posted June 06, 2005 12:18 AM              

quote:

---

the 10 amendments? more idiocy.--lovely*

---

wow...the bill of rights is idiocy??!!

if you like ann coulter youll love this thread.......
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001027.html

posted June 06, 2005 12:32 AM              

cute

posted June 06, 2005 12:40 AM              

oh i get it.........

posted June 06, 2005 01:17 AM              

by Dr. John W. Baer
Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

original Pledge read as follows:

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

posted June 06, 2005 01:24 AM              

the comment was idiotic and irrelevant, not dear Magus as a being. there is a difference.

posted June 06, 2005 09:02 AM            

I do consider myself to be in the middle. In fact, I was on the conservative side up until John McCain lost the nomination for president to George W. Bush.

I had written a whole long thing trying to explain how I came to be on the left side of the fence, but basically comes down the personalities of the parties.

I can go with the more peaceful group that entertains new ideas and technologies as they come, or I can go for the more agressive group that seems unwilling to look at new ideas, and which clings to the traditions of the past. What's even more telling is the extremists on either side. You got the peace-loving, eco-friendly, "communists," on the liberal side, and you got the gun-toting, militia-forming racists on the other.

posted June 06, 2005 06:16 PM              

Federal government holding the pwer they do now is the first reason I suggest why we have most of the problems we do now as a nation.

Actualy my freind at work the otehr day was trying to suggest to me that I read too many books, and told me he would like to see me go a month without reading a single one. I dont memorize the spelling of half the words in our language simply bacause Im allowed to be that absent minded.--- Im Aquarian !

posted June 06, 2005 09:57 PM            

The ideas you've expressed here could have come from the most radical leftist sites on the Internet. I have no doubt you're not a Republican, I also believe you do not identify with mainstream democrat ideas either. The elements in charge of the democrat party today are radical fringe leftists.

By the way, Dennis Kucinich is a far, far, far left...leftist and in no way, a liberal.

Here are 3 more truth telling Capricorns...as in, I'm a Capricorn, I can't lie.
Al Capone
Joseph Stalin
Mao Tse-tung

Stalin and Mao were the biggest mass murderers in the history of the planet....while lying about the murders in the name of communism to the West.

Democratic Member of Congress
Member of Progressive Caucus
Anti-war candidate for President in 2004

From 1969 to 1973, and again briefly in 1983, Dennis Kucinich was a member of the City Council in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1977 he was elected mayor of Cleveland, during which time the city fell into financial bankruptcy, a state of affairs that cost him his re-election bid in 1979. That year, Kucinich became a consultant for a publicly owned electric company, a position he has maintained to this day. From 1985 to 1995, he was the president of a marketing and communications firm. From 1982 to 1992, he was a professor of political science at Case Western Reserve University. From 1991 to 1994, he taught communications and political science at Cleveland State University. He was a member of the Ohio State Senate from 1995 to 1996, and has served in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1996.

Being a Roman Catholic, Kucinich was a longtime abortion foe - a stance that distinguished him from his fellow Progressive Caucus members and most Democrats. During his first six years in Congress, he consistently voted for anti-abortion legislation sponsored by conservative Republicans. In February 2003, however, he announced that he was changing his position to pro-choice. When some analysts speculated that this shift was motivated by political expediency - a desire to make himself more electable in the eyes of Democrats, who are overwhelmingly pro-choice - Kucinich denied that theory. Describing his new position as a mere "expansion" of his earlier one, he attributed the shift to his fear that the Bush administration and the Republican Congress were moving toward overturning the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling. "I've never been for a Constitutional amendment to criminalize abortion or for overturning Roe v. Wade, but I have taken positions I thought would be affirming life," Kucinich said.

In recent years Kucinich has lent his support to an organization called SOA Watch, whose stated mission is to close down the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA), which was recently renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC). Located at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, SOA (WHISC) is the Army's principal Spanish-language training facility for Latin American military personnel. During the Cold War, the SOA trained many Latin Americans in guerrilla tactics designed to help put down Communist insurgencies in the region. Many trainees indeed went on to fight against Communist (and often Soviet-financed) rule in their homelands. A testament to the School's effectiveness is the fact that Communist groups rank among the SOA's staunchest opponents. In January 1996 the Communist publication People's Weekly World printed an anti-SOA piece titled "Close the School of Assassins." The Socialist Party of Michigan has a link for SOA Watch on its Website. The Communist organization Workers World Party promotes SOA Watch events.

Critics complain that some of the guerrillas trained at the SOA later committed atrocities during their violent careers, while SOA supporters note that the School's cadets are trained in human rights, and that the school's mission is to encourage democracy in Latin America. Such a school, they contend, cannot be held responsible for the excesses of a small minority of those who have ever passed through its doors. Through public vigils, fasts, demonstrations, media campaigns, and political activism, SOA Watch members strive to influence public opinion and Congressional votes, in hopes that the SOA will eventually be dismantled. As a member of the House, Rep. Kucinich has actively fought to end funding for the SOA. He has consistently co-sponsored legislation calling for the School's closure, and has made numerous statements from the House floor toward that end.

