Consensus reached: Tom Perriello is a socialist

This is a refreshing posting and video. People are finally admitting to what they really believe, like the Marxists and Socialist who marched on 10/2/10 did. Hopefully Tom knows by now that he can stop denying he believes and practices un-American political philosophies. His lies never were becoming.

Just so we’re clear that what Tom and his supporters believe in is un-American, let’s look at what Americans believe in.

The Declaration of Independence defines American Principles as a political philosophy where:
1. Everyone is created equal and free,
2. we don’t need a government to grant us rights because all of our rights come from the Creator and they are inalienable,
3. the only purpose of Governments are to secure those God-given Rights, and
4. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Now let’s look at some text book defintions of un-American political philosophies:

Merriam-Webster defines Socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” A socialist is “one who advocates or practices socialism.”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines Communism as “a system of social organization in which goods are held in common, the opposite of the system of private property,” and as “communalism, any theory or system of social organization involving common ownership of agents of production of industry.”

In The Concise Encyclopedia of Economic, edited by David R. Henderson, Ph.D., Research Fellow, Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Sheldon Richman contrasts socialism and fascism:
“Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”–that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.”

Any of this sound familiar?

Now, un-American isn’t a pejorative, it just a statement of fact since the above three political philosophies are in direct conflict with the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Tom and his pals are welcome to their beliefs. Just don’t practice them in government, because then they become an Enemy to the Constitution in every legal sense of the term. And then real Americans have to remove them from office to restore the rule of law.

I>Just so we’re clear that what Tom and his supporters believe in is un-American, let’s look at what Americans believe in.

Hmmn. An “American” is an American citizen, so what Americans believe in is all the things different American citizens believe in, not just the way in which conservatives interpret the Constitution. One could of course also point out the ways in which progresivism in America differs from socialism and fascism, and has gained political power differently than socialism and fascism, and note that the two have historically been opposed.

Rather than drawing a bogus distinction between real and fake Americans, between lovers and haters of America and the Constitution, and trying to “take your country back,” as you guys like to put it (which might work for 2 or 4 or 6 years, but Democrats will regain power sooner or later), why not take seriously what your mother tried to teach you? Share.

American citizens and the American Principles are two different things and you are interchanging them. The former are people, the later is a political philosophy clearly defined in The Declaration of Independence.

Try to stay with the conversation.

Also, let’s be clear, this election didn’t “take the country back.” The Republicans were thrown out of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008 for a reason, they suck!

The Democrats were thrown out of the House in 2010 for a reason; they suck worse than the Republicans.

Both parties have chosen to deviate from their oaths of office and American Principles. It remains to be seen if either party is redeemable.

And what’s your point? “Un-American” means that which isn’t American. It is KNOWABLE what “is American” means (c.f.: The Declaration), and it sure isn’t Progressivism, Marxism, Socialism, or Fascism, which are also knowable, defined concepts. It is pathetic to argue otherwise.

The fact that American citizens can be ideologically subverted in their own schools to believe in un-American political philosophies such as Progressivism, Marxism, Socialism, or Fascism does not let them lay claim to calling their beliefs “American” just because they are American citizens. Not if you want to be intellectually honest.

American principles are based upon principles of personal liberty. These other political philosophies are based upon principles of varying degrees of government tyranny and totalitarianism, BY THEIR OWN DEFINITIONS OF OPERATION.

From that categorization alone they may be legitimately lumped together and labeled “Un-American,” and demonstrably so.

The fact that “Progressivism,” which you seem enamored with, has made such inroads into American governance is because politicians have ignored their oaths of office to do so.

And least Progressivism sound like some positive, evolved, political philosophy, Progressivism and Marxism are interchangeable terms. Read any government document published by the Soviet Union. In American politics both seek the same end. They just employ different means to achieve them.

It is the Declaration of Independence that is the unique embodiment of America’s founding principles. The United States Code recognizes it as one of America’s four organic legal documents. It was literally the legal document which created the nation of the United States of America, which was otherwise just a collection of independently governed colonies rebelling against England.

As I stated above, it is the Declaration which defines the fundamental principle of all that is American: “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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

So do you believe this?

If so, you believe in American Principles.

