They will be referred to as the “four isms”; the “Notorious 4 Isms”, as it were.

It requires little thought to assume that candidates running on the platforms of the Notorious 4 Isms recommend a democratic form of government and do not accept the Constitution of the United States. This presents a dangerous problem to be elucidated here.

 

Now for the reasoning that sets the record straight.

 

History has shown that the four isms decay into totalitarianism, which is a police state, which is a dictatorship. Those forms of jurisdiction destroy the government they infect. A Democratic form of government “gives the store away”. Well aware of these dangers, the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that created a Republic.

Both Hayek and Kuehnelt-Leddihn explained that as the 4 isms mature, they decay into such a state of affairs that governing them requires tactics which respectful people will not employ. But apparently disrespectful leaders by then have assumed sufficient power to enable them to do what is necessary to save their government. Thus, a police state is created. The Founding Fathers did their best to steer us away from that fatal trap.

Instituting the platforms of the four isms will require altering our Constitution that has stood tall over the centuries. This fact brings the loyalty of the candidates of the 4 isms to question.

Candidates running for government offices have a legal obligation to support the Constitution of the United States. Since this fact is not revealed by those involved, their underlying political platforms will be exposed here.

Upon assuming office, all state and federal candidates are required by Article VI of the Constitution of the United States to take an oath of office in which they must swear (or affirm) to support the Constitution of the United States. The point made here is that those candidates will violate their oaths of office if they attempt to install any one of the four isms: Democratism, Socialism, Communism or Fascism. This will be a very serious crime.

Continuing, the Supreme Court of the United States has cited the Federalist Papers as a definitive document for the Constitution of the United States.

That makes those Federalist Papers an integral part of (if not integral, certainly a vital link to) the Constitution of the United States. It is probable that few public servants even know what the Federalist Papers are, or who wrote them, or why. They do not know the law of the land they are to govern. This is an alarming situation, especially if they do not even care.

The importance of the former paragraph lies in the knowledge of the fatal nature of a Democracy. On page after page in the Federalist Papers, the Founding Fathers made it very clear that our country was never intended to be a Democracy, but rather, a Republic guaranteed by a Constitution -- a Constitutional Republic. In the Federalist Papers they discussed the historical failure of democratic forms of government resulting from “giving the store away”, etc. That form of government simply implodes. The Founding Fathers did NOT favor democracies.

Reasoning further, a federal law, Misprision of Felony, mandates that any citizen of the United States who is aware of a felony must report same to authorities. Destruction of the Constitution of the United States is certainly a felony. It is also sedition, and probably treason, punishable by death. (In the early days of our country, they took traitors out and shot them.)

Concerning responsibility, a 1945 California case set a precedent that responsible persons “could have known and should have known”, a precedent dating all the way back to Abraham Lincoln. Candidates for political office have no excuse not to have known.

The platforms for the 4 isms promise extensive health care. (I thought that was called socialized medicine.) But nothing is said about who is to pay for it. Nothing is said about the fact that several other countries that have comprehensive health care programs are in serious financial trouble.

In their varying discussions about taxes in the platforms of the 4 isms, no mention is made about the fact that not one, thin dime of IRS income tax money ever reaches Congress to pay the bills. 1/3 is lost, 1/3 is wasted, and the 1/3 that is collected goes to pay interest only on the national debt. So much for federal government efficiency. And that remaining 1/3 probably goes to the owners of the Fed -- the Federal Reserve System. We don’t even own our own national banking system. That should tell somebody something.

Nor is any word given to the fact that the IRS is unconstitutional. Nor does anyone on the Left mention that the IRS has no authority to enforce, yet they purchase munitions a million bucks a pop.

Not yet recognized by the Left is Griffin’s ‘Creature from Jekyll Island’. Chapter ten, ‘Mandrake Mechanism’, explains that government financing in Congress does not even need the IRS. It is a separate operation. The IRS exists to keep the people poor and busy trying to make a leaving, thus keeping them “out of the back room” where the massive fraud machine operates. Congressman George Hansen called it correctly with the title of his book on the IRS: ‘To Harass Our People’. His book tells first hand about the Big Brother tactics of the IRS.

Summarily, then, it is highly probable that any and all government servants -- certainly those in politics -- who adhere to the platforms of the Notorious 4 Isms -- the Democratic Party, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and/or the Fascist Party -- are guilty of sedition, and quite possibly treason; and, upon election, guilty of violation of Oath of Office.

That is existing law. And violations are very serious.

Of dire seriousness, the silence on this subject by the Left is vociferously ominous.

A point to remember: Congress does not act; Congress reacts. It is time for people to stand and be heard.

 

Forest Glen Durland

October, 2006

**************************************************************

*************************************************************  

Guilt of the Four Isms  

 Democrat = Socialist = Communist = Fascist

Documentation

Afterview

 

Let’s repeat the Pledge of Allegiance: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands. ..." Did I hear all the Left chiming in? The Democratic Party Summary quotes the last part of the Pledge, but not the republic part.

Should you think this country is still free -- right quick, tell me three areas of your life that are not regulated. . . . I didn't think you could. That should tell somebody something.

Now play the ‘Sound of Music’. That tells what a family man thought about Hitler and his war.

For a realistic vision of what the possible coming totalitarian state will be like, read GO 84 -- George Orwell’s ‘1984’. After talking with Congressman George Hansen, it is apparent that Big Brother has been around for a long time, and he’s brutally mean. George told me personally what federal agents did to him. It is worth some serious thought, Folks.

To my utter surprise and alarm, President Bush and his newly appointed Justice of the United States, Justice Sam Alito, continue to refer to our Constitutional Republic as a Democracy. Even historian Newt Gingrich used the D word. Is this usage randomly incidental, unconcerned or covert? It does cause one to ponder about the direction of our country.

At the time of the writing of this paper, most of the democrats in Congress are card-carrying Socialists, belonging to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Socialists International (SI) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). All three are linked together and, as explained above, spell the destruction of our form of government. For our purposes here, the Socialist Party, the DSA, the SI and the CPC are one and the same, since their goals are the same. They are included with Socialism in the 4 isms.

Of more that casual interest, Marx’s financial support come from capitalist sources. There would probably never have been Socialism and Communism had it not been for free capitalist marks and dollars. In 1989 Marxism was bankrupt. [Smile] [See Kuehnelt-Leddihn]

In presenting this paper, due apologies are extended to those members of the Democratic Party and Rinos who were unaware of what they were actually representing. Nonetheless, their lack of this knowledge is inexcusable. They now must take advantage of this opportunity to correct their goals in a sincere effort to save this great nation for our issue. (Issue means our kids and grandkids.) Politicians have no excuse not to know. They could have known and should have known, precedent set in a 1945 California case and dating all the way back to Abraham Lincoln.

Taking the first letters from the names, we come up with "SCOTUS" for the Supreme Court of the United States and COTUS for the Constitution of the United States. Add Fed Ps for the Federalist Papers and Def Doc for definitive document. Now we can say,

Scotus has cited the Fed Ps as a Def Doc for Cotus.

That is a sentence critical to the very survival of our Constitutional Republic.

The author does not imply that the Republican Party is perfect. He does state that the parties of the Notorious 4 Isms are NOT acceptable.

