Marxism vs The Constitution

Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: SAU On: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:08 am

The elections are over and the victor is clear. The people who voted still aren't clear on why they voted... Or at least the majority of them. Let's look at the supposed right wing pundits. You've been hearing them throw the word "Marxist" around about as often as they throw the word Obama. So, what is a Marxist?And why do I consider Bush to be a Marxist as well as Obama.

Rush Limbaugh. Rush is pretty entertaining as long as the Democrats hold power he is funny, whimsical and entertaining when he rails against big government. However, when the republicans are in charge he becomes a sympathetic sycophant to all Republican plans even when they do include big government and Shrub was all about big government.

Things have been getting worse recently. In the first five years of the Bush regime, federal spending increased 45%. Readers of Mises.org may remember that they were warned about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility before he took office. For comparison's sake, during the eight Clinton years nominal federal spending increased 32%, and under Bush I federal spending increased 23% in four years. In the 2000 election, Bush II promised to shovel money into all sorts of programs — and he's kept that promise.


http://mises.org/daily/2116

Sean Hannity and Bill O`Rielly are right wing, but only if you consider fascist policy to be right wing. they do not adhere to the Constitution, and they are only entertaining if you think it is fun to listen to them hang up on, or bully callers who have legitimate points of view which they do not want discussed on their programs. They both use fear mongering to coerce you to give up essential liberties for a little security (see my quote) Think I'm full of it? Hannity hates classical liberals. Here's a hint for you, Obama hates them too.


Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States, simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[4] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods.[5] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

I grudgingly voted for Shrub in 2000, after that I decided that I would never vote for the lesser of two evils again and I haven't.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Jefferson was also a classic liberal as were many if not all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I challenge those of you not familiar with the DoC to read it and tell me if we are not there again today. Federalism is right next door to Imperialism, approval ratings for the Congress and the President maintain that the people are fed up.

The closest thing I have found to what I consider to be a true conservative on the MSM is Mike Church on Sirius.

Left wing pundits can be found on every financial and news channel that you turn on. The talking heads propel the left further along with each vocalization that they make. They talk with authority that such and such must be bailed out. Oh sure, once in a while they allow a dissenting opinion to be espoused but as soon as the dissenter is off the air the authoritative bailout mantra begins anew. Am I the only one that has noticed that typical news coverage is like an advertisement for more BAILOUTS?

If we can agree that our freedoms are being eroded and our wealth stolen without representation, then how far down the Marxist trail are we?



ARE Americans practicing Communism?

Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy...

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto… The following brief presents the original ten planks within the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it's clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.

Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.

Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are...

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? ... By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America... KNOW YOUR ENEMY ...Remove the enemy from within and from among us.


None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free....

So Devil, are you a Marxist?
SAU
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Vermont Castings/Nordic Stove
Stove/Furnace Model: VIGILANT II 2310/Erik Jr. HH

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: Devil505 On: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:32 am

SAU wrote:So Devil, are you a Marxist?


Most of the time.....I'm a practicing PEDESTRIAN!

Seriously, all these terms: Liberal, Conservative, Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Capitalist......serve mainly as "Name Calling" slurs to fling at your opposition & which merely cloud the issues & do nothing to add to intelligent thinking & debate.
I'll take bits & pieces from each of the above political & economic theories to create the best system. No ONE theory works well all by itself, in real life. (just look at GW Bush........He has turned from a Free Enterprise Capitalist to a full blown Communist in a matter of a few months!)

Edit: Let me embellish a bit:

I'll use my favorite "Whipping Boy" to illustrate:

In my opinion, GW Bush's lack of intelligence & shallow mindedness only allows him to see the political & economic world in black & White only: Things are ALL Good or All Bad....No shades of grey in his small world. Therefore, Laisez-Faire Capitalism *hands off" free enterprise) was the only system that would work, in his mind. Business could "self-regulate" with no need for the heavy hand of government interference.
This system looks good on paper, but fails to take into account one small problem.....HUMANS!~!
Humans are prone to greed, selfishness & all other forms of evil that require us to band together collectively in any society & protect ourselves from the excesses that will always appear. This is what Bush failed to take into account.....The need for government oversight & the holding of people RESPONSIBLE for their actions, & this is why we are in the mess that we are presently seeing, imo.