In June 2002, Kucinich was the leading plaintiff when 31 House members (30 Democrats and one independent) filed a lawsuit against President Bush in an effort to block the president from withdrawing the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The suit also named Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Powell as defendants.

In February 2003 Kucinich and five other House Democrats again sued President Bush, this time in an attempt to block a U.S. invasion of Iraq. "Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation," said Kucinich. "Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud." Kucinich was a guest speaker at a number of large anti-war demonstrations during the months preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom. At a massive February 2003 rally in New York, he called for American "leadership in global disarmament." Kucinich also opposed the U.N. sanctions that had been imposed against Iraq in response to Saddam's non-compliance with weapons-inspection resolutions.

Kucinich advocates the creation of a new federal government agency called the Department of Peace (DOP), whose purpose, he explains, "will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence, and peaceful consensus building." "Domestically," adds Kucinich, "the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, police-community relations conflicts and work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as 'violence is inevitable' or 'war is inevitable.' Thus it will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus."

Kucinich supports dramatic increases in government spending on the arts, education, transportation, welfare, and environmental protection. Conversely, he advocates drastic reductions in spending for national defense, particularly the research and development of new weapons. He calls for further, though less draconian, cuts in funding for the modernization of existing weapons and military hardware. He favors the total elimination of research and testing for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) missile defense system. With regard to immigration issues, he advocates an increase in the number of visas issued for agricultural workers, and amnesty for certain illegal immigrants who already reside in the United States.

Among the measures Kucinich opposes are these: the establishment of English as the official national language; the temporary detention of asylum seekers from countries known to sponsor terrorism; the adoption of stricter rules for student visa applicants from nations known to sponsor terrorism; the granting of greater surveillance powers to law-enforcement agencies for the purpose of preventing future terrorist attacks; an increase in border security to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S.; and mandatory jail sentences for those who sell illegal drugs. Nor does he believe that the U.S. should hold foreign states accountable for the actions of terrorists who operate within their borders. In this view, the 9-11 hijackers and their co-conspirators are an independent band of criminals that should be prosecuted through legal, not military, channels - rather than the government-sanctioned benefactors of a Taliban regime that willfully permitted and supported their activities.

posted June 06, 2005 10:15 PM            

c/o Rep. Dennis Kucinich, co-chair
1730 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC
20515
Phone :202-225-5871
URL : http://bernie.house.gov/pc/

Radical caucus of more than 50 members of the House of Representatives
Founded in 1991 by Bernie Sanders of the Democratic Socialists of America
Until 1999, worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America
Prominent members include Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Peter DeFazio, and Nancy Pelosi

The Progressive Caucus is an organization of Members of Congress founded in 1991 by newly-elected Representative Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont), the former socialist mayor of Burlington and a member of the radical group Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which describes itself as "the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International."

The Progressive Caucus today includes Sanders and more than 50 other members of the House of Representatives, all of them leftwing Democrats and almost all in districts heavily gerrymandered to guarantee the re-election of any Democratic Party incumbent, no matter how extreme.

The Progressive Caucus nowadays advocates socialism through the euphemistic language of "social and economic justice," promotes "a more progressive tax system in which wealthier taxpayers and corporations pay their fair share," and lobbies for "adequate funding for social programs." In other words, its members seek a massive expropriation of private wealth in the United States by a Federal Government controlled by politicians like themselves, who will then redistribute this wealth to the poor through a socialist welfare state. It also advocates reallocating most of the national defense budget to welfare spending.

On November 11, 1999, the Progressive Caucus drafted its Position Paper on economic inequality. It reads, in part, as follows: "Economic inequality is the result of two and a half decades of government policies and rules governing the economy being tilted in favor of large asset owners at the expense of wage earners. Tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, government regulations and other rules have reflected this pro-investor bias. We propose the introduction or reintroduction of a package of legislative initiatives that will close America's economic divide and address both income and wealth disparities. . . . We are proposing initiatives to both raise the minimum wage floor and prevent the tax code from subsidizing excessive compensation. . . . The government has historically given land to citizens. Unfortunately, the programs were discriminatory toward people of color and kept a whole generation of people off the asset-building train. We are proposing a universal asset-building approach that will dramatically reduce the number of "asset-less" households and reduce the disparity of wealth for all Americans. . . . The concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our social and cultural fabric. Too much concentrated wealth leads to too much concentrated power and begins to undermine our participatory democracy."

In order "to bring new life to the progressive voice in U.S.politics," the Progressive Caucus, has worked closely with the Progressive Challenge. This is a coalition of left-wing groups through which their talking points, propaganda and calendars are synchronized and harmonized with one another by the radical Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). This left-wing think tank helps produce a smooth flow of coordinated, mutually-reinforcing propaganda from up to 200 seemingly-unconnected groups by making sure all are singing from the same hymn book and page….or in the Left's parlance, by making sure that all are following the party line.