 

Forest Glen Durland

October, 2006

***********************************************************

 

Definitions

to help readers comprehend the deep meaning in this paper

anarchism - the theory that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.

aristocrat - a member of the nobility

ConRep - Constitutional Republic as defined in the U.S. Constitution.

ConRep Party - Political party suggested by Forest Glen Durland to support the American Republic guaranteed by the American Constitution.

ConRepism - following the U.S. Constitution, which is respected as the law of the land, especially in our court system and federal government. (Term invented by Forest.) The Rule of Law as defined by Hayek is respected and observed.

DINO - Democrat In Name Only

ecclesiastical - pertaining to church

efficacy - efficient in getting the result intended

effusive - unrestrained or excessive in emotional expression; gushy

egalitarian - An adherent of the doctrine of equal political, economic and legal rights for all human beings.

epigones - second rate followers

existentialism - A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for consequences of one’s acts.

factious - disloyal or turbulent

issue - descendants; kids ‘n grandkids

Marquis de Sade - the grandfather of modern democracy. (Leftism Revisited 46)

nascent - coming into being.

nihilist - one who supports a doctrine that all values are baseless and that nothing is knowable or can be communicated; ejection of value; the belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

palpable - readily received by any of the senses

polity - republic; the rule of the better part of the people in the interest of the common good.

RINO - Republican In Name Only

sedition - insurrection; destroying the Constitution of the United States in our usage here

transcendental - minimizing the importance or denying the reality of sense experience; intuitive

 

***********************************************************

 

Documentation for Guilt of the Four Isms

Note of Explanation

 

Formal usage was altered slightly to adapt to email and the Internet. The main deviation was the use of single quotes to replace italics and bold.

Documentation here is paraphrased and abbreviated. Sources are shown for you edification. This paper has been posted on the Internet where full, detailed documentation is at your fingertips.

The documentation draws heavily from ‘Leftism Revisited’. One must exert care not to lift bleeding statements out of the body of Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s well worded paragraphs. Likewise for the Federalist Papers.

It is more than casually interesting to note that both Marx and Hitler realized their goals by organizing and uniting the working masses. With the destructive collapse of Socialism in Italy, Mussolini had the support of most classes. It is unfathomable that American democrats today can foster, in their actions, a repetition of the dismal and catastrophic failures of twentieth century politics. History seems to indicate that people forget every fifty years. Should one expect politicians, as humble public servants, to remember longer?

Both Marx and Hitler were filled with hate in childhood.

Too much Leftist influence has already happened with three disastrous pieces of legislation in 1913: the 16th Amendment authorizing income tax (which has been ruled as no change by the Supreme Court), the 17th Amendment authorizing the direct election of U.S. Senators (which destroys a vital states right), and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (which is unconstitutional). Add the 14th Amendment that makes children born here automatic citizens (which has overpopulated our nation with children of illegal immigrants).

 

***********************************************************

 

Documentation

for

Guilt of the Four Isms

 

For the Internet links, enter your key word and run a search. Shortened words are used to catch more. Use the same keywords for all 4 isms for comparison.

1. The 4 isms are similar.

Democratism

Keywords = democr (that will catch them all), social, pledge, tax, health, control, government, planks, nongov, health, wages, salar, ethics, school, homo, sex, internat, multinational, military, immigrants

Democratic Party Platform Summary <http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php>

2004 Democratic Party Platform <http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf>

 

DSA = Democratic Socialists of America. This is the Socialist Party. Most Democrats in Congress belong.

DSA. Where We Stand. The Political Perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America.

<http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html#global>

 

DSA Constitution

<http://www.dsausa.org/archive/Docs/DSA%20Constitution.pdf>

 

SI. Socialists International. Most Democrats in Congress belong.

<http://www.socialdemocrats.org/>

<http://www.socialistinternational.org/1What/info.html>

 

SI. Declaration of Principles.

<http://www.socialistinternational.org/4Principles/dofpeng2.html#freedom>

 

The Democratic Party Platform is rather humorous. They tell all about all the things they are going to do about terrorism, but I seem to remember them criticizing Bush for doing those same things. They even had the gall to criticize Bush’s handling of North Korea after Clinton’s total failure there. I thought Clinton supplied Jong with everything to make nukes, leaving Bush with the chore of dealing with it now.

They speak honorably of the democracies in Europe. Perhaps no one told them they had all failed.

They promise a better health system (socialized medicine) and medicare , but fail to say who will pay. Meantime, health systems in other countries are experiencing serious financial problems. They promise lower taxes, but do not say who will pay for all their other promises.

They speak of healthy families. That is good.

They speak of smaller classes and higher teacher salaries, which is good, but fail to say who will pay.

They will restore ethics in government. They should after Clinton. But another Clinton approaches.

They speak of voting ethics. I wonder if they remember what they did in the past. I remember a few things in California. Then there is Detroit and their graveyard voters.

 

***********************************************************

 

(CPA) Communist Party USA

<http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13>

Keywords. goals, poverty, hunger, rule, private, racism, anti, women, wealth, renew, human, flaw, exploit, Marx, basis, capit, nationalize, means, collective, plans, product, fair, enforce, decisive, guarantee, services, employ, danger, crime, wages, moral, children, working,

It opens with “Socialism USA”. Now, that is downright interesting.

“We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people.

“We believe that socialism USA will be built according to the traditions, history, culture and conditions of the United States. Thus, it will be different from any other socialist society in the world. It will be uniquely American.”

“Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation.”

“To Each According to Their Work”. Hmm. That sure sounds familiar.

“That's why we call ours Bill of Rights Socialism, USA.”

Who will pay for all those promises? It will necessitate tight government controls, also.

 

***********************************************************

Fascism in a Nutshell: Policies of the American Fascist Party

<http://hometown.aol.com/americanfascist/afphome.html>

 

American Fascist Party. <http://www.americanfascistparty.com/index2.html>

 

Keywords. party, incompetent, way, gradual, Marx, flat, lynch, longevity, union, management, camps, collective, unemploy, policy, home (better look at this one!), behavior, unit, state, individ (check this one!), misleading, naïve, community, religion (no choice)

They will change the U.S. Constitution to install party Councils.

No welfare to non-citizens. That is good.

 

***********************************************************

 

2. The 4 isms decay into Totalitarianism, which is a police state, which is a dictatorship.

Hayek. xxxii. Near the bottom. "If twelve years ago it seemed to many almost sacrilege to suggest that fascism and communism are merely variants of the same totalitarianism which central control of all economic activity tends to produce, this has become almost a commonplace."

Hayek. xlii.  2nd paragraph. "What I have argued in this book, and what the British experience convinces me even more to be true, is that the unforeseen but inevitable consequences of socialist planning create a state of affairs in which, if the policy is to be pursued, totalitarian forces will get the upper hand.  I explicitly stress that 'socialism can be put into practice only by methods of which most socialists disapprove '  and even add that in this 'the old socialist parties were inhibited by their democratic ideals '  and that 'they did not possess the ruthlessness required for the performance of their chosen task. ' "

Hayek. 33.  2nd paragraph. " 'The complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism,' writes Peter Drucker, 'has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian, purely negative, non-economic society of unfreedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Stalinist Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany. ' "  [Hayek provides further documentation.]