Do you believe in something else? If so, you believe in un-American Principles.

This is not what Progressives, Marxist, Socialists and Fascists believe.

That is not what Senator Tom Harkin believes. In January 2010 he was clear that he thinks that government gives people rights, a DEMONSTRABLY UN-AMERICAN principle, when he said this regarding Obamacare; “What this bill does is we finally take that step. As our leader said earlier, we take that step from healthcare as a privilege to healthcare as an inalienable right of every single American citizen … “BUT LIKE EVERY RIGHT THAT WE’VE EVER PASSED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE…”

That is not what Congressman John Dingell believes. In March 2010, in reference to Obamacare, he clearly states that government has a DEMONSTRABLY UN-AMERICAN role when he said “It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together TO CONTROL THE PEOPLE.”

Regarding the Constitution, American constitutions may come and go, as did the Articles of Confederation, but whatever rule of written law may exist for America, it must conform to the simply stated principles in the Declaration. If not it is deficient and must be corrected, as history shows was indeed necessary. Harry Jaffa summed it up when he wrote:

“The “national political creed,” … is to be found in the Declaration. It is not to be found in the Constitution. The compromises with slavery, in the Constitution of 1787, called into question all the compromises of the Constitution … without recourse to the Declaration, there is no way of distinguishing principled from unprincipled compromises.”

In conformance with the Declaration, the Constitution acknowledges the source of our personal liberties. Not in the Bill of Rights, but in the Preamble: “[to] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Blessings do not come from government, but from the Creator.

This is not what Progressives, Marxist, Socialists and Fascists believe.

Considering the Bill of Rights; the First and Second Amendments are unambiguous. They are not granting any rights, as many mistakenly believe, just clearly prohibiting government from interfering with those rights which we each already posses in the natural state. Furthermore, the Ninth Amendment is clear that there are many other rights we also posses, which are not enumerated in the Constitution. Finally, the Tenth Amendment is clear in limiting the federal government to those specific powers granted it, and nothing else.

This is not what Progressives, Marxist, Socialists and Fascists believe.

Progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who said “Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and practice,” looked to the concept of “living documents” as a technique to subvert America’s founding principles with un-American constructs, where the Administrative State, not individual liberty, has preeminence. At least Wilson somewhat respected the concept of “written rule of law” and amended it according to the written rules. Today’s Progressive jurists “interpret” the Constitution as a “living document” in the most convoluted ways instead of simply following the written rule of law to amend it.

One of the finest rebukes of “living document” illiberal political philosophies, such as Progressivism, was given by President Calvin Coolidge on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence:

“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary.”

In summation, the Declaration of Independence is America’s preeminent legal document.

The sole purpose of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights contained in it) is to codify the requirement of the Declaration that governments exist solely to secure God given rights.

And finally, these legal documents are in no way “living.” Because of that it is an immutable principle in America that liberty can never be taken away, all men must be treated equally, and the government must exist solely to serve the people, not the people serve the government.

If you don’t believe that, fine!

But please stop co-opting the English language by trying to define your beliefs as “American” just because you are an American citizen.

At least be intellectually honest and admit that what you believe in is some political philosophy which is clearly different than that which is defined in the Declaration, something that is demonstrably un-American.

The Democrats were thrown out of the House in 2010 for a reason; they suck worse than the Republicans.

Polls show that the Republican Party has an even lower approval rating than the Democratic Party. This was a throw-the-bums-out election, just like 2006 and 2008.

>It is KNOWABLE what “is American” means (c.f.: The Declaration)

On the contrary, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflected the views and wishes of American leaders in the late 18th century. Twenty-first century conservative interpretations of those documents may or may not be more accurate than 21st century liberal ones, but neither defines “American.” The Constitution is a living document because the Americans who read it are living, thinking people.

Anyhow, I’m cynical about the Right’s Constitution fetish. How many Tea Partiers had even read the thing since high school before they heard Glenn Beck pontificating on it? You yourself may be a history buff of longstanding, I don’t know. But Americans are notoriously weak on history. It isn’t the Constitution most of you really love, and it isn’t America as she exists or ever actually existed, it’s your political views and your cherished prejudices about the opposition. You can recite Glenn Beck chapter and verse, but not many of you seem to have read contemporary liberal scholars.

