A Day For Traitors and Treasonists
By haystack Posted in Miscellanea — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[image via WikiMedia]
Our founding Fathers, 56 of them God rest their souls, were traitors in their time and were considered by their fellow Englishmen back then to be the most evil amongst good men...but what was derived from their high crimes of treason stands before us today as the greatest nation in the history of mankind. This fact deserves nothing less than a hushed silence of reverence and respect; you crush a man under your heels long enough and he will rise up against you. After many years of having to suffer the tyranny of their government, on this day 232 years ago our forefathers flipped off a King, and set about bringing sanity to an insane world.
Consider these words in contrast with the lessons of history our current Congress (and the cavalier nature of their impositions on our lives) either never learned or have clearly forgotten:
[A]ll 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.
This Independence day I am especially reminded of these words as I look around at the collective state of our Republic.
More below the fold...
I don't mean to suggest here that in modern times such an act could or SHOULD be attempted now. It is by the very designs in the Constitution which followed the Declaration of Independence that our ancestors provided for the civil and peaceful ways in which to alter our form(s) of Government. The Founders understood the need for a society to submit itself to governance..."Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"...but they also intended to relegate to the governed the ongoing responsibility of maintaining control of the effects such governance might have on our collective and "certain unalienable Rights." They meant to ensure we would always be able to have these rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" by declaring that they came from our Creator...not our Government...and that we should demand these things (in all circumstances) from those we choose to represent us at the alter of Democracy.
I am no student of history but, reading through the Wikipedia timeline of the Revolution, I am struck by the number of similarities between events that led up to THEIR revolt against the King...and the "long train of abuses and usurpations" we have been made to suffer and endure in the most recent generation of our Republic. It's unsettling to say the least, but the Founders understood (even back then) that "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable" and this lesson has not been lost on our modern-day Congress. So too will we find ways to "put up" with whatever comes our way from Washington...it's just easier than doing something dramatic to change it.
Whether it be an affront to our right to Life, to Liberty, or to the Pursuit of Happiness...some how, some way, our Federal Government finds ever-new and more creative ways to infringe on us. Congress has grown so detached from our "real world" as to make themselves appear like the King's Parliament in England while we sit in our towns and our cities and our states awaiting the next royal order from on high for how we are to conduct ourselves and live our lives.
Elections DO matter...and they are all we have for a means to effect change.
All is not lost, to be sure, but we have allowed ourselves to submit to a system of governance more interested in attaining and RETAINING power than in serving the needs of "we the People," and we have done so because it's just easier than actually DOING anything to bring about change. From taxation, to energy, to war and national sovereignty, we have abdicated the responsibilities our ancestors fought and died for so that we might not ever HAVE to. Our Republican Congressmen, every bit as much as our Democrat Congressmen, fight harder over getting re-elected than over doing the "right thing" and today is the best day to remember what their jobs are...and to hold them accountable in the ballot boxes come November.
God Bless America...God Bless our Independence...and God Bless the ability these once-traitorous men bestowed upon us to make things right for ourselves and our country. When you vote this fall, remember these 56 men...and ask yourself whether the person you pull the lever for is as worthy of your vote as these men would expect them to be.
Ask the first ten people you encounter tomorrow to describe the major differences between Marxism, Communism and Socialism.
Then get back to me with a score, plus how these philosophies relate to the current "radical left" in America. I want prominent names and documented proposals of nationalizing major industries and such.
Then, and only then, will I start believing your lame-ass Reagan worship of a time that never was.
Time to start bearing fruit if there's something useful to add...
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
I'm fairly certain..lemme check-yep! I did not mention Reagan in this piece...but for the record, my friend, do you really believe ascertaining the current populace's handle on the differences between Marxism, Communism, and Socialism would really TELL us anything about your "time that never was"...when the founders declared independence from King George's England, and their subsequent development of the Constitution of the United States? (and what they had in mind when they volunteered to subject themselves to the wrath of the King for having done so?)
Have you been drinking marco?
The current "'radical left' in America" means to have Government assume the responsibility of taking care of us, which carries with it the task of assigning Government with the responsibility of determining FOR us what we really need. The founders knew better-whatever "ism" you choose to throw against the wall to see which one sticks, the beginnings of this country are in no way reflective of where the radical left means to take it going forward [sir].
Nice try...but I ain't buying.
PS-the score would be a big zero
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Haystack, your challenge is supposed to be your own homework as patriot of this country. But I'd like to comments on the points you have raised.
1. Difference among Marxism, Communism and Socialism.
These are ideologues. You will find that each country has its own definition and principles of the terms. China doesn't use socialism, it is most honest and transparent to the intent of its communist policies. And that is good, because the people have embraced the platform as is, without pretensions.
In Democratic and religious-based societies, you generally do not use "communism" or "marxism". Some erudites will easily confront you that these terms also espouse "nihilism" - which often indicates that religion is irrelevant. Castro, in introducing socialism in Cuba, was very careful in ensuring that marxist principles are attuned to the "religion" of the populace. He used the argument that communal ownership and collectivism are consistent with general Catholic beliefs such as "rich helping the poor" and "all are equal in the eyes of God". He used the communal principles of Christianity as the strategy for the people to embrace communism. One family rule is also consistent with family-based diety principle of Catholism (Father, Son, Mother of God).