 

***********************************************************

Madison. Fed Ps No. 10. Federalist Papers #10 can be summed up as: “The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions.” It is also a scholarly treatise on the dangers of a democracy as avoided by a republic guaranteed by a Constitution -- a constitutional republic. (ed). Complete with examples and reasons, Madison explains why a Democracy does not work. It is suggested that the reader study all of no. 10 to grasp it’s meaning.

<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm>

 

Madison. Fed Ps No. 14. Excerpts.

“To the People of the State of New York:

“WE HAVE seen the necessity of the Union, as our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of our commerce and other common interests, as the only substitute for those military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the Old World, and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments, and of which alarming symptoms have been betrayed by our own. All that remains, within this branch of our inquiries, is to take notice of an objection that may be drawn from the great extent of country which the Union embraces. A few observations on this subject will be the more proper, as it is perceived that the adversaries of the new Constitution are availing themselves of the prevailing prejudice with regard to the practicable sphere of republican administration, in order to supply, by imaginary difficulties, the want of those solid objections which they endeavor in vain to find.

“The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

“To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory.

“Such a fallacy may have been the less perceived, as most of the popular governments of antiquity were of the democratic species; and even in modern Europe, to which we owe the great principle of representation, no example is seen of a government wholly popular, and founded, at the same time, wholly on that principle. If Europe has the merit of discovering this great mechanical power in government, by the simple agency of which the will of the largest political body may be concentred, and its force directed to any object which the public good requires, America can claim the merit of making the discovery the basis of unmixed and extensive republics. It is only to be lamented that any of her citizens should wish to deprive her of the additional merit of displaying its full efficacy in the establishment of the comprehensive system now under her consideration.

“As the natural limit of a democracy is that distance from the central point which will just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions demand, and will include no greater number than can join in those functions; so the natural limit of a republic is that distance from the centre which will barely allow the representatives to meet as often as may be necessary for the administration of public affairs. Can it be said that the limits of the United States exceed this distance? It will not be said by those who recollect that the Atlantic coast is the longest side of the Union, that during the term of thirteen years, the representatives of the States have been almost continually assembled, and that the members from the most distant States are not chargeable with greater intermissions of attendance than those from the States in the neighborhood of Congress.

... ”

[End excerpt from Fed Ps 14.]

<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed14.htm>

It is recommended that all of No. 14 be read. (ed.)

 

In Fed Ps no. 63, Madison further explains the practical need for representation as prescribed in the Constitution as being superior to the process used in a Democracy. This is a point the 4 isms overlook. It is a shame they can not read history.

<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed63.htm>

 

***********************************************************

Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

Keywords. hate (for Marx and Hitler), demo, totali, deceit, killed, rubbing, 148 (for German National Socialist Party), respect, collapse, mother, chain, trust, policy, scandal, faith

Just a look at the Table of Contents tells the story:

1. Identity and Diversity

2. Equality and Liberty

3. Democracy and Liberalism

4. Right and Left

 

5. The Historic Origins of Leftism

6. Nascent American

7. The French Revolution

8. From Democracy to Romantic Socialism

9. From Romantic to Scientific and International Socialism

10. From Socialism to Communism

11. From Marxism to Fascist Statism

12. National Socialism and Socialist Racism

 

13. Real Liberalism

14. False Liberalism

 

15. The American Left and World War I

16. Leftism Goes from War to War

17. Another Leftist War

18. Anticolonialism

19. The Outlook

 

That Table of Contents tells it all.

page

xiv - Dark Ages of Democracy ; Socialism and Communism are tied to Democracy

xviii “In dictatorships one has to howl with the wolves ... and in democracies one has to bleat with the sheep. ‘Hermann Funke’ "

xv - American elections feature infidelity, often encouraging treason. Voters look for personal financial improvement. Candidates respond with promises that incur horrible debt and inflation.

xvii - The Left is proficient with deceit. Since the American public simply has no time to comprehend complex political and economic issues, the masses are easily deceived by the less than honorable Left.

xx - Failed Democracy in Europe ended with a terribly defeat for personal liberty. Failure of other forms of government has ended in dictatorial measures such as full jails, firing squads and social engineering. The casual roots of Democracy are the same as tyranny the world over.

16 - Republic or Polity - the rule of the better part of the people in the interest of the common good.

Democracy - the rule of the worse part of the people for their own benefit.

22 - Democracy and Totalitarianism are very similar. Modern technology will make modern Democracy terrible.

45 - Our Founding Fathers feared Democracy worse than the original sin. Not even God would approve it.

52 - Since the acceptance of our Constitution, “democratizing influences” have been ever-present -- direct election of Senators, etc.

56 - ‘One sometimes wonders how our Revolutionary forefathers would take it if they would hear some flatulent political thimblerigger charge them with having founded ‘the great and glorious democracy of the West.’ Efforts to change our form of government is a blow at the heart of our Constitution.

85 - The concept of Socialism and Communism is very old and has been called the first Communist Manifesto.

104 - “ ‘Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth, and socialism the even distribution of poverty.’ Winston Churchill”

112 - International Socialism and Communism were created by venomous haters. Pity, love and compassion were not in Marx’s heart and soul. Having been kicked out of Europe, Marx went to a country that already had a socialist government: England. There he holed up in a reading room in the British Museum where he worked endlessly until death. He was a bookworm and had to be near libraries. Of more that casual interest, Marx’s financial support come from capitalist sources. There would probably never have been Socialism and Communism had it not been for free capitalist marks and dollars. 126 - In 1989 Marxism was bankrupt. [Smile]

113 - Marx hated himself. A product of bourgeois, he is anti-bourgeois; of Jewish origin, he is anti-Jewish; living on capitalist dollars and marks in capitalist Britain, he was anti-capitalist; married to an aristocrat, he is anti- aristocratic. The self-hater wants neither help nor allies.

127 - “ ‘Once in our lives we wanted to make the people happy and this is something for which we will never forgive ourselves.’ “ [an old Russian leftist to Nadejda Mandelstam]

118 - Marx’s thinking was influenced by the Hegelian dialectic and Socialism.

118 - Marx was a book worm detached from reality.

120 - Prior to WW2, Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler.

125 - The Fabians became globally active in supporting Leftism. Their influence is still active in America, notably in our universities. Professor Harold Laski and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. are discussed.

136 - The Moderate Left was nothing but another loser in the Leftist war known as WW2.

141 - Socialism and Communism plunged Italy into near collapse, thus propagating the development of Fascism.

144 - Mussolini and Hitler respected each other’s governments.

145 - At heart, Mussolini was always a Socialist.

148 - In 1918 the DNSAP -- German National Socialist Worker’s Party - was very leftist and democratic.

149 - Hitler hated his father and the Jews, possibly explained by the fact that his father may have been partly Jewish.

150 - Hitler hated Austria, the country of his birth.

151. Hitler acquired German citizenship. He was superstitious, easily offended and suffered severely from inferiority complexes.

153 - The Weimar Republic’s democratic constitution was easy to take over, was replaced by National Socialism and called a Democracy.