Examples:

In my "Perfect" world, health care would be run in a "Socialistic" manner as Capitalism serves only to assist the insurance companies in making money, not the patient, who is often deprived of care in order to save money for the insurance company.

Private business would remain Capitalist in that it provides the only real incentive to run a business efficiently.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: jpete On: Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:49 pm

The problem with your theory Devil, and many other people's as well, is that you assume we live(or did in recent times) in a free market, capitalist system. Something that we haven't seen in a long, long time. Henry Ford was probably the last capitalist. And with every government regulation, we get further and further away from the free market. Certainly not anything even CLOSE to laisez faire.

Capitalists OWN the means of production. Which implies they produce things. CEO's are nothing but employees. The share holders are the capitalists, but since they have been reduced to a minority stake, they have no control over the company they own.

And while the founders of Google, for example, may be very successful "entrepreneurs", they aren't capitalists, because they don't produce anything.

We are closer to fascism than anything. Let's face it, corporate donations to political campaigns along with lobbyists to Congress essentially buy the government. "We the People" have no representation. That's pretty much the definition of fascism.

I hear talking heads on TV rant about how the current conditions indicate a "clear failure of the free market system". Those people, in my opinion, should be tarred and feathered on the spot.

The system imagined and put down on paper by the founders can work, unfortunately, greedy SOB's rig the system for their own gain. And most people are too busy trying to provide for themselves and their family to fight the politicians about it.
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice


Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: Devil505 On: Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:59 pm

jpete wrote:Let's face it, corporate donations to political campaigns along with lobbyists to Congress essentially buy the government. "We the People" have no representation. That's pretty much the definition of fascism.


While I agree with you about the corrupting influence of lobbyists & money in our government I reject your label of Fasism. The America Heritage dictionary define Fascism the following way:


1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

http://www.ask.com/web?q=dictionary%3A+ ... &o=0&l=dir


I don't see our government as a dictatorship even though Bush tried his best to make it one. I think our problems all relate to the corrupting influence of MONEY!!....& there just is no simple answer to that problem. I am very hopeful that the Obama administration will be a moral, legal, ethical & intelligent one.....for a change!!
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: jpete On: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:56 pm

I guess my threshold for "oppressive" and "dictatorial" is lower than some.

I think the government meets all those criteria.

When the government can steal your property and give it to a private entity as in "Kelo v. New London", then the theory of private ownership is negated. You need to seek government permission to dig a hole or put up a structure on your alleged private property.

Even when the government grabs the fruit of your labor(your salary) and then decides how much you may keep, you aren't really free. And try not paying those income taxes, which are not Constitutional. Invoke your fifth amendment fights on your 1040, see how that works out.

You want suppression of opposition through terror? I went to the Freedom March in D.C. over the summer. I certainly felt "oppressed" with helicopters circling overhead and heavily armed police watching us through binoculars all day.

There isn't a dimes worth of difference between modern day R's and D's.

The recent investigation of the Illinois governor is an example of the political machine of which Obama is a product. If you were hoping for change, prepare to be sorely disappointed.
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: SAU On: Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:51 pm

Just for you jeff, I think you'll really like the definition of anarcho-tyranny found further down the page.

Managerial state


Managerial state is a paleoconservative concept used in critiquing modern social democracy in Western countries. The term takes a pejorative context as a manifestation of Western decline. Theorists Samuel Francis and Paul Gottfried say this is an ongoing regime that remains in power, regardless of what political party holds a majority. Variations include therapeutic managerial state[1], welfare-warfare state[2] or polite totalitarianism.[3]

Francis, following James Burnham, said that under this historical process, “law is replaced by administrative decree, federalism is replaced by executive autocracy, and a limited government replaced by an unlimited state.”[4] It acts in the name of abstract goals, such as equality or positive rights, and uses its claim of moral superiority, power of taxation and wealth redistribution to keep itself in power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state

Devil,

You can whip on Bush all you want, I personally do not see much difference from Bush to Clinton. Certainly Clinton was a smooth operator and Bush appears to be a dolt but that really isn't the problem. The problem is that both parties carry out the same agenda, presented by the same, I'll call them "criminals", from one election cycle to the other. Sure Bush took us into an illegitimate war in Iraq but Clinton did the same with Bosnia. The founding fathers of this nation knew that participating in foreign wars was tantamount to enslaving the populous, And we did not really see any Imperial conquest from 1787 to 1898. Yes I know about the Indians but that was a different type of conquest because there were ongoing attacks from the beginning of colonization.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

George Washington


Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights,

Thomas Jefferson


The only people who make out well on wars are arms makers and the banks who finance them.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Nathan_Rotschil ... f_Waterloo

On to medical, since you brought it up.