Until 1999 the Progressive Caucus worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America. After press reports brought scrutiny to this linkage and began describing Caucus members as "Congress's Red Army," DSA and Progressive Caucus web site pages that revealed this connection suddenly vanished. Some members of the Progressive Caucus remain card-carrying members of DSA, and the political agenda of the Caucus is unchanged. Rep. Charles Rangel (D.-New York) one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress used to be a Progressive Caucus member, but his name no longer appears on its web site membership list. On the other hand, Representative Rangel has never repudiated his association with the Caucus or their political agendas.

As of 2004, the following Members of Congress belonged to the Progressive Caucus:

Officers
Dennis Kucinich (co-chair) - Ohio, 10th District

Barbara Lee (co-chair) - California, 9th District

Lynn Woolsey (vice-chair) - California, 6th District

Peter DeFazio (officer) - Oregon, 4th District

Jesse Jackson, Jr. (officer) - Illinois, 2nd District

Major Owens (officer) - New York, 11th District

Bernie Sanders (officer) - Vermont

Hilda Solis (officer) - California, 31st District

Members

Neil Abercrombie - Hawaii, 1st District

Tammy Baldwin - Wisconsin, 2nd District

Xavier Becerra - California, 30th District

Corrine Brown - Florida, 3rd District

Sherrod Brown - Ohio, 13th District

Michael Capuano - Massachusetts, 8th District

Julia Carson - Indiana, 10th District

William "Lacy" Clay - Missouri, 1st District

John Conyers - Michigan, 14th District

Danny Davis - Illinois, 7th District

Rosa DeLauro - Connecticut, 3rd District

Lane Evans - Illinois, 17th District

Eni Faleomavaega - American Samoa

Sam Farr - California, 17th District

Chaka Fattah - Pennsylvania, 2nd District

Bob Filner - California, 50th District

Barney Frank - Massachusetts, 4th District

Raul Grijalva - Arizona, 7th District

Luis Gutierrez - Illinois, 4th District

Maurice Hinchey - New York, 26th District

Sheila Jackson-Lee - Texas, 18th District

Stephanie Tubbs Jones - Ohio, 11th District

Marcy Kaptur - Ohio, 9th District

Tom Lantos - California, 12th District

John Lewis - Georgia, 5th District

Jim McDermott - Washington, 7th District

James P. McGovern - Massachusetts, 3rd District

George Miller - California, 7th District

Jerry Nadler - New York, 8th District

Eleanor Holmes Norton - District of Columbia

John Olver - Massachusetts, 1st District

Ed Pastor - Arizona, 2nd District

Donald Payne - New Jersey, 10th District

Nancy Pelosi - California, 8th District

Bobby Rush - Illinois, 1st District

Jan Schakowsky - Illinois, 9th District

Jose Serrano - New York, 16th District

Pete Stark - California, 13th District

Bennie Thompson - Mississippi, 2nd District

John Tierney - Massachusetts, 6th District

Tom Udall - New Mexico, 3rd District

Nydia Velazquez - New York, 12th District

Maxine Waters - California, 35th District

Diane Watson - California, 32nd District

Mel Watt - North Carolina, 12th District

posted June 06, 2005 10:33 PM            

But it doesn't mean what most people would think. What they're really talking about is equality of outcomes, not equality under the law. Equality of outcome is a communist idea and the very concept upon which communism is founded. The idea of pooled productive output and equal shares of the benefits of pooled efforts of that society.

In reality, Communist party members drive Zils, shop at restricted stores...need a special permit..card to shop there and the working classes stand in line for hours for a loaf of bread and a few wilted vegetables. Standing in those long lines, I wonder what they think as they see someone sharing equally in the productive capacity of their communist workers paradise who is driving their Zil to their dacha in the countryside and they will be walking home to their rickety public housing hopefully with that loaf of bread and those wilted vegetables..maybe even a small piece of half spoiled meat to go with it.

Yes indeed, America sucks.

Social Justice: Code for Communism
By Barry Loberfeld
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 27, 2004

The signature of modern leftist rhetoric is the deployment of terminology that simply cannot fail to command assent. As Orwell himself recognized, even slavery could be sold if labeled "freedom." In this vein, who could ever conscientiously oppose the pursuit of "social justice," -- i.e., a just society?

To understand "social justice," we must contrast it with the earlier view of justice against which it was conceived -- one that arose as a revolt against political absolutism. With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can't do anything "wrong." Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do. The historical realization traces from the Roman senate to Magna Carta to the U.S. Constitution to the 19th century. It was now a matter of "justice" that government not arrest citizens arbitrarily, sanction their bondage by others, persecute them for their religion or speech, seize their property, or prevent their travel.

This culmination of centuries of ideas and struggles became known as liberalism. And it was precisely in opposition to this liberalism -- not feudalism or theocracy or the ancien régime, much less 20th century fascism -- that Karl Marx formed and detailed the popular concept of "social justice," (which has become a kind of "new and improved" substitute for a storeful of other terms -- Marxism, socialism, collectivism -- that, in the wake of Communism's history and collapse, are now unsellable).