160 - “Rudolf Hess termed national socialism ‘the most modern democracy in the world ...’ ”

162 - In keeping with the Socialist agenda, shopkeepers and factory owners stayed with their old business, but were reduced to mere stewards that paid “dues” to the party to avoid the police. The same situation occurred in Mao’s China. The “owners” in both countries had no choice.

163 - Teachers seldom completed college and were the largest occupational group. They supported government.

165. “By divorcing themselves from religion and willfully turning their backs on great traditions, the Germans fell into inferno ... .”

166 - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

173 - De Tocqueville believed that the world would survive the Democratic Age and disapproved of Democracy.

173 - Rare are the outstanding men who admire democracy, for truth and degrees of knowledge are not compatible with it. Votes are counted rather than weighed. A politicized nation is totalitarian.

175 - It is the task of the few, rather than the many, to search for truth. The masses simply do not have the time, training or finances to comprehend the many decisions to be made. Moral obligations enter here. “... ‘Blood, sweat and tears’ can usually be promised only to a people with its back to the wall.”

176. Democracy (democratism) is merely a procedure to produce a government. It is an ideology. “Democracy can commit suicide democratically.”

178 - Mussolini had been a Socialist; New totalitarian regimes called themselves democratic. They utilized the mobilization of envy.

178 - “Professor Eduard Heimann, a German religious socialist, wrote cogently during World War II: ‘Hitlerism proclaims itself as both a true democracy and a true socialism, and the terribly truth is that there is a grain of truth to such claims -- an infinitesimal grain,to be sure, but at any rate enough to serve as a basis for such fantastic distortions. Hitlerism even goes so far as to claim the role of protector of Christianity, and the terribly truth is that even this gross misinterpretation is able to make some impression. But one fact stands out with perfect clarity in all the fog: Hitler has never claimed to represent true liberalism. Liberalism then has the distinction of being the doctrine most hated by Hitler.’ “

187. “This tendency of the state is especially marked in the democratic order, not only because democracy is inherently totalitarian but also because it works (to use John Adam’s term) with ‘largesses’, with large-scale bribes and promises rashly and shrewdly made by the ‘demagogoi’. Expansion, encroachment on personal rights, remains inseparable from democracy. It matters little that the encroachments of the state tend in a subtle way to undermine democracy. Bureaucracy quickly assumes oligarchic and autocratic traits. [From endnote 565:] So is welfarism and, naturally, so is socialism. ... Yet the realization that democracy leads naturally to socialism is fairly widespread.”

222 - After billions spent and millions killed to save democracy, democracy and personal liberty were defeated.

225 - In the United States, lack of intellectualism goes with democracy.

227 - The State Department and its ambassadors turned left.

230 - FDR’s handicaps were not limited to his body.

255. Winston Churchill changed parties two times (three parties) and was sadly lacking in knowledge of geography.

262 - In a democracy such excessive back rubbing occurs that little of essential statesmanship is learned.

265 - The media controlled public thought and worked with the officials in government. Non-truths were eventually believed by the press.

266-7 - Propaganda supporting the Left abounded.

270 - During such wars as WW2, government finds it necessary whip the masses up into a one-sided hateful frame of mind. Democracies are about the same as leftist dictatorships. The Office of War Information (OWI) was filled with refugees from Europe that plied Americans with leftist, procommunist and communist propaganda. Worst of all was the German department.

288 - It was nearly fatal at Yalta.

289 - Leftist control of foreign policy abounded.

291. “Luckily, the Potsdam plan miscarried, blessedly proving that, at least sometimes, God takes care of children, drunkards, fools, and U.S. foreign policy.” Leftists are dreamers.

291-294 - After WW2 the U.S. foreign policy was so far left that the Soviets thought we were changing from capitalism to communism.

295 - Losing Panama comes to mind.

296. “American anticolonialism has twin roots: (1) the insistence on self-rule (democracy), and (2) a misinterpretation and illegitimate application of the rationale for American independence.”

302 - The Leftists in America dumped big money into new nations simply because their leaders were Leftists, but that money usually went to scandal -- palaces, limousines and control by police.

303 - Yet they voted against America at the UN.

308 - Democracy makes judgements not in agreement with scientists.

309. “Whereas faith in Christianity is genuinely transcendental, biblical, and ecclesiastic, belief in liberal democracy is upheld by schools, the mass media, folklore, and socio-intellectual pressures. Democracy nevertheless frequently replaces religion, too easily assuming a fanatical character. ... But all forms of leftism, including democracy, are characterized by their quasi-religious nature. They also manifest a profound irrationality. ... Democracy, once again, is not ‘self-rule’ of the people, but the rule of the majority over the minority.”

310 - “Since democratism is strongly ideological, the West has a tendency to ’democratize’ every conceivable domain of life -- education, families, drama, stores, circuses, banks [and] hospitals. ... The Bible is hardly democratic.”

311 - Democracy is the mother of Leftism. Democracy’s two weakest areas are foreign policy and defense, both of which deal with other nations. With the nation’s survival at stake, wars today are “ conducted by ideologically motivated mob-masters commanding hate-driven mobs.” Due to the forbidding costs, democracies do not like and can not prepare for war, but when they do fight, it is in a most horrible manner. War brings out the true character of a Democracy with it’s collectively driven hate philosophy. Even worse, democracies are not prepared for peace. Changing public opinion takes time. Chain wars result.

312 - Secrecy can not exist in a democratic government. But diplomacy required to make peace requires secrecy. “Diplomacy in whatever guise can in ‘no’ way be ‘democratized”. Democracy is noted for change, which undermines foreign policy. The other country can not know how long before the democratic government changes its agreement.

313- Change ruins trust. Today, foreign policy is crucial to survival.

314 - “Thanks to human weakness, democracy as ‘populism’ is subject to corruption -- legal and illegal -- even greater than many other forms of government. Democracy, in fact, actively invites corruption; where else can a politician blandly promise any and every nostrum without fear of legal repercussions? The election-reelection process dominates the heart and mind of every politician. To its end he will risk all, do all. Rarely does a genuine Christian choose the political life: the temptation to lie, to break promises, to cast suspicion, to denigrate the opposition, to fan hatred and envies is too great.”

...

“ ‘... to the low types which the human race has produced, from Cain down to Tartruffe, the age of democracy has added a new one -- the politician’.”

315 - People are tired of Democracy, where the parties spend all their time and energies fighting each other rather than helping the people.

316 - Less than half of the people vote. They can not comprehend huge bills such as the budget. They distrust the politicians. Democracy can collapse overnight.

319 - Written in 1990, the author states that the “... mere fact that we are still living in an incredibly extended postwar period demonstrates democracy’s inability to put an end to war, even in a moral and psychological sense.”

320 - Man is ideological. No society can exist without an ideology. (Hayek).

321 - “The alternative to an ideology is trial-and-error. ... Hayek deplored the the fact that (genuine) liberalism never had its utopia. ... As a result of their self-imposed inhibition, American conservatives, while brilliant in their critique of modern ills, ... have not provided the United States or the rest of the world with an alternative, with a blueprint for the future, with a picture of the desirable things to come that could engender a real enthusiasm among the young.”

325 - “ ‘Democratism’, the false America ideology, is very much alive, busily fostering state subsidies for homosexual activities.”