These other political philosophies are based upon principles of varying degrees of government tyranny and totalitarianism, BY THEIR OWN DEFINITIONS OF OPERATION.

Nonsense. “Tyranny and totalitarianism” are your definitions. And socialism (not to mention tyranny and totalitarianism) isn’t temporarily taking over a car company so it won’t go belly up and cost millions of people their livelihoods. It isn’t regulating insurance companies so they don’t cancel policies when people actually get sick. It isn’t checking the power of huge corporations with the power of elected governmental officials. It isn’t piecemeal and pragmatic, it’s systematic, and in its most egregious forms, which you trade off of rhetorically, it’s imposed at the point of a gun, not ushered in and ushered out at the ballot box.

“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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Show me a liberal or progressive who doesn’t. Harkin wasn’t saying that rights aren’t God given. He was speaking in recognition that government is often necessary to secure particular God-given rights, as the Founders did in writing the Constitution. And Dingell was clearly referring to the kind of control necessary when dealing with any large group of people: fill out this form for this reason, and that one for that, etc.

If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.

Liberals of course believe the same.

“Liberals of course believe the same.” Hell no they don’t! I am certain from their actions and words that they do not, just as Calvin Coolidge, who you quote, was certain by his observations in 1926. You do understand that Coolidge is lambasting Progressive in his speech?

Also, not only do “the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflected the views and wishes of American leaders in the late 18th century,” it is what was WRITTEN INTO LAW and it remains the written law TO THIS DAY, your ridiculous claims of “living document” to the contrary.

Your (and many Progressives) assertion that “The Constitution is a living document” is an affront to the rule of law and logic. Article V defines the amendment process. If you want to change it, change the words. Until then, “Congress shall make no law” means just that. Of course, corruption in all 3 branches of government permits such fouled logic as the “living document” concept to exist.

Try using your “living document” concept on a union contract or any other legal document and see how far you get. See how the opposing party feels about that.

But I guess this isn’t true in your universe, which is more aptly characterized by Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s political satire Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice:

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”

Words have meaning, but apparently not to you. So Ken, I guess we just have to start calling you Humpty.

The conflict isn’t between the Declaration and the Constitution as they’re written and liberal views of it. The conflict is between liberal and conservative interpretations of the Constitution. Of course it’s a living document. Of course there is room to interpret what laws are in the spirit of it and what aren’t. What do you think the Supreme Court does half the time?

. So Ken, I guess we just have to start calling you Humpty.

That will decide the argument! You guys do always resort to ridicule

Dialogue? Or two monologues passing each other?

Dialogue? Or two monologues passing each other?

I addressed most of his points directly, as you can see from my italics. In his own way he addressed mine. A dialogue is not by definition a debate that results in agreement.

To each their own, I guess. I think of a dialogue as a productive exchange. If you sensed an underlying critique of your direct means of disagreeing disrespectfully and seemingly talking past one another, you are spot on.

You think of a dialogue not as the dictionary defines it, and strong criticism is not by nature disrespectful. I have no reason to presume Michael is not a very fine man, all things considered. His notion that Perriello supporters are Marxists and socialists who have long denied their true sympathies is something else again, is just typical right wing disdain, wrapped in the flag and tucked into the Bible. I’ve debated Marxists operating on that level for years; Christians ought to hold themselves to higher standards.

Again, pointed criticism is to a particular point, and nothing more. And if you have something helpful to add to the discussion, please add it.

I know it’s fun start an argument to muddy the waters and obscure the point. Now, back to the point, Tom Perriello is a Socialist. Lets take a quick little peek at his resume:

In 2003 Tom Perriello cofounded Res Publica with Eli Pariser, who is currently the head of the Open Society Institute (OSI). OSI is just one of many socialists causes, like Res Publica (attack attorneys for Soros) funded by George Soros.

On Res Publica’s website you will not see anything remotely resembling concern for upholding the Constitution. Far from it, Res Pulbica (Perriello) sees gov’t as “the most powerful solution,” to all sorts of vague claims of ignored injustices.

Give it up. Perriello will regret hitching his wagon to the Soros train, if he doesn’t already.