"The history of all existing society," he and Engels declared, "is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf ... oppressor and oppressed, stood in sharp opposition to each other." They were quite right to note the political castes and resulting clashes of the pre-liberal era. The expositors of liberalism (Spencer, Maine) saw their ethic, by establishing the political equality of all (e.g., the abolition of slavery, serfdom, and inequality of rights), as moving mankind from a "society of status" to a "society of contract." Alas, Marx the Prophet could not accept that the classless millenium had arrived before he did. Thus, he revealed to a benighted humanity that liberalism was in fact merely another stage of History's class struggle -- "capitalism" -- with its own combatants: the "proletariat" and the "bourgeoisie." The former were manual laborers, the latter professionals and business owners. Marx's "classes" were not political castes but occupations.

Today the terms have broadened to mean essentially income brackets. If Smith can make a nice living from his writing, he's a bourgeois; if Jones is reciting poetry for coins in a subway terminal, he's a proletarian. But the freedoms of speech and enterprise that they share equally are "nothing but lies and falsehoods so long as" their differences in affluence and influence persist (Luxemburg). The unbroken line from The Communist Manifesto to its contemporary adherents is that economic inequality is the monstrous injustice of the capitalist system, which must be replaced by an ideal of "social justice" -- a "classless" society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and "power."

Give Marx his due: He was absolutely correct in identifying the political freedom of liberalism -- the right of each man to do as he wishes with his own resources -- as the origin of income disparity under capitalism. If Smith is now earning a fortune while Jones is still stuck in that subway, it's not because of the "class" into which each was born, to say nothing of royal patronage. They are where they are because of how the common man spends his money. That's why some writers sell books in the millions, some sell them in the thousands, and still others can't even get published. It is the choices of the masses ("the market") that create the inequalities of fortune and fame -- and the only way to correct those "injustices" is to control those choices.

Every policy item on the leftist agenda is merely a deduction from this fundamental premise. Private property and the free market of exchange are the most obvious hindrances to the implementation of that agenda, but hardly the only. Also verboten is the choice to emigrate, which removes one and one's wealth from the pool of resources to be redirected by the demands of "social justice" and its enforcers. And crucial to the justification of a "classless" society is the undermining of any notion that individuals are responsible for their behavior and its consequences. To maintain the illusion that classes still exist under capitalism, it cannot be conceded that the "haves" are responsible for what they have or that the "have nots" are responsible for what they have not. Therefore, people are what they are because of where they were born into the social order -- as if this were early 17th century France.

Men of achievement are pointedly referred to as "the priviliged" -- as if they were given everything and earned nothing. Their seemimg accomplishments are, at best, really nothing more than the results of the sheer luck of a beneficial social environment (or even -- in the allowance of one egalitarian, John Rawls -- "natural endowment"). Consequently, the "haves" do not deserve what they have. The flip side of this is the insistence that the "have nots" are, in fact, "the underpriviliged," who have been denied their due by an unjust society. If some men wind up behind bars, they are (to borrow from Broadway) depraved only because they are "deprived." Environmental determinism, once an almost sacred doctrine of official Soviet academe, thrives as the "social constructionist" orthodoxy of today's anti-capitalist left. The theory of "behavioral scientists" and their boxed rats serviceably parallels the practice of a Central Planning Board and its closed society.

The imperative of economic equality also generates a striking opposition between "social justice" and its liberal rival. The equality of the latter, we've noted, is the equality of all individuals in the eyes of the law -- the protection of the political rights of each man, irrespective of "class" (or any assigned collective identity, hence the blindfold of Justice personified). However, this political equality, also noted, spawns the difference in "class" between Smith and Jones. All this echoes Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek's observation that if "we treat them equally [politically], the result must be inequality in their actual [i.e., economic] position." The irresistable conclusion is that "the only way to place them in an equal [economic] position would be to treat them differently [politically]" -- precisely the conclusion that the advocates of "social justice" themselves have always reached.

In the nations that had instituted this resolution throughout their legal systems, "different" political treatment came to subsume the extermination or imprisonment of millions because of their "class" origins. In our own American "mixed economy," which mixes differing systems of justice as much as economics, "social justice" finds expression in such policies and propositions as progressive taxation and income redistribution; affirmative action and even "reparations," its logical implication; and selective censorship in the name of "substantive equality," i.e., economic equality disingenuously reconfigured as a Fourteenth Amendment right and touted as the moral superior to "formal equality," the equality of political freedom actually guaranteed by the amendment. This last is the project of a growing number of leftist legal theorists that includes Cass Sunstein and Catherine MacKinnon, the latter opining that the "law of [substantive] equality and the law of freedom of expression [for all] are on a collision course in this country." Interestingly, Hayek had continued, "Equality before the law and material equality are, therefore, not only different, but in conflict with each other" -- a pronouncement that evidently draws no dissent.