It's hard to find a historical chart but I will present this one.

Image

As you can see governmental intervention is a short lasting solution at best but that isn't even where the problem starts. Over regulation of the medical industry is a larger problem. The FDA is inefficient and it takes too long for new drugs to come online. They have also proven to be corruptible. Why do I need to go to a doctor for penicillin? Is it beneficial to me or anyone else with an infection to go to a doctor, spend $75 to get a script from an MD, then go to the drug store and buy the script for $20. I could have easily diagnosed my own problem and foregone the doctor. I perceive it as my right to go into a pharmacy and buy whatever it is that I need. You want cheaper health care then start right there by eliminating those federal regulations. I also perceive it as my right to go to someone who is not a governmental licensed practitioner and be diagnosed so that I might then go and buy the required drug. The free market will easily decide which drugs are BS and which are beneficial, particularly in the age of the internet. Persons using the medical industry would be greatly rewarded if there was a private reviewer of drugs, similar to Consumer Reports, rather than the governmental interference of the FDA. BTW the Prozac nation has been duped by the medical community. Antidepressants don't work

The reason we have rich socialist is because the rich influence the politicians to give them free money. You need only look at the last year to see the evidence.
Last edited by SAU on Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
SAU
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Vermont Castings/Nordic Stove
Stove/Furnace Model: VIGILANT II 2310/Erik Jr. HH

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: Devil505 On: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:15 am

SAU wrote:You can whip on Bush all you want, I personally do not see much difference from Bush to Clinton. C


If you can't see the difference between a President that tortured prisoners as a matter of state policy, lied his country into a war that has cost over 4,000 American lives & trillions of dollars & committed so many crimes against his country that I've lost count, & one who did a pretty good job.....Then there really is no point in discussing it.

The thread is yours.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: coaledsweat On: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:12 am

Devil505 wrote:Then there really is no point in discussing it.


Yet you continue to do so.
coaledsweat
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: SAU On: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:09 am

Pretty good job huh? Remember Ruby Ridge, Waco, Bosnia, the Dot Com bust. How about NAFTA, which btw Bush I started and klinton signed off on. The agenda is the same, and so are the fiscal policies. You refuse to debate because you suck at debates and facts.

Oh, fixed the chart image above.
SAU
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Vermont Castings/Nordic Stove
Stove/Furnace Model: VIGILANT II 2310/Erik Jr. HH

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: Devil505 On: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:21 am

SAU wrote:You refuse to debate because you suck at debates and facts.


Right back to 4th grade, eh? :baby:
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: Devil505 On: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:22 am

coaledsweat wrote:
Devil505 wrote:Then there really is no point in discussing it.


Yet you continue to do so.




No longer with SAU I don't. ;)
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: SAU On: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:46 am

Devil505 wrote:
coaledsweat wrote:
Devil505 wrote:Then there really is no point in discussing it.


Yet you continue to do so.




No longer with SAU I don't. ;)


Because you are incapable.
SAU
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Vermont Castings/Nordic Stove
Stove/Furnace Model: VIGILANT II 2310/Erik Jr. HH

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: greg white On: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:44 pm

talk about the south end of a north bound horse ,sau ....
greg white
 

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: Flyer5 On: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:56 pm

jpete wrote:
The recent investigation of the Illinois governor is an example of the political machine of which Obama is a product. If you were hoping for change, prepare to be sorely disappointed.




I wonder how much Obama paid for his seat ? :D
Flyer5
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Leisure Line WL110
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Leisure Line Pioneer

Re: Marxism vs The Constitution

PostBy: SAU On: Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:51 am

greg white wrote:talk about the south end of a north bound horse ,sau ....

I see now, so honesty is bad. I'll chalk that up as a new fact.
SAU
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Vermont Castings/Nordic Stove
Stove/Furnace Model: VIGILANT II 2310/Erik Jr. HH