You will even hear some disgruntled Christians who believe that its was the first apostles who introduced communism as indicated in the Books of Acts were all the belongings of the Christians were combined such that entire church leadership had the responsibility of taking care of everyone's needs. But they dismissed the reason why: these people believed that the Second Coming of Christ would happen in their generation and there was a scale of economy that could be established during their period. Acts indicated that this policy only happened in Jerusalem. Later, it was the Apostles too who castigated their own members after quite sometime: "Those who do not work, MUST NOT EAT!". The Bible gave us a concrete and ancient example of the failure of Communism and Socialism: It promotes Laziness and mediocricity.
In secular societies such as in progressive American cities, you do not use religion as base of your marxist philosophy. These societies are more interested in their jobs and finances. You need to introduce socialism in labor, inequality of wealth, and most dangerously, the existence of minorities. Marxism is best introduced in "minorities" and "losers" of the market economy, pointing to the winners and majority as the immoral and unjust. In addition, the nihilistic viewpoint of Marxism will fit to those people who do not give credence on morality and religious lifestyle. In conclusion, marxism will generally attract those with liberal principles and lifestyles. Examples are California and Illinois.
In final analysis, people who are brainwashed by these ideologies will not give you the answers you want because communism, socialism, and marxism can mean different things to socialists and liberals. They don't even know that their allegiance to such doctrines have add-ons that won't seat well if they discover the same. Even gays have their own reasons too why they love marxism - because like the history of Roman Empire, homosexual lifestyle became a fad and fashion while the empire weakened and nihilism spread throughout the empire.
Don't you know that the Roman Empire also reached the point where many of its subjects became proponents of Anti-War idelogues and justice against inequality where people became resentful of their own government?
Marxism, socialism and communism have been introduced "subtlely" and discreetly. You donot know who you are fighting against. Confusion and doubts are the most conducive political atmosphere for introducing such doctrine. You will now hear liberals to say something like these: "Socialism is not bad after all". "America has been socialist since Day 1 because it is a mixed economy". These people argue that America's efforts to correct "Market Failure" and "Negative Externalities" (both Economics terms) are essentially socialism (they won't use communism of course).
2. Nationalizing major industries and such
In the past, you will only hear taxing these industries because of pollution and environmental externalities. You will hear that labor inputs have not been fully valued (i.e., lower income). These are the subtle way of attacking industries.
But have you heard that infamous New Yorker Maxim being interviewed suggesting that there is no way but to "Nationalize Oil Companies". They are becoming bold enough recently.
3. lame-ass Reagan worship of a time that never was.
This is an example of the statements used by the socialists using the cloak of liberalism. They always use the Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt statements that the people are above government and they should criticize government and leaders for their wrong doings. However, Lincoln and Roosevelt did not foresee a time for America to be unpatriotic and unrespectful of their own Government, their own country and people.
This generation and period has all the essential elements for the Rise of Socialism in America. In the end, we shall fail Reagan and the fusion strategy of Michael Harrington of CPUSA will prove to be the victorious one.
But there is still time for Republicans and Conservatives and even the disgruntled Democrats to change winds of time. This coming election is not about McCain, failure of Republicans, War in Iraq, subprime issues, economic troubles: It is about Obama and the Rise of Socialist America.
Why Obama is a socialist: Go to www.discoverthenetworks.org
for some information that you can use in your own self study.
Do your homework kid!
And to the poster you replied to:
What does having a working knowledge of the differences between 3 variations of a totalitarian ideology have to do with the founding fathers (or Reagan worship)?
P.S. Throw Fascism and Trotskyism in there and you've got the major flavors of socialist thought covered, but again, what has that do do with FREEDOM! ?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
But the point is that they are all similar - they deny freedom in deference to a godless ideology of their choosing. The radical left, or even the mainstream left these days, is distinguishable from these detestable "isms" only in that they keep their true intentions a secret, or cleverly disguised as, say, "the fight against global warming".
If the left could nationalize health care (wait a minute...), oil companies (hmmm....get back with you on THAT one, too), pharmaceutical companies, WalMart, and restrict free speech with something called a Fairness Doctrine, and get away with it, I have no doubt they would in a heartbeat.
The fact that you do not believe these philospohies relate to the left in America is either because you just woke up from a coma, or you are willfully ignorant.
Who gives a crap what the major differences between Marxism, Communism, and Socialism? They are all totalitarian forms of government, which are assumed utpoia to the left and utterly unacceptable to right thinking, freedom loving, free market, capitalist Americans.
The best part about you trolls is.....
Oh well, you're always good for a laugh.
Those who control energy, control society.
Sorry if I mistakenly threw everything to you. It's for marcopazio, not yours. I will be more careful of the names and bloggers next time.
Again, my deepest apologies. Hopefully you'll accept it. Don't know how to rectify it... but if you can, please feel free to do so. Thanks.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Folks, it isn't just the "radical left."
As I read his post, I thought of "hate speech" laws, warrantless wiretapping, no-bid contracting, signing statements, habeus corpus, DHS/TSA overstepping, and any number of other issues. Whether pursued by the right or the left, they ALL represent the creeping governmental power to which Haystack referred. We would do well to remember that.
P.S. You'd have made a fine Copperhead, aiding CSA spies in the US while bashing that tyrant Lincoln and his suspension of habeas corpus.
.jpg){kind=link}
Those who control energy, control society.