Hayek emphasized another conflict between the two conceptions of justice, one we can begin examining simply by asking who the subject of liberal justice is. The answer: a person -- a flesh-and-blood person, who is held accountable for only those actions that constitute specifically defined crimes of violence (robbery, rape, murder) against other citizens. Conversely, who is the subject of "social justice" -- society? Indeed yes, but is society really a "who"? When we speak of "social psychology" (the standard example), no one believes that there is a "social psyche" whose thoughts can be analyzed. And yet the very notion of "social justice" presupposes a volitional Society whose actions can (and must) be held accountable. This jarring bit of Platonism traces all the way back to Marx himself, who, "despite all his anti-Idealistic and anti-Hegelian rhetoric, is really an Idealist and Hegelian ... asserting, at root, that [Society] precedes and determines the characteristics of those who are [its] members" (R.A. Childs, Jr.). Behold leftism's alternative to liberalism's "atomistic individualism": reifying collectivism, what Hayek called "anthropomorphism or personification."

Too obviously, it is not liberalism that atomizes an entity (a concrete), but "social justice" that reifies an aggregate (an abstraction). And exactly what injustice is Society responsible for? Of course: the economic inequality between Smith and Jones -- and Johnson and Brown and all others. But there is no personified Society who planned and perpetrated this alleged inequity, only a society of persons acting upon the many choices made by their individual minds. Eventually, though, everyone recognizes that this Ideal of Society doesn't exist in the real world -- leaving two options. One is to cease holding society accountable as a legal entity, a moral agent. The other is to conclude that the only practicable way to hold society accountable for "its" actions is to police the every action of every individual.

The apologists for applied "social justice" have always explained away its relationship to totalitarianism as nothing more than what we may call (after Orwell's Animal Farm) the "Napoleon scenario": the subversion of earnest revolutions by demented individuals (e.g., Stalin, Mao -- to name just two among too many). What can never be admitted is that authoritarian brutality is the not-merely-possible-but-inevitable realization of the nature of "social justice" itself.

What is "social justice"? The theory that implies and justifies the practice of socialism. And what is "socialism"? Domination by the State. What is "socialized" is state-controlled. So what is "totalitarian" socialism other than total socialism, i.e., state control of everything? And what is that but the absence of a free market in anything, be it goods or ideas? Those who contend that a socialist government need not be totalitarian, that it can allow a free market -- independent choice, the very source of "inequality"! -- in some things (ideas) and not in others (goods -- as if, say, books were one or the other), are saying only that the socialist ethic shouldn't be applied consistently.

This is nothing less than a confession of moral cowardice. It is the explanation for why, from Moscow to Managua, all the rivalries within the different socialist revolutions have been won by, not the "democratic" or "libertarian" socialists, but the totalitarians, i.e., those who don't qualify their socialism with antonyms. "Totalitarian socialism" is not a variation but a redundancy, which is why half-capitalist hypocrites will always lose out to those who have the courage of their socialist convictions. (Likewise, someone whose idea of "social justice" is a moderate welfare state is someone who's willing to tolerate far more "social injustice" than he's willing to eliminate.)

What is "social justice"? The abolition of privacy. Its repudiation of property rights, far from being a fundamental, is merely one derivation of this basic principle. Socialism, declared Marx, advocates "the positive abolition of private property [in order to effect] the return of man himself as a social, i.e., really human, being." It is the private status of property -- meaning: the privacy, not the property -- that stands in opposition to the social (i.e., "socialized," and thus "really human") nature of man. Observe that the premise holds even when we substitute x for property. If private anything denies man's social nature, then so does private everything. And it is the negation of anything and everything private -- from work to worship to even family life -- that has been the social affirmation of the socialist state.

What is "social justice"? The opposite of capitalism. And what is "capitalism"? It is Marx's coinage (minted by his materialist dispensation) for the Western liberalism that diminished state power from absolutism to limited government; that, from John Locke to the American Founders, held that each individual has an inviolable right to his own life, liberty, and property, which government exists solely to secure. Now what would the reverse of this be but a resurrection of Oriental despotism, the reactionary increase of state power from limited government to absolutism, i.e., "totalitarianism," the absolute control of absolutely everything? And what is the opposite -- the violation -- of securing the life, liberty, and property of all men other than mass murder, mass tyranny, and mass plunder? And what is that but the point at which theory ends and history begins?

And yet even before that point -- before the 20th century, before publication of the Manifesto itself -- there were those who did indeed make the connection between what Marxism inherently meant on paper and what it would inevitably mean in practice. In 1844, Arnold Ruge presented the abstract: "a police and slave state." And in 1872, Michael Bakunin provided the specifics:

[T]he People's State of Marx ... will not content itself with administering and governing the masses politically, as all governments do today. It will also administer the masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State the production and division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of commerce, and finally the application of capital to production by the only banker -- the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many heads "overflowing with brains" in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe unto the mass of ignorant ones!

posted June 06, 2005 10:38 PM            

Randall, it's difficult to post a full length article on this forum. An error message appears indicating the post didn't post up....when it really did. Nevertheless, I know you're working on the problem, which is appreciated.

posted June 06, 2005 11:36 PM            

quote:

---

The elements in charge of the democrat party today are radical fringe leftists.

