Said in 1924 — may be true.  It was just a few years prior in 1913 that the 16th Amendment gave to the federal government the power to levy income taxes directly upon the citizen and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act which required the income tax as collateral for the debts incurred by the federal government. 

By 1934 the federal government had been bankrupted by this scheme resulting in the permanent receivership of the US government to the Federal Reserve now reduced to using fiat currency laden with interest-bearing obligations eternally.  The patient is never cured, leaving her with just enough energy to serve the banker's interests, laying claim to all the rest for payment of the nation's debt to the Federal Reserve.

In 1924, I doubt even 100 people outside of the banking world even knew what was happening to them.  All through a lack of knowledge of the Constitution, the US government has been hijacked.

If that is the art of war, then it can be safely reckoned that the Democrats, the Deep State, and their media allies have declared war on Trump and are following Grant's playbook to a tee. ;-)

This was 1976!  Fake News has been fake for a long time.  3 TV broadcasting companies (CBS, NBC, ABC) ruled the airwaves for decades — almost all of it in collusion with the government.  The baby boomers have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the supremacy of the State and the 'civil' rights of the people.  Few today truly understand the republican form of government established in America and the natural born rights which form its foundation.

Conflating a civil right to the status of a natural-born right is the fundamental corruption of the law in America.  Civil rights are granted and regulated by the State — they can be given and taken away by legislation.  Natural-born rights are those we recognize as inalienable and not subject to the will of other people.  The rights to Life and Liberty do not depend upon any others; it is considered a Law of Nature that all have natural rights and a individual responsibility to defend those rights.  

Civil law consists of statutes and rules, the jurisdiction thereof belonging to those that have agreed to these rules, but they cannot apply to a natural born person.  Civil law is in the realm of commercial law, colorable law, and cannot be applied to persons not engaging in the regulated activity.

Housing is a need, not a right.  Food is a need, not a right.  Education is a need, not a right.  Employment is a need, not a right.  Wow, that is a lot of responsibility for a person; how did we ever make it this far without government dependence?  Note that those crying for more dependence are claiming that housing, food, education are rights that others must provide.  That is not a right but a claim to another's labor and property, life and liberty.  

This is the simple mind-game of the communists/socialists.  Confusing the individual who he/she is, what he/she is entitled to, and what his/her obligations are to 'society' (i.e. to people involved in government).

Defending oneself from thieves is a need AND a right!

Which is why the government is to be ever subservient to and regulated by the People, not the other way around.

Perhaps this bodes well for the failure of socialism in America — the progressives are consumed by identity politics, ever trying to prop up the appropriating of an identity contrary to one's biology.  Rather than immersing themselves in the crowd, they insist on being singled out for celebrating their identity.  some Americans may be embracing socialism, but they can't seem to stop making it about 'me.'

The left/right paradigm is held up by those that lay claim to it all, in typical authoritarian fashion.  Apparently the world is 2 dimensional, no depth.  Right and left are 2 parts of a whole, you can't be to the 'right' of nothing.  Is communism 'on the Left'?  The left of what?  Everything else, because there is nothing left of the left.  So when those that identify with the ideals of the 'left' call someone 'right-wing' they merely mean not them.  Anyone not them is to the right or 'far-right' which is often conflated with Nazism.  Nazism was a German form of socialism — nationalist democratic socialism, that's what NAZI means.

But point that out and then the self-declared socialists will say Hitler was not a real socialist.  ;-)  How about the people?  Did they think they were socialists when they voted for his party? when they voted to make Hitler the country's leader for life?  (Chinese communist Xi is also 'elected' and now for life as well.) 

The fact is that the US has adopted many key principles of socialism such that Liberty has become an enemy.  The real disparity in America is Liberty vs. Statism.  Are the natural born rights of the People supreme or the dictates of the State?  From the perspective of a socialist (i.e. authoritarian) any move away from State power is a move to the right — communists feel the same way.  From the perspective of a free American, the socialists are laying claim to total power over the People.  That is not Right, it is WRONG.  Note that those that the socialists call 'right-wing' do not consider themselves right wing but merely defending their inalienable 'rights' from authoritarians.

I cannot argue against those that say the US has embraced fascism (thanks to FDR) — I agree.  But it is not what the country was founded upon. Socialism in all its forms is the hijacking of a free nation.

"A nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"  Wow, has American academia gone off the deep end!  Judging people by their words and actions rather than skin color is racist!  Don't you know, that racism is systemic and that colored people deserve special treatment because of their skin color alone, no matter the content of their characters?  Colored privilege trumps character apparently.  Hey, maybe people don't like you because of your character not your color, white, black, yellow — who is responsible for that?

RBESRQ is you, Robert.  Have you changed your mind?

Actually, Rand makes an excellent observation.  Respecting the 'rights' of each other naturally subordinates 'society' which is nothing but a group of people.  The actions of the group (society) must adhere to respecting the natural-born rights of the individuals within it, otherwise, it has become a mob making might right and subordinating the individual to the mob (society).  Of course, the mob has leaders, and the leaders act as totalitarians for the group.  The power of organizing society is what the totalitarians want, individual rights will be declared by the leaders, all else is forbidden.