339 - “Chesterton warned that a person who ceases to believe in God does not believe in nothing; he believes in everything. People are rarely diabolic or bent enthusiastically on evil. As a rule, they are only weak; they cannot resist temptation and thus give way to their evil drives. Evil has its own magnetism and can prove totally infectious to crowds.”

339-40. American history, on the whole, has been great. “Which recalls the story of the man who fell from the Empire State Building and, swishing by the sixth floor, muttered: ‘So far, so good’.” No, the liberal-democratic combine cannot fight the grandchildren of the French Revolution. ... Only something new, ideas of a radically different order, rejecting false premises, can set a new trend. All this is not only true ideologically, but also structurally and constitutionally. The nations of the West have entered modernity in the swaddling clothes of nationalism and democracy, two forms of collectivist horizontalism. Let us apply to democracy what Dmitri Merezhkovski, one of the great visionaries of our century, said about nationalism -- that these, our swaddling clothes, threaten to become shrouds, soon to suffocate us. We can only hope for a new life if we cast them off like the rising Lazarus.”

341. A great list of the items of the Left is shown.

 

***********************************************************

 

3. Altering the Constitution - see #1.

 

***********************************************************

4. Upon assuming office, all state and federal candidates are required by Article VI of the Constitution of the United States to take an oath of office.

The Constitution of the United States <http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm>

Much more on the subject of oaths will be found at <http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/vikingoath.htm>

 

***********************************************************

 

5. The Supreme Court of the United States has cited the Federalist Papers as a definitive document for the Constitution of the United States.

U.S. Supreme Court. COHENS v. COM. OF VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)

<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264>

“The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they [19 U.S. 264, 419]   frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”

 

***********************************************************

 

6. The Federalist Papers denounce Democracy and discuss the failure of Democracy in history.

Federalist Papers #14.

<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed14.htm>

“Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory.

“Such a fallacy may have been the less perceived, as most of the popular governments of antiquity were of the democratic species; and even in modern Europe, to which we owe the great principle of representation, no example is seen of a government wholly popular, and founded, at the same time, wholly on that principle. If Europe has the merit of discovering this great mechanical power in government, by the simple agency of which the will of the largest political body may be concentred, and its force directed to any object which the public good requires, America can claim the merit of making the discovery the basis of unmixed and extensive republics. It is only to be lamented that any of her citizens should wish to deprive her of the additional merit of displaying its full efficacy in the establishment of the comprehensive system now under her consideration.”

Dedicated study of #14 will shed additional light and understanding on this subject.

Also see #2 above.

 

***********************************************************

7. Misprision of Felony

<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/1/sections/section%5F4.html>

United States Code, TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I - CRIMES, CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS

18 USC 4, the misprision of felony law:

“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

 

***********************************************************

8. Could have known and should have known.

<http://www.uhuh.com/unreal/lincoln.htm#CouldHaveKnown>

<http://www.uhuh.com/unreal/docs.htm#LashleyCase>

California Reports. Lashley v. Koerber. "Could have known and should have known."

156 P.2d 441, 445, [vol] 26, [Calif Reports] c.2d [page] 83.

"need not and should not". Note this early precedent of the precedent "could have known and should have known", ruled in the case of Lashley v. Koerber, California, 1945. In this 1945 case, the appellant court held a physician liable because he could have known and should have known. It was summarized that a physician could be expected to exercise a "... reasonable degree of skill and learning and care ordinarily exercised by other doctors of good standing in the community ... ." Considered was the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), where the plaintiff does not cause the problem, and the defendant is assumed guilty if defendant knowingly allowed or caused the harm to happen, or was negligent in preventing that harm when defendant should have and could have prevented it.

Forest Glen Durland insists that this precedent implies and applies to all people licensed by the public to be trusted by that public to perform in a capacity demanded of their profession. This precedent, then, reaches out to all professionals licensed by the public. Furthermore, those licenses are for the protection of that public. Forest Glen Durland insists that all professional people, bankers, real estate agents, car salesmen and certainly all government workers (politicians, Congress Persons), especially those elected to offices of trust and power, are affected by that court ruling, which must be considered a precedent of the land.

All elected officials, certainly, could have known and should have known, or they could have not been and should not be there.

Go to the Internet links for additional information.

 

***********************************************************

9. National health care systems are in financial trouble. (It used to be called socialized medicine.)

Sweden

EKO/WKP (2005) 30, Getting Better Value for Money from Sweden’s Healthcare System, Economics Department Working Papers No. 443, by David Rae, page 29-30.

<http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2005doc.nsf/43bb6130e5e86e5fc12569fa005d004c/f501081ec882a6b8c1257088002cdbb0/$FILE/JT00189812.PDF>

The Swedish national health care system is under financial strain. People are facing up to 4% tax increase added on to their existing 10% tax.

 

Switzerland

<http://www.oecd.org/home/0,2987,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html>

Switzerland’s healthcare system is good but at high cost. They are facing future financial problems.

 

Europe

<http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/goldsmith020805.html>

European socialized medicine is becoming disjointed.

 

Canada

<http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/typhc_e.html>

Over $41.3 billion and a 10 year plan to strengthened their healthcare plan.

<http://www.fin.gc.ca/facts/fbcfacts9_e.html>

For more than two decades provinces have used more money than the federal government generates. Fact 5: Healthcare spending faces critical revue. The 10 year plan may not be sufficient.

 

United States

<http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-28-voa59.cfm?CFID=8308952&CFTOKEN=93774770>

U.S. healthcare is among the highest in the world.

 

<http://www.alternet.org/story/41416/?comments=view&cID=213708&pID=213589>

Medical costs in America are rising.

 

<http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWE3ZTI3Y2I3ZWIyOWU3NDkzZDk1MDgwNzcwNmNhZTU=>

U.S. Medical care is superior to socialized medicine in other countries.

 

***********************************************************

10. Not one thin dime of IRS income tax reaches Congress to pay the bills.

<http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/list-gra.htm>

This author has the first 600 pages of this 21,000 page report in his study. Only the first seven pages are needed and they are posted at the above site.

“The first 2/3 of the income tax is either wasted or lost. Of the remaining 1/3, every dime of IRS income tax goes to private lenders for interest only on the exponentially escalating national debt. This fact was revealed by the Grace Commission (PPSS) in the Reagan Administration. Not one dime goes to reduce the national debt or run our government. Therefore, Congress must borrow more to pay for its ways to help the people by helping them out of their money. Congress does this by borrowing from the unconstitutional Fed, raising taxes to pay the debt to the owners of the Fed, and raiding the Social Security Fund, which is now missing $4 trillion. Clinton stole $10 billion from the Social Security Fund to bomb Kosovo. That could have given the retired people a nice raise. Those old people did not pay into Social Security all their lives to enable Clinton to bomb Kosovo, or to raise the national debt by letting Congress cook the books.

“Common sense reveals that the national debt continues to increase, since nothing goes to reduce it and government continues to borrow and spend.”

That is not exactly what I hear from Washington, DC., where they purport to balance the budget. Reagan could have really balanced the budget and put us out of debt, but then, as now, Congress was not listening.