---

Let me just look that up at www.radicalfringeleftists.com. Where the heck do you get these titles?

Do we want to have a debate on which is the better sign, Jwhop?

Benito Mussolini
Fidel Castro
Deng Xiaoping
Jiang Zemin
Arthur Bremer (Ironically and tragically, Bremer was the inspiration for the character Travis Bickle, played by Robert DeNiro, in Taxi Driver, a movie that would later inspire John Hinckley, Jr. to shoot President Ronald Reagan.)
Slobodan Milosovic
David Koresh
Your two favorite people Bill Clinton, and Monica Lewinski.

And what about notable Capricorns?

Martin Luther King, Jr.
John J. Pershing
Simon Wiesenthal
Barry Goldwater
Therese De Lisieux (Saint)
Konrad Adenauer
Bernadette Soubirous (Saint)
Albert Schweitzer
Joan of Arc (Saint)
Fulgencio Batista
David Lloyd George

And further bad Capricorns:

Herman Goering

There are good and bad, honorable and dishonorable in every sign

quote:

---

I'm a Capricorn, I can't lie.

---

It's not that I can't, it's just that I don't. Surely you know some Capricorns. Make your own assessment.

quote:

---

Dennis Kucinich is a far, far, far left...leftist

---

posted June 06, 2005 11:46 PM            

Jwhop is still misreading and misrepresenting my posts.

Here is what I wrote in another thread:

quote:

---

You have the right to reject persons in your political party.

---

I do. Like Dennis Kucinich, for example. He's an idealist, but impractical. Oooh, Howard Dean too.

Jwhop's reply (besides all the unnecessary article posting):

quote:

---

This is where your boy Dennis is coming from Acoustic. I thank you for identifying yourself as a supporter. It places you exactly in the leftist fringe of radical political thought I believed...after reading what you had to say.

---

I said that I reject Kucinich, and Jwhop calls me a supporter of him.

posted June 07, 2005 12:31 AM            

quote:

---

He's an idealist

---

How odd that someone who claims to be a supporter of John McCain, a prisoner of war in communist North Vietnam, a POW tortured by those same communists...and now here is Acoustic attempting to cast doubt on the veracity of David Horowitz, a former communist who knows all the players of the far left radical fringe very well. So Acoustic, I ask you again. You're a middle of the road what? You really seem to be defending those who align themselves with murderous terrorist Islamics and also leftist dictators. Why is that Acoustic...when you say you're middle of the road?

Can you show me by word or deed where John McCain dismisses terrorism as being the fault of America? Can you show me by word or deed where John McCain ever attempted to prevent the removal of Saddam Hussein? Yet, you say you're a McCain supporter. That needs some explanation Acoustic.

posted June 07, 2005 06:48 AM            

quote:

---

You're a middle of the road what?

---

I'm a middle of the road American, Jwhop. If you knew some, then maybe you'd be able to see me for who I am.

For your information, I am not what your assessment of me is. You don't define me. I define myself. I am not an activist, and I'm not on a crusade. You tend to see what you want to see, and that doesn't seem to be working well for you. Also, in case you missed my 'DD214' reference, it means that I served my country for four years. You are not qualified to assess my patriotism on any level.

-----------
Explain why I like John McCain? He's sensible. How's that?

He, like me, sees good on both sides of the aisle. He works with others towards equitable solutions. He, himself, went to reconcile with your sworn enemies the communists.

posted June 07, 2005 09:44 AM            

You send me to the Dennis Kucinich website to find out what an idealist he is I've already shown you what he is...a co-chair of the congressional progressive caucus which is and has been referred to by the press as the "red army" within congress.

I'm beginning to see what level of proof you require Acoustic. Unless a socialist/communist stands up, looks everyone in the eye and says, "I'm a communist", no other proof will be sufficient.

posted June 07, 2005 10:51 AM            

quote:

---

Being a far left radical who believes America is the biggest problem in the world and that America IS the cause for terrorism is sufficient shame for you.

---

First off, once again I must remind you that you do not define me. I define myself. You're the ONLY person who has EVER accused me of being a far, left radical, and I don't believe you're convincing anyone here either. Let anyone who has become convinced as a result of Jwhop's foolishness please step forward.

When have I EVER said, "America is the biggest problem in the world?" I haven't. Once again, you let me show our mutual viewers that you make things up, and see what you want to see. Nor did I say that America is the cause of terrorism. In fact, I very specifically said it was a matter of perception, which you don't seem to get.

quote:

---

That and your belief that communism is idealistic.

---

Do you not know what idealistic means? How old are you? Ok, "idealistic," refers to an, "ideal," which can be defined as:

1. A conception of something in its absolute perfection.
2. One that is regarded as a standard or model of perfection or excellence.
3. An ultimate object of endeavor; a goal.
4. An honorable or worthy principle or aim.

