America is such a hypocritical nation. The majority of American's will absolutely say that they are against socialism and Marxist communism, and, in the same breath, support every communistic and socialistic program that they rely on like a damnable crutch: Public schools, Medicaid, Social Security, Federal Reserve, income tax, centralization and control of all transportation, control of agriculture, and every other program that the government uses to make the citizens dependant upon the government for their sustenance, etc.

Marx also said that these planks will be established within each country differently than another. No two country's governments will establish communism in the same way. Just because we don't have the same form of communism as other countries, its irrelevant; the fact that every plank has been established in the United States, in some form or another, is enough for every American to become very, very, very concerned.

Nowhere does it say that "All men and women are created equal". The Declaration of Indpenedence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." If you actually read the words of the founding father's, you'll discover that the "rights" that they were talking about were derived from "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". These "natural rights" were what government was supposed to protect, not create. It is these "rights" in which we were are all "created equal" by our "Creator", not in our financial station in life, education, or any other field. It is ignorant to say that the socialistic ideal of equality in substance was what the founding father's meant when writing the Declaration, when it was equality in the protection of "natural rights", given by a "Creator", that they obviously sought for.

Very well said, Archer.

If such was the case, it's too bad the American people didn't get at him before he kicked-off by natural causes. Seriously, we need to hang at least one public official a year! Just to keep a clear message to those who serve us, and to attract just the kind of men we want.

Tells you just how far we've come, doesn't it? Even the Canadians are saying we're screwed up. = )

I know of only one Legislature who still thinks this way. I know nothing of Goldwater, but I would give this quote more stars than 5 if I could for its sentiment.

It's also been said that the ideal government is one that will protect the individual's natural and inalienable liberty and freedom from usurpation and coercion of the masses; It's function, in this case, is not necessarily then to provide for everyone's utopias wants and needs, so much as protect them in their rights, and let them hash out and find what is best for themselves on their own.

It doesn't matter that there are worse alternatives to our paternal government. It's like forcing someone to choose between drinking skunk juice or munchin' down on a rotting corpse, after it's been regurgitated by a dog. Sure, after we're forced to munch down the regurgitated canine espresso, we might say, "Actually, there are far worse alternatives" like the skunk juice... But is that really the point? I would rather have my freedom of choice, liberty of action, and my accountability in the beginning that would have kept me away from ever actually having to make the choice between the two-- or at least be given a third option to opt out entirely.

Socialism says that everyone is forced to take care of everyone else, the group is greater than individual, and we must all be equal. Fascism says that everyone is forced to take care of themselves, the group is greater than the individual, and our needs cannot be greater than that of the state's. Gotta love America's equal balance of both.

I love my paternal government. They will force my children to pay and take care of me, like I was forced to pay for and take care of my retired, lazy, and disabled family. I live by the Socialist's Golden Rule: It's okay to steal from your kids, so long as you were robbed by your parents before. Right?

Herein is the perfect example of how government can perpetually pass de facto laws, completely against "natural" or "de jure" law, without any resistance of the people; somehow the American people came to the understanding that "law" is whatever government says it is... such is a gross and total misunderstanding of how the founding fathers perceived and talked of law. So sad.

Liberty, Freedom, and Accountability... we fair thee well. Greetings, tyranny.

Unless you live in a "terrorist" world, eh?

Thank you, Jack, for your entertaining, yet brazenly ignorant, responses to my posts. You, like so many Americans bringing 'democracy to knowledge', are completely oblivious to the differences between Republics and Democracies, Socialism and Fascism, and the Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Majorities. It's apparent you have not read Machiavelli, Blackstone, Locke, or any predecessor of the founding fathers, to actually know what such phrases as "the laws of nature, and of nature's God", "Natural law", or anything of the like, really mean-- or what sort of tyranny these men were struggling to leave when they spoke these phrases. It's sad that so many, like yourself, live in their own wikiality ("truth according to consensus" rather than fact-- thanks Colbert), and cut themselves short from the lessons that can be learned from the reality of history. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiality).

Jack, I take it from your post about democracies, and your statement questioning the relevance of my response to the quote, that you know very little of the only guarantee the Constitution gives. If you knew anything of Republics, my response makes perfect sense in light of the quote. Republics are based on rule of law; in our case, 'the laws of nature, and of nature's God', or, in other words, 'Natural Law' (you can go ahead and study that yourself, make sure you use authentic resources though, words and phrases change meaning over time). Democracy, Socialism, and Fascism are the antithesis to the 'rule of law'. Our Republic was structured that no government official, elected or otherwise, could assume any powers, those granted by Natural Law or otherwise. This kept men from being entrusted with unlimited power. Be this as it may, some people aren't happy with the government simply protecting them in their inalienable rights; they want the government to provide for them also. Once you start going against the rule of natural law, and begin to use the government as your one-stop-shop, and give it more power than can be given in a Constitutional Republic, the government is no longer a protectorate of the rights people, but a provider and collector of revenue. In this way, once more and more power is given to government, the road to big-business-government is quickly a reality. Our government has not reached the point of public mass genocide within our own borders; however, if left unchecked, American big-business-government, whose sole interest is in collecting and maintaining revenue, will quickly turn against its people like that of so many democracies, and socialist/fascist regimes of old.

It's amazing how the meanings of words change through time. I laugh every time someone uses wikipedia or a current dictionary to refer to particular word or phrase that once carried significant and specific meaning at the time it was given. We use our current definitions of words to rewrite history, and the things history teaches us. Such is, in itself, the sad pattern of history-- that those who are not willing to learn from their past, are doomed to repeat it. People find more solace in following the same destructive path as their ancestors, so long as they call their journey by another name, than by taking a long-hard look at what they're actually choosing, and the consequences of where their choices are going to lead them.

This is why socialism and fascism are so very dangerous. The liberal-left always complain that corporations have been given so much power, and that they are running America amuck. While this is mostly true, I am dumbfounded that the same liberal-left will, in the same breathe, condemn big-business-corporations, while promoting big-business-government. When the liberal-left argues that we need more government programs, taxes, help, aid, and support, I am left in complete disbelief at their lack of brain activity. At least with corporations you can choose to deal with them, American citizens have no such choice with their government. I have no choice of whether or not I pay (or rather, “shop” with) my government; they forcefully take from me before I ever have a chance to see what it is they’re taking! What evil corporation ever did that? Why give more power to the only entity that can legally make its own rules and use coercion to accomplish them? The man who will condemn big-business-corporations and support big-business-government is a fool.

I've often wondered how a single man could get a nation to follow him into such a war as did Hitler. Germany enjoyed many of the freedoms that we American's often brag about; however, how did Hitler cause his people, who bragged about so many freedoms and tolerance to all, to unilaterally support his hatred against so many people? The German people were no less ignorant or stupid than the majority of modern Americans, how did he do it?? He did it the same way our own government has been doing it to us... It may be too late, but hopefully we, as Americans, never become apathetic to the point that we are blind to the dangers of those who lie to us for our own welfare. 5 stars for sheer honesty, and the brilliance of how to control a society so effectively.

Obviously, America hasn't reached her threshold of pain yet. Too many sheeple with the ability to vote.

Which is why I say we should mandate a public hanging of a public official at least once a year.

Wonderful! Absolutely wonderful!

I give five stars based on what Burke meant to say by this. In reality, liberty, if it is inalienable, can never be given up. The expression of liberty can be limited, but liberty is as absolute and eternal as a thing can possibly be. Either there are inalienable rights, or there aren't.

Bravo, Archer!

Regardless, it's true.