The first seven pages of the Grace Commission Report (PPSS) can be read here:

<http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm>

 

***********************************************************

11. The Federal Reserve System is privately owned.

The ABCs of Money

<http://www.uhuh.com/unreal/docs.htm#ABCs>

 

McFadden on the Fed

<http://www.uhuh.com/worthy/mcfad.htm>

 

Check out the government records. It’s all there, and has been for decades.

 

***********************************************************

12. The IRS is unconstitutional.

Caution is used here since several courts seem to have forgotten constitutional law and case law and have put people who contest the IRS in prison. The best approach is to simply ask the IRS to show the law that says we must pay -- one law that is constitutional. That puts the porcupine in their lap. There is no law.

 

<http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm>

Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9:

“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

 

<http://www.constitution.org/afterte_.htm>

“Article. XVI. [Proposed 1909; Questionably Ratified 1913]

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

 

The 16th Amendment did not alter the Constitution of the United States.

 

<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=240&invol=103>

U.S. Supreme Court, STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916), 240 U.S. 103

“But it is apparent from the mere statement of these contentions that each and all of them were adversely disposed of by the decision in the Brushaber Case, and they all therefore may be put out of view.

Class B. Under this class these propositions are relied upon: [240 U.S. 103, 112]   (1) That as the 16th Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform, it is therefore not within the authority of that Amendment.

“(2) Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment. “

 

<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=240&invol=1>

U.S. Supreme Court, BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), 240 U.S. 1

 

For more on the IRS, see <http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/list-gra.htm>

 

***********************************************************

 

13. The IRS has no authority to enforce.

Instead of posting a volume of documentation on this subject, I will simply ask someone to find the law -- one law that is constitutional -- that gives the IRS that authority. That puts the monkey on your back.

 

***********************************************************

 

14. Griffin’s ‘Creature from Jekyll Island’, Chapter ten, ‘Mandrake Mechanism’, explains that government financing in Congress does not even need the IRS. It is a separate operation.

Page

203 - “TAXES NOT EVEN NECESSARY”

204 - “Why, then, does the federal government bother with taxes at all? Why not just operate on monetized debt? The answer is twofold. First, if it did, people would begin to wonder about the ‘source’ of the money, and that might cause them to wake up to the reality that inflation is a tax. Thus, open taxes at ‘some’ level serve to perpetuate public ignorance which is essential to the success of the scheme. The second reason is that taxes, particularly ‘progressive’ taxes, are weapons by which elitist social planners can wage war on the middle class.”

 

***********************************************************

 

15. Congressman George Hansen called it correctly with the title of his book on the IRS: ‘To Harass Our People’. His book tells first hand about the Big Brother actions of the IRS.

Page

70-71 - Elected officials dare not question the IRS for fear of retaliation. It is not even necessary to start a court action. The mere fact that they are being investigated causes people to avoid them. The IRS leaks non-truths to the press, and the attack is on. When their acquaintances, even ministers, are questioned about them, those acquaintances tend to shy away from the people. It simply convicts and ruins the target person without even going to court.

82 - Not even America citizens are immune from the IRS Gestapo tactics.

C 4 5 - “... the IRS is now engaged in a massive effort to computerize personal, non-tax return information on private American citizens in accordance with the agency’s previously secret five-year strategic plan. ... The IRS has already undertaken the following alarming measures.

“Records of department stores, [etc., etc., etc.,] ... despite the fact that these institutions, in may instances, have told their clients or customers they would keep such records private and confidential;

“Records of virtually all federal and state agencies [etc., etc., ]

“IRS records are now being freely shared with Interpol, the private, international police agency whose members include a number of communist or totalitarian countries.” [Interpol is a danger signal. For more information , see the Bibliography. Ed.]

See George Hansen’s injuries at the hands of Big Brother.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/hansen/hanhurts.htm>

 

***********************************************************

 

16. For a realistic vision of what the possible coming totalitarian state will be like, read GO 84 -- George Orwell’s ‘1984’.

It’s in the Bibliography. You will need to read the entire book to grasp the full meaning.

 

***********************************************************

 

Bibliography

 

Griffin, Edward G. ‘Creature from Jekyll Island, the’. ‘A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.’ American Media, PO Box 4646, Westlake Village, CA 91359-1646. Can order at <www.realityzone.com>. C. 1994 by Griffin.

Hansen, George. ‘To Harass Our People’. NY: Positive Publications, Bx 23560, Washington, DC 20024. C. 1985 by George Hansen.

Hayek, F. A. ‘Road to Serfdom, The’. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Keuhnelt-Leddihn, Erik von. ‘Leftism Revisited’. Washington, DC: Regnery, 1993.

Madison, James, et. al. ‘Federalist Papers, the.’ Clinton Rossiter, ed. NY: Mentor, Penguin, 1961.

Orwell, George. ‘1984’. NY: Harcourt, Brace, 1961

Westmoreland, General William C. ‘A Soldier Reports.’ NY: Da Capo Press, c. 1989. A subsidiary of Plenum Publishing Corporation, 233 Spring St, New York, NY 10013. See pages 105 ad 161.

Weapons, International organizations; may be holding hands with the IRS.

Europarl <http://www.uhuh.com/laws/europar3.htm>. Run a search for STOA for the weapons planned for people control.

Interpol. see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol>; European Police Office; European Union’s criminal intelligence agency ; is an intergovernmental organization (IGO)

STOA - see Europarl.

 

The party platforms have their Internet urls listed with them.

 

Chickadrownquick Creek. Teddy got in too deep into that creek.

 

******************************************************************

End of Guilt of the 4 Isms

******************************************************************


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: known; oath; socialsim; tax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 10/26/2006 12:56:11 PM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: forest

The Socialists that took over the Democrat Party starting with FDR, do not believe in our Constitutional Republic nor even Democracy.
That is the reason they like all "for life dictators" like Fidel Castro.
They want to be just like him, they will be in tears when he dies.


3 posted on 10/26/2006 1:00:43 PM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest

Dude, shorten it up.


4 posted on 10/26/2006 1:01:18 PM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
Democrat = Socialist = Communist = Fascist

= statist

5 posted on 10/26/2006 1:06:53 PM PDT by mjp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
"...requires tactics which respectful people will not employ."
"respectful" is one thing, "respectable" is another. Even the kegebuns are perfectly respectful of their own interests.
6 posted on 10/26/2006 1:09:03 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran

Earlier. William Jennings Bryan at he turn of the century.


7 posted on 10/26/2006 1:10:29 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: forest

pinging for after I cut down that big old tree to make enough paper to print this sucker out


8 posted on 10/26/2006 1:10:57 PM PDT by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
You should study the post before making such unfounded comments. You comment come in so soon that you could not have possibly studied it much.

Leftism Revisited is a very authoritative book, and uses "isms" well.

9 posted on 10/26/2006 1:11:05 PM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
The thesis statement and statement of the problem are quite short -- Less than two pages. But to show that I wrote truth, that is, to document thoroughly, required another 16 pages.

I am not a dude, whatever that means.

10 posted on 10/26/2006 1:14:25 PM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: forest

Could you please explain you've arrived at the conclusion that fascism and communism are identical? You are aware that they are very distinct ideologies that differ in both their origins and their idealized society's correct?