From http://www.fact-index.com/c/co/communism.html

quote:

---

"In Marxism, communism refers to an ideal stateless, propertyless, and classless society with no oppression or exploitation and general abundance and freedom. This society would run in accord with the principle: To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability. A common exemplification of the concept is "if a successful architect is single, he only needs one loaf of bread a day, and if a member of the proletariat has seven children with his wife, they need nine loaves of bread a day; neither have to pay for the bread at the baker's, and they both ask for exactly as much bread as they need -- the same applies for any other property, such as the apartment or the car". Such a circumstance has never occurred, and the Marxist ideal of communism is often viewed as an unrealistic goal."

---

It is an ideal for any who would believe in it. Not only so, communism by theory in no way endorses violence or human restriction.

Here again is a case of you attaching an improper judgement devoid of critical thought to something you think you understand, but clearly don't.

quote:

---

"red army" within congress.

---

This is silly, but if you need it explained the author is trying to say that Dennis Kucinich is a socialist by comparing him to the army of a supposedly socialist state. This, however, doesn't mean that Kucinich believes in the human rights improprieties of said nation.

Here's a quote from your dangerous far, far leftist (Kucinich):

quote:

---

This is the idea behind my proposal to establish a Department of Peace. This is the idea to make nonviolence an organizing principle at home and abroad and dedicate ourselves to peaceful coexistence, consensus building, disarmament, and respect for international treaties. Violence and war are not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable.

---

Boy, that sounds precisely in line with the mass murdering communists you detest doesn't it?

Excuse me for saying so, but you're a bit thick at times, Jwhop, so I'm going to illustrate this again for you just in a (likely futile) effort to get you to understand.

There are Islamists, and then there are radical Islamists. No one has any need to worry about regular Islamists . The whole western world has to worry about radical Islamists.

This is the way it is with people who agree with Socialism or Communism. The mass murdering communists would be the radical Islamists. The hippy, peace-loving communists would be the regular Islamists. There is no inherent danger when dealing with a peace-loving commie. Trouble comes to communism when a communist is put in a position of power.

There's no danger of that with someone like Kucinich. Even if he got into power he'd still have to break the might of congress and the Supreme Court in order to take away anyone's rights.

quote:

---

I'm beginning to see what level of proof you require Acoustic. Unless a socialist/communist stands up, looks everyone in the eye and says, "I'm a communist", no other proof will be sufficient.

---

Here again, what do I care if Kucinich is a communist? That's completely his right, and you and I as his countrymen ought to stand by his right to proclaim that if he should choose to.

quote:

---

All I need do is keep you talking Acoustic....so do say on.

---

posted June 07, 2005 11:48 AM            

quote:

---

The war in it's very best purpose was probably designed to end the sanctions we ordained after the first conflict and continued through Clinton. Through these sanctions thousands of Iraqis died, and the terrorists that attacked us gained a seemingly legitimate purpose. Wanting us to remove ourselves from the holy land in Saudi Arabia is one thing, but fighting for the health of an entire arab state is a far more noble purpose. That is why the anti-American terrorist network is so large. Bin Laden was able to point people to the terrible state of health affairs in Iraq, and draw sympathizers. This is the TRUE link between the war in Iraq and the terrorists. The war, at its best, is going to be helpful in removing sanctions, and returning Iraqi infrastructure, so that the people whom America repressed may again be healthy and stop dying at the hands of the sanctions we imposed through the United Nations.

---

Neither do you get to define yourself when you post material on a website. Your very words and ideas you put forth define you. So, I don't care if you call yourself a rose or a sewer, I'll let the odor decide which you are.

quote:

---

If this is the case, it's actually quite smart, because it means that we, the US, do understand the nature of the terrorist threat, and we're trying to distance ourselves from actions that we took part in as part of the UN. It would essentially mean that this cowboy-looking administration IS actually aware of the Jihadist's beliefs, and is addressing them as a way to try and extend an olive branch.

---

quote:

---

This goes back to what I said earlier. It's guilt by association. It's guilt by measure of the influence we wield. Why, with all the influence we have, did we not ask to inspect the Oil for Food program earlier if we are so concerned for the welfare of Iraqi citizens?

---

quote:

---

You consider me a leftist, and I never lie. Again I'll say that I'm a Capricorn, and lying is just against our nature.

---

quote:

---

Here again, what do I care if Kucinich is a communist? That's completely his right, and you and I as his countrymen ought to stand by his right to proclaim that if he should choose to.

---

quote:

---

In Marxism, communism refers to an [ideal stateless, propertyless, and classless society with no oppression or exploitation and general abundance and freedom

---

You need to get it through your head Acoustic that I do not believe you, do not trust you, your judgment or your statement that you cannot lie. Neither do you have a thing to teach me about domestic or foreign policy, communism, socialism or any other crackpot collectivist theory of government or economics.