For several years, I used to attend the Bread and Circus Theater gathering in Glover, VT.  There were performances and giant puppets — the 'evil' one burned in effigy.  Anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-capitalism, free bread (long lines), hippies, drugs, veggie burritos, good times!  Few were there to be educated in progressivism, most were there for the party and the bonfires. 

Hear, hear!! 

Without the Left, there would be no Right ...

Collectivists use 'we' to identify themselves — 'we' have this, 'we' do that, 'we' should this, ... 'we'?  YOU are not doing any of that, so how do you speak of 'we' ?  Collectivists have a bit of a responsibility problem — they don't know how to identify what is really 'theirs' and what is not.  When a liberal says 'we' he/she means someone else.  To what are 'we' entitled?  What are 'we' responsible for?  That is a distraction — to what am 'I' entitled, for what am 'I' responsible?  Those are the real questions.  Hiding in the mass of 'we' to avoid responsibility only places the responsibility upon someone else.  What are 'we' to do?  Whatever each individual does. 

It should be no surprise to discover that the most 'liberal' cities applying classic collectivism have the most homelessness and crime.  Victims are political currency, and are the cash cows of collectivism.  You will be assimilated. 

"You are what you is." ;-)

What a bunch of 'liberal' hogwash.  You will only look forward and not behind?  How irresponsible — ignorance of the results of your actions. "Welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions" — 'new' ideas will be openly accepted without regard to their content?  How about observing your previous agreements should these 'new ideas' suggest you renege? Someone who cares about the welfare of the people — do you really care about MY welfare?  I don't think so, your ideas impose lifelong obligations and duties to 'serve' others without my consent.  And anyway, 'caring' is NOTHING more than hoping or praying, what you DO matters.  You can commit all sorts of abuses as long as you do it from a caring intention — it's not criminal if the intent is to do good, right?  

Let me ask you right here, do you have the right to compel or even legislate the behavior you want from me?  I grant you the opportunity to make your case for my support, but do I have the freedom to accept or decline?  Welcome to the congregation, Robert.  You'll have to pray and beseech your brothers and sisters to do good by their own will, for there is no other way.  Compassion cannot be legislated or demanded.  It is the physics of Love.

True Liberalism is about "Liberty" — true spirituality is about compassion.  Your rejection of Christian ideology is merely being replicated in your version of socialist liberalism — it is a religion that lays claim to everyone's responsibility in the name of compassion, duplicating all the abuses and arrogance of the old Catholic Church (and current Islam). 

It is interesting that "Liberation" is a common theme of the 'enlightened' religions — liberation from the delusions of this world.  It is the truth that sets one free.  True Liberals want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  They are not afraid to hear opposing views, they do not shout down and bully others — socialists do that.  True Liberals do not try to control the speech of others or censor or ban others.  True Liberals hate lies — progressive liberals call opposing viewpoints 'hate speech' and express those viewpoints in the most hateful way possible. 

Today's so-called liberalism is a far cry from Liberty and the Responsibility that comes with it.  They are mostly the tools of oligarchs — the George Soros network of liberal organizations are the pillars of all the recent SJW resistance acts of defiance. From Black Lives Matter to the March for Women, Soros' money has been paying for protests, riots, marches, bribes, not the least of which is being connected to the false Russia Collusion hoax, the DNC Russian 'hack', and the Ukraine pay-for-play deals with Obama administration politicos, particularly the Biden's, the Kerry's, and of course the Clinton's.  But these are all big fish, and this is the game of politics — there are dozens more politicians doing more of the same, this is what they do!  If the swamp was truly drained, there would be few left ...

The craziest part is that schools are not empowering students, they are indoctrinating them.  Students are not there to learn but to be taught.  Socialism requires uniformity of thought — it doesn't come naturally, it requires years and years of repetition and programming.  But like a domesticated animal, once in the wild (i.e. real world) they become easy prey.  Interestingly, socialists are usually college educated, and college classes are increasingly promoting statist political ideologies in math and science programs.

Whatever happened to the search for truth? 

The fatal mistake is calling that capitalism.

A private central bank issuing debt instruments as the national currency is NOT capitalism, it is a fundamental plank of Communism.  Stop shilling for authoritarianism — social engineering causes more problems than it solves and centralizes immense power into a few hands.  The temptation is too great for the power hungry to take the reins of the world...  Don't put all your eggs in one basket!

He's not wrong ...

The "motive of enlightened selfishness" perhaps refers to what Adam Smith so often espoused:

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.”

You are right about that, Warren!

Robert, you do realize that the corporate elites are globalist progressive liberals, right?  And can you possibly explain for me why in the US, liberals are anti-Israel now and pro-Islam?  Being a gay atheist, you would be thrown off a roof in a Muslim country but would have a parade in Israel!  Please do explain your reasoning, I really cannot understand the dichotomy.

Yes, Rappoport should have included the other planks from the Communist Manifesto that the US has already implemented, like a (private) central bank that controls all industry and commerce.