Simply because both systems are totalitarian, and both are exceedingly poor choices for government, does not make them interchangeable. These terms mean specific things, and when you lump everything together that you find (correctly) objectionable, you lose all your credibility.


11 posted on 10/26/2006 1:14:35 PM PDT by Professor Kill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Good thought. Thanks.


12 posted on 10/26/2006 1:17:36 PM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Professor Kill

Poorly edited:

society's = society


13 posted on 10/26/2006 1:19:33 PM PDT by Professor Kill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine
The thesis statement and statement of the problem are quite short -- lest than two pages. But the critical documentation took 16 more pages. Otherwise you would not know that I speak truth. It is not necessary to print out everything. That is why we have Freerepublic.

I was hoping for constructive comments on my attempt to completely destroy the Democratic Party in this critical week before elections.

14 posted on 10/26/2006 1:22:02 PM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: forest

Whew!

Ok, Forest, let's play.

There are two things we need to talk about in your long post.

One is an error.

You cited someone who wrote this:

"Continuing, the Supreme Court of the United States has cited the Federalist Papers as a definitive document for the Constitution of the United States.
That makes those Federalist Papers an integral part of (if not integral, certainly a vital link to) the Constitution of the United States."

No Forest, that's not how it works. The Supreme Court does not have the power to "make the Federalist Papers an integral part of the Constitution of the United States", and it has never done so.

Your post uses lots of legalisms, and has a lot of definitions in it, but here are two definitions you need to learn:

Holding: the legal decision in a case. THIS is what the court orders. and is the only part of a case where the court has actually made law. Holdings are usually a sentence long. Sometimes only a word, like "Affirmed" or "Reversed". The only part of a Supreme Court decision that is LAW is the actual decision on the issue presented to the court. Everything else is "dictum" or "obiter dictum".

Obiter dictum: the rest of the words in a judicial opinion. This is the part where the judges explain why they came to the decision they did. The decision itself, the holding, is law. The dictum is the judge's reasoning. It is not, itself law. The difference is fundamental. A lower court judge, when he gets an opinion from the Supreme Court, most certainly MUST apply the holding: that's the law. But the dictum? THAT doesn't compel him to do anything. Of course he needs to KNOW it, because it tells him which his superiors are thinking, but it ain't law.

There has never been a HOLDING in any Supreme Court case that "The Federalist Papers are an integral part of the Constitution". And therefore, the Federalist Papers are NOT part of the Constitution at all, as a matter of law. It's not a debatable point, when one uses legal terms CLEARLY.

A Supreme Court justice, maybe several, may well have expressed great fondness for the Federalist papers. That's wonderful. It's their opinion. It ain't law. At all. Not even a little bit.

The Federalist Papers are interesting history, and can tell you what SOME OF the Founders at Philadelphia thought they were doing and how the Constituton would work. It's good stuff. It's not part of the Constitution, and has not the slightest scintilla of legal power in America whatever. It's a bunch of newspaper editorials - literally. Legally, it's nothing more.

(2) Define "democracy" please.


15 posted on 10/26/2006 1:22:50 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (The Crown is amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Professor Kill
Done. Please study the documentation. It is complete.

I did not state that they are identical. I did state that they have destructive goals in common.

16 posted on 10/26/2006 1:23:58 PM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
Please study my documentation, complete with all the hot links. The Supreme Court decisions are there, and I give them precedence. That court does refer to the Fed Ps frequently.

Democracy is explained in the paper, at least what is needed here. The 4 isms must destroy our government to be applied. That is the danger signal I had hoped people would see.

17 posted on 10/26/2006 1:30:07 PM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: forest
Democrat = Socialist = Communist = Fascist

When that is the second line of your article, you are, in fact, stating that they are identical.

Fascism and Communism are very, very different ideologies. When you lump them together because they have "striking similarities", you lose a great deal of credibility because they're goals are quite different from one another.

Again, they both may be totalitarian, and they both may bring misery to those living under their systems, but that does not justify using them interchangeably. Its sloppy, and its very superficial to do so.

18 posted on 10/26/2006 1:34:19 PM PDT by Professor Kill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Good comment. Thanks. I limited myself to the major parties running that would be destructive in hopes to wake the people this week before it is too late.

For those wondering about "statism", I copied the definition from Wikipedia. There are varying definitions for the term. I assume that you used the state intervention meaning.

"Statism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Statism (or Etatism) is a very loose and often derogatory term that is used to describe:

1. Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters. 2. A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.

"There is no precise definition of how much state intervention represents statism. Thus, at one extreme, some anarchists consider that the mere existence of a state is enough to make a country statist, while at the other extreme it is argued that only the most rigid totalitarian systems are truly statist. Usually, however, the term "statism" is used with a negative or derogatory connotation, in reference to something that the speaker considers to be an example of too much state intervention.

"The term tends to be used most often with respect to economic policies. For instance, Merriam-Webster defines statism as a "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government." Advocates of economic liberalism typically use the term "statism" to refer to any economy that does not conform to the standard of laissez-faire capitalism."

19 posted on 10/26/2006 1:38:59 PM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: forest

Charm, wit and levity
will win you in the start,
but in the end it's brevity
that keeps the public's heart


20 posted on 10/26/2006 1:42:18 PM PDT by null and void (Age and experience -- It makes no sense to get one without the other. - Sundog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
This is an impressive body of work, forest! It'll take some time to fully review. Thank you!

You are correct in remarking on Free Republic, and other sources available on the Internet.

Stay well armed and safe, old friend..................FRegards

21 posted on 10/26/2006 1:56:41 PM PDT by gonzo (.........Good grief!...I'm as confused as a baby in a topless club!.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Professor Kill
"Simply because both systems are totalitarian, and both are exceedingly poor choices for government, does not make them interchangeable."

Actually it pretty much does. While starting from opposite ends of the political spectrum they both devolve into the same totalitarian government. Neither Fascists nor Communists can ever see this fact but that doesn't make it less true.

One could go on all day about the superficial theoretical differences between Communism and Fascism but in practical application they are identical, and practical application is all that matters to their victims. Just because the theoretical intentions of the Communists were higher, doesn't make them less deadly in reality.
22 posted on 10/26/2006 2:00:09 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: forest

now, don't go getting all fired up

I 'really do' appreciate your work, just a tad longer than something I usually see here and on other forums I visit

you done well, and I hope you keep it up


23 posted on 10/26/2006 2:05:53 PM PDT by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Ill believes in jisms.


24 posted on 10/26/2006 2:05:57 PM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Professor Kill
See Hayek's "Road to serfdom". In his footnotes he touches upon the common genesis and more general commonality between fascism and communism. Indeed, their relationship is similar to that of 80 proof vodka and 190 proof Everclear. One could argue that the fascism is communism diluted.
Re: "You are aware that they are very distinct ideologies...? "
The purpose of an [any] ideology is behavior modification. What particular mythologies, symbols, slogans, ceremonials, texts and doctrines are used to achieve this goal, is of tertiary, not even of secondary importance. Essential [and not superficial] identity of ideologies is to be established NOT at the textual level or the level you refer to, but at the level of their "target behavior".
25 posted on 10/26/2006 2:10:22 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: forest
A lot of what you object to is the result of the nature of human beings and governments. I'm not so sure that it's so easy to isolate it in the ideologies you don't like.