Your thought processes are apparent to me so you need only continue to post your words because they define you, no matter what you call yourself.

Now, what's the source of your statement that Capricorns are incapable of lying? This is what.... 3rd time I've asked you? This is an astrology site Acoustic and those are your words.

Now that you've shown your leftist credentials, which I accept, it's time to show your knowledge of astrology and back up what you said...or admit you cannot and just made it up so everyone would take you at your word. Flawed logic and totally irrational Acoustic.

posted June 07, 2005 11:38 PM            

quote:

---

Yes Acoustic, according to you, it's America the represser/oppressor in the world. America sucks, right Acoustic? Own up to your own words, words have definite meanings and you don't get to define them on your own terms.

---

Yes, but I also explained that statement didn't I? No need to continue with multiple rebuttals to the same argument.

quote:

---

I'll let the odor decide which you are.

---

And I shall endeavor to do the same for you.

quote:

---

The part we played, along with the rest of the UN Security Council was to place sanctions on Iraq until Saddam Hussein complied with the provisions of Security Resolution 687...the entire purpose of which were conditions upon which a ceasefire existed. Saddam never, ever complied. America sucks, right Acoustic?

---

How do you get America sucks from what I wrote there? Interesting interpretation.

quote:

---

This goes back to what I said earlier. It's guilt by association. It's guilt by measure of the influence we wield. Why, with all the influence we have, did we not ask to inspect the Oil for Food program earlier if we are so concerned for the welfare of Iraqi citizens?

America is guilty, America sucks, right Acoustic?

---

You are always saying that this war is 12 years in the making, right? And what, pray tell, did conservative leadership have to say about improving the lives of Iraqis?

quote:

---

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

---

Conservative concern, even in 1998, was in reference to WMD not the Iraqi people. You would think that this higly intelligent bunch would have at least touched on the subject of the welfare of the Iraqi people, but they didn't. The desired removal of Saddam is strictly presented as that as a threat to US interests.

quote:

---

No person has the right to advocate the overthrow of the US Constitution or the government of the United States Acoustic and that's exactly what communism would entail. Kucinich is a communist.

---

(Why do I have to explain every little detail to you?) That's why he would never be put in a position of power. This is an instance where you ought to prove your point by showing that Kucinich's desire is to overthrow the US Constitution.

quote:

---

The idea of a stateless, propertyless existence is not an ideal. Neither is your boy Dennis an idealist in any way. Anyone who advocates for an equality of outcomes is not an idealist, they are the oppressors...using the power of government to enforce a rigid class society where they are the absolute rulers.

---

Ok, so you don't understand. I can't help that.

posted June 08, 2005 12:14 AM            

quote:

---

Now, what's the source of your statement that Capricorns are incapable of lying? This is what.... 3rd time I've asked you? This is an astrology site Acoustic and those are your words.

---

Boy, I can just feel my credibility wafting away with each and every time you ask this. Lord!

You posted my own words:

quote:

---

You consider me a leftist, and I never lie. Again I'll say that I'm a Capricorn, and lying is just against our nature.

---

Where did I say we were incapable? I didn't.

Ok, from http://karma.astrology.com/profiles/capricorn.html :

quote:

---

Capricorns make great students and employees; their commitment to perfection ensures they'll never turn in a sloppy report. This points to another of this Sign's weaknesses, however: Its perfectionism means Capricorn is afraid to make even the smallest of mistakes. As ruled by Saturn, the Planet of Karma, Capricorn is imbued with an undue sense of responsibility and tends to be sober and earnest as a result. To many Capricorns, there's no such thing as "one little mistake"; that mistake is the very one, in their minds, that could throw things off further down the line, ruining that grand plan they've been working toward since the very beginning. This mindset produces far too much stress; Capricorn must learn to lighten up, even if only for the sake of mental health.
...
The worry that one mistake, no matter how minor, could throw things off in a major way gives Capricorn a rather fatalistic viewpoint. Rather than being unforgiving and inflexible, this Sign must learn to allow room for error. Part of the problem lies in being overly concerned with what others will think of them if their errors are made known. Capricorns must realize that others don't notice their "shortcomings" nearly as much as they do themselves; in fact, others may not consider making mistakes to be a shortcoming at all. If Capricorn can abandon the rigidity in this thinking, it will be freed to relax and do some truly inspired work.

---

And now, having been reminded that, "Capricorn must learn to lighten up, even if only for the sake of mental health," I think I'm going to abandon Global Unity once again.

It's clear that this isn't leading any place productive. Silly me for me to think that I need to hang out to point out the obvious.

quote:

---

The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases.
Carl Jung (1875 - 1961) Leo

---

quote:

---

Living apart and at peace with myself, I came to realize more vividly the meaning of the doctrine of acceptance. To refrain from giving advice, to refrain from meddling in the affairs of others, to refrain, even though the motives be the highest, from tampering with another's way of life - so simple, yet so difficult for an active spirit. Hands off!
Henry Miller (1891 - 1980) Capricorn

---