You might be surprised at what governments and countries and individuals of all stripes are capable of. It was the Republicans who helped give us the income tax, and Kuehnelt-Leddihn's beloved Austrian monarchy that did so much to give us the First World War and all that came with it.

One of the starting points of totalitarianism is that it did to a country's own population what governments had long been doing to foreigners and outsiders.

26 posted on 10/26/2006 2:34:50 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest

This is the language you cited from an 1821 Supreme Court decision:

“The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they [19 U.S. 264, 419] frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”

It is obiter dictum.
The judge who wrote the opinion clearly thought highly of the Federalist Papers, and said so. Jolly good.
This is not law. It's opinion.
The only law in this decision is the holding in the case, which the above-cited language is not.

The Supreme Court has never incorporated the Federalist Papers into the Constitution of the United States. Nor has it ever held that the Constitution is properly interpreted through the Federalist papers. A judge sitting on the Supreme Court in 1821 said laudatory things about the Federalist Papers, and said they were persuasive authority (persuasive to him, and to the court of his time).
That's interesting.
But it's an editorial opinion.
It's not an incorporation of The Federalist into the Constitution.
That's never happened.


27 posted on 10/26/2006 2:47:34 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (The Crown is amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Professor Kill
I ran a search and did not find "society's" that you referred to. I do not wish to post poorly edited work.

Please copy the sentence containing the error and reply so that I can correct any mistakes.

28 posted on 10/27/2006 11:12:42 AM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Well said. However, all kinds of people who love brevity will call me all kinds of liars without the lengthy documentation.

The statement of the problem is less than two pages. But without the backup, it is all hot air.

29 posted on 10/27/2006 11:15:49 AM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: forest

That was in reference to an error in my own post.


30 posted on 10/27/2006 11:17:36 AM PDT by Professor Kill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: forest

It's always a balancing act. No net either!

;^)


31 posted on 10/27/2006 11:17:42 AM PDT by null and void (Age and experience -- It makes no sense to get one without the other. - Sundog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gonzo

Thanks for the kind words. And your advice is well taken and in effect.


32 posted on 10/27/2006 11:17:49 AM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf
That's disturbing
33 posted on 10/27/2006 11:19:01 AM PDT by null and void (Age and experience -- It makes no sense to get one without the other. - Sundog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: monday

Well said. Thanks.


34 posted on 10/27/2006 11:19:11 AM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine

Understood. Thanks for the explanation.


35 posted on 10/27/2006 11:23:07 AM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Good explanation.


36 posted on 10/27/2006 11:25:19 AM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Professor Kill
Simply because both systems are totalitarian, and both are exceedingly poor choices for government, does not make them interchangeable. These terms mean specific things, and when you lump everything together that you find (correctly) objectionable, you lose all your credibility.

Well put.

37 posted on 10/27/2006 11:28:18 AM PDT by TChris (The United Nations is suffering from delusions of relevance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: forest

Sorry, but while this article may have some good points to make, it is a confusing and poorly organized and formatted mess (and looong).


38 posted on 10/27/2006 11:31:09 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
It reference to Post 26:

"A lot of what you object to is the result of the nature of human beings and governments."

Fed Ps 10: The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions.

It was the Republicans who helped give us the income tax..."

FDR gave us withholding tax.

"... Kuehnelt-Leddihn's beloved Austrian monarchy that did so much to give us the First World War and all that came with it."

Kuehnelt-Leddihn move to America and became a US citizen.

"One of the starting points of totalitarianism is that it did to a country's own population what governments had long been doing to foreigners and outsiders."

See Fed Ps 10

39 posted on 10/27/2006 11:32:23 AM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
Regarding Post 27:

By your own posting, a Scocus judge respects and refers to the Fed Ps. That is the important point in my paper. The Scotus justices check out the Fed Ps, and can be expected to continue doing so.

I can not point to any decision wherein the Fed Ps are integrated with Cotus, but IN PRACTICE they are. And "in practice" is what counts, not what you can not find. Future justices will be referring to the Fed Ps, so expect the Fed Ps to retain power in the interpretation of Cotus.

40 posted on 10/27/2006 11:44:38 AM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
Loooong, yes. But well organized.

The Statement of the Problem is less than two pages. But the documentation that is necessary to back it up is long. Sorry about the very necessary details.

41 posted on 10/27/2006 11:49:37 AM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: forest

With a little more effort in the area of links and pictures you could be the next Mia T (just find a subject other than Hillary - it's taken)


42 posted on 10/27/2006 11:52:22 AM PDT by 70times7 (Sense... some don't make any, some don't have any - or so the former would appear to the latter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest

BTW - Thanks.

marker to finish later


43 posted on 10/27/2006 11:53:54 AM PDT by 70times7 (Sense... some don't make any, some don't have any - or so the former would appear to the latter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest

Sorry, I should have been more precise. The statement part is clear enough. It's the documentation part that I found confusing and disorganized.


44 posted on 10/27/2006 12:00:32 PM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 70times7

Instead of links, I could have printed out all of 4 political platforms and several books. But people are already complaining about length. The statement of the problem is less than two pages. The documentation is necessary so readers may know the truth.

F


45 posted on 10/27/2006 5:13:01 PM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
I tried to keep the documentation well organized. Here's my process:

I took each statement from statement of the problem and numbered it, from top to bottom.

Then I copied each statement and placed it after its number in the documentation.

Following was the documentation necessary to uphold each statement.

I call that well organized. The length is what confuses many readers. However, the supporting material for such statements that I made is quite lengthy. There is no room for casual comments in such a paper.

My goal speaks for this necessity: I hope to completely destroy the Democratic Party. Instead of issuing derogatory remarks about them, I am acting.

But I need help. This paper must be brought to the attention of the public. Fox News is not answering.

46 posted on 10/27/2006 5:23:06 PM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: forest

Just messing with ya ;>) appreciate the info


47 posted on 10/30/2006 5:58:28 AM PST by 70times7 (Sense... some don't make any, some don't have any - or so the former would appear to the latter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Professor Kill
Fascism and Communism are very, very different ideologies.

National Socialist Germany was indeed Socialist.

Fascism is Italian.

Soviet Socialist Russia was Communist.

Maoist China is Communist.

Big Deal.

Why split hairs? They were all complete government control and resistance equals execution.

48 posted on 10/30/2006 6:12:17 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Why split hairs? They were all complete government control and resistance equals execution.

So a bullet is the same thing as a noose is the same thing as a knife is the same thing as a poison pill? You would defend yourself against each of those in the same way? Each of those brings about your demise in the same way?

I stand by my assertion: lumping together disparate ideologies that have distinct origins and distinct results simply because they are all undesirable is sloppy and intellectually lazy. It ignores significant differences between political systems and reduces our ability to see what conditions produce these ideologies and what actually happens under these systems.

49 posted on 10/30/2006 4:40:43 PM PST by Professor Kill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Professor Kill
I stand by my assertion: lumping together disparate ideologies that have distinct origins...

Russia - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Germany - National Socialist Workers Pary

Iraq - Ba'ath Socialist Party

Tell me how these are any different...

50 posted on 10/30/2006 5:00:39 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson