American Communism by Any Other Name Still Means Destruction of America

Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments of Progressivism [1]

"Watching Elizabeth Warren give a speech to her fold, you realize she's one of the rare Democrats who can excite her base in the same way Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders can excite their own." As Politico's Katie Glueck wrote on Friday, July 17th, 2014, liberals' minds may be with Hillary Clinton, but their hearts lie with Warren.

Speaking on Friday at Netroots Nation, a convention for liberal bloggers and activists, Warren got the crowd more fired up than Vice President Joe Biden was able to do the day before. (To be fair, the crowd was in a solemn mood at the time in reaction to the news of the Malaysian passenger plane crash). In her speech, Warren outlined more clearly than other Democrats the social issues that galvanize progressives. Her performance was reminiscent of a certain other young senator in 2008.

"What are our values?" Warren asked the audience, some of whom held up "Run Liz Run" signs. "What does it mean to be a progressive?" [Glenn Beck would say "Progressives are Communists with patience."  BUT history shows and tells us that Progressives are Revisionist Socialists. Some would say its semantics BOTH means the destruction way of the American way of life and Freedom. I feel based of on research of the writings Karl Marx as well as that of Socialists and Communists from early ca. 1880's - 1890's; Progressivism is a a hybrid of both or as I have come to believe and called American Communism]

She went on to outline 11 tenets of progressivism:

- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it." [Does she REALLY mean, "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank, [we are ready have one] with State capital and an exclusive monopoly" (Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848, page 26) or is she implying that "The government shall also loan money to States and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works." (Morris Hillquit, History of Socialism in America, 1910 Pages 369-377)?...OM] 

- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth." [Does she REALLY mean, "...the bringing into cultivation of wasteland, and improvement of soil generally in accordance with a common plan." (ibid) or maybe she means "The extension of the public lands to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power." (ibid page 376) or perhaps, "The scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swap lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the pubic domain."(ibid)...OM]

- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality." [Could she mean, "Centralization of the means COMMUNICATION and transport in the hands of the State (ibid Page 26) or maybe she meant, "The collective ownership of railroads, TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, steam lines and all other means of SOCIAL transportation and COMMUNICATION (ie. Internet...OM)" (ibid Page 376)...OM]

- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."[Or in other words, "The capitalist class, in its mad race for profits, is bound to exploit the workers to the very limit of their endurance and to sacrifice their physical, moral and mental welfare to its own insatiable greed. Capitalism keeps the masses of workingmen in poverty, destitution, physical exhaustion and ignorance." (ibid page 370)...OM]

- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them." [Is this the same as "The Organization of the working class into a political party  to conquer the public powers now controlled by capitalist"? Or maybe she is hinting that "The struggle between wage workers and capitalists grows ever fiercer, and has now become the only vital issue before the American people. The wageworking class, therefore, has the most direct interest in abolishing the capitalist system."(ibid Page 371)...OM]

- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt." [Maybe she should have just said, "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,..."(ibid Page 26) ...OM]

- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions." [Maybe she should have first reminded everyone that, "In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."" Thus taking the Social Security TRUST fund and putting it in the General budget so that it could be "borrowed from". Or that the "National insurance of the working people against accidents, lack of employment, and want in old age", (ibid Page 376) or maybe she wants, "The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted for American use." Didn't FDR take these socialist/progressive ideas and put them into law ca.1935?...OM]

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work." [Maybe she should tell her fearless leader, President Obama after all "Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterparts" Can we say "woman speak with forked tongue" or is it just hypocrisy?...OM] 

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America." [Change traditions, you change the culture, change the culture you change the nation....OM]

- "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform." [So do the majority of the American people, except we believe that it should be done legally, not by flooding the borders an attempting to "tug on the heart strings" because they are children, thus using Cloward & Piven [3] to flood the system....OM]

- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!" [Warren better re-read the 14th Amendment and the definition of citizen, "a person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country or a person who lives in a particular place." Thus, "While a corporation is a "person" within this Amendment, it is not a "citizen" of the United States whose "privileges or immunities" a State is forbidden to abridge. A State may therefore impose upon a corporation created by another State restrictive conditions respecting its doing business (but not interstate commerce) within the first named State. (Corporation is citizen of State creating it. Bank of United States v. Deveaux (1809), 5 Cranch. 61, ref Amend.,Art.14,Sect.1,Cl.2 but is not citizen of United States, therefore liberty may be abridged by State. Western Turf Assoc.v. Greenberg (1907), 204 U. S. 359, ref Amend.,Art.14,Sect.1,Cl.2)[4] and of course there is always Citizens United.]

And the main tenet of conservatives' philosophy, according to Warren? "I got mine. The rest of you are on your own." [Actually we work for what we earn and the government has no right to redistribute our or anyone else's wealth...OM]

Sources:
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/elizabeth-warrens-11-commandments-of-progressivism/455955/
[2] Berger, Victor L., Social Democratic Herald, whole no. 1, July 9, 1898.
Platform of the Social Democratic Party of America, 1900; published in Appeal to Reason, Sept 15, 1900, page 3
[3] Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty", The Nation, May 2, 1966.
[4] *Norton, Thomas James, The Constitution For The United States, Its Sources and Its Application, Devin-Adair Co., 1940.

*Thomas James Norton was a Member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

In the Hour of the Wolf – Random Thoughts about Twitter

Another sleepless night and as I stumbled into the living room to turn on the T.V. before heading to kitchen to start the coffee. As the coffee brews, I light the first of what will become one of many cigarettes I will smoke today and half listen to the T.V.

Coffee is ready, I pour a cup wander into living room, I glance at the screen and some “talking heads” and some “personality” are talking about who’s going to win, who’s going to loose and why.

Will it be Hillary or Sanders? Will it be Cruz, Bush, Trump or another candidate? 

During this back and forth there is never any mention of the Constitution. 

I would half way expect one of these various media brain trusts to say something like candidate ________, will work within the confines of the Constitution and work to defund everything that is not constitutional.

Maybe if they did work to remove some of these redistribution of wealth programs, we wouldn't need a new tax plan accept to lower the tax rate?

Needless to say, most likely if they did that as POTUS, they would serve only one term.

Of course, for the Hillary and Sanders supporters, as well as Obozo, the Constitution is a hindrance and the working American taxpayer is just a piggy bank.

After getting another cup of coffee, I power up the computer and settle in to check email, glance at the news and as regular as clockwork end up on Twitter.

I scan the threads, see the great tweets, photos and of course, the usual back in forth on who would be a better candidate for conservatives.

A number of tweets catch my eye and I do what I feel is my duty as a Patriot and a Marine engaged in the fight to save America, ask the hard questions.

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR HERE AND NOW, I HAVE CANDIDATES I’M EYEING, BUT HAVE YET TO MAKE A CHOICE.

One question that I asked,

“Why the “sudden” change in Trump’s support of Hillary and being strangely silent till last year about the Democrats.”

Needless to say, I opened the flood gates of insults and comments but no real answer. However there was one prominent answer among them, 

“Ronald Reagan was a life long Democrat and he switched.”

I reminded them, that yes he switched in 1962, and as he said, 

“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. It left me.”

Now, I don’t nor will I claim to know exactly why Reagan left the Democrat party, but I venture to say that it may been something to do with what the poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg, who was a former socialist, but later went on to support Democrats such as Adlai Stevenson and even John Kennedy said about the 1960 Democratic platform:

“That’s a very good imitation of the national Socialist Party platform adopted in Chicago in 1908.” (Note: Not to be confused with the National Socialist Party of Germany, NAZI...OM)

Then there was my question about how Trump could support ethanol subsidies and government mandates that ethanol be blended with gasoline and how someone who claims to be fighting for the Constitution can support someone who believes in something not in the Constitution?

To which I got one the most intelligent and honest answer I’ve heard in a long time:

“Well, nobody is perfect. I just like him”

Eventually the subject of eminent domain raised its ugly head when a follower tweeted:

“The Bush family used eminent domain to build a stadium for “their” baseball team.”

Now I don’t claim to be a lawyer, nor do I play one on Twitter, BUT as Eric Bolling said and I paraphrase, too many people haven’t read the last line of 5th Amendment of the Constitution. Before everyone reaches for their copy of the Constitution or search the web:

“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Key word is public use.

So what is public use:

“…relating to, or affecting all or most of the people of a country, state, etc.”

Let’s look at this meaning.

Does a parking lot for a privately own business really affect all or most people of country, state or even the city?

Maybe it may bring jobs to a few. Maybe it will bring tax money to a city BUT will it allow use by everyone or just a select few?

One argument Trump brought up, was the use of eminent domain by federal government for roads, bridges and even the XL pipeline. SPOILER ALERT! Project in work on federal use eminent domain and the takeover of state's property in order to have the:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

or maybe it is:

"The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power and the scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swamp lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the public domain."

Without going into a long drawn out explanation and spoiling an ongoing project, let’s just say that the use of federal eminent domain is:

“The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power [1], but once this is conceded the ambit of national powers is so wideranging [sic] that vast numbers of objects may be effected.”[2]

Before getting off the subject of Trump, let me repeat what I said earlier:

I HAVE CANDIDATES I’M EYEING, BUT HAVE YET TO MAKE A CHOICE. I JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS.

NO, I’m not a Cruzbot as I have been accused of being. I attempt to look beyond the hype and ask questions and expect intelligent answers, preferably based on the Constitution and facts, feeling that maybe by asking these questions, people will stop, think (I realize that it hurts) and learn.

Speaking of which, it never ceases to amaze me how people can or will make statements without even reading or knowing the basic facts.

Case in point as a number of my great followers know, I do not believe in the use of tax money for government handouts including funding for schools and even refer to those who receive them as slaves to the government, I had one follower make the statement:

“Well you’re retired and you receive handouts from the federal government.”

Wrong, No where in my my profile does it say I’m a retired Marine. But, this follower ASSUMPED I was retired and doesn’t know, that short of being medically retired, a service person (I hate being politically correct) retires after twenty years of honorable service.

Wrong, because the benefits received by retired veteran are NOT “handouts” but they are or have been earned through 20 plus years of faithful service to the “company” called America. Yes, I used the term “company” because, just like in the civilian world, when they hire an employee, they usually have a contract or a promise that if you work “X” number of years, you will receive certain things.

The same is true with the armed forces, when a man or woman signs that contract, blank check if you will, that they are willing to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic with their lives if required. In return, America made a contract, a promise, that laid out certain benefits, all of which can be traced back to the Article 1, Sections 12 thru 16. So for all of you who believe that veteran benefits are just handouts, think again.

To me, handouts are the redistribution of wealth using taxpayers’ money for various unconstitutional social programs, welfare or whatever PC name they call it, Medicaid, funding of schools, etc. Social Security and Medicare are NOT included.

WHY? Because the unconstitutional, in my opinion, BUT government programs REQUIRES working Americans to, by law, to fork over a portion of their money to a badly run federal retirement plan and medical plan and at a certain age, Americans get that money back.

This just goes to prove how lack of fore knowledge or the lack of comprehension has infested people.

Finally, for now, just as afterthought, I have often used the terms American Communism and American Communists to describe what others, including well known talking heads, use the softer terms such as: liberal, progressives, socialism, elites or big government and no one has said a word, BUT insist on still using the softer terms.

Why? Are they afraid to offend? Are they so brainwashed by “talking heads” and the lame stream media that even in the face of information from ORIGINAL sources they refuse to accept the fact that for over a century, America has been heading towards it unique form of government control of production, distribution and consumption or as early American socialists, Bliss and Berger defined as communism.

I believe people who use these softer terms do so as a self-denial that communism has taken hold of American life and this government control, big government if you will, because they realize that due to their inattention, taking freedom for granted and just plain assuming that most of what Washington does is, constitutional.

Or is it because they are getting free money for police, fire, schools and other unconstitutional items and their states, cities can use their local tax money for other things like planting trees or pushing the Sustainable Communities Initiative and further seeking enslaving the people with handouts?

So remember, when we get into discussions on Twitter or elsewhere, I'll ask the hard questions, not to insult you but by chance make you think and hopefully you can teach me something. So don't take it personal, it isn't.

Semper Fi!

[1] United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., 160 U.S. 668, 679 (1896)

[2] California v. Central Pacific Railroad, 127 U.S. 1, 39 (1888) (highways);

     Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894) (interstate bridges);

     Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry, 135 U.S. 641 (1890) (railroads);

     Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 581 (1923) (canal);

     Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936) (hydroelectric power).



“Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear. For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end.” Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954)

They May Call Themselves Progressives, I Call Them American Communists

Since Obama began his campaign and after his election news people, conservatives and various “talking heads” have thrown around the terms, labels if you will, Socialists, Communists and of course Progressives.

There have been articles, blog postings, etc. dealing with Progressives and the Progressive agenda and its history. Yet no one has really looked or written about the relationship between Progressivism and Socialism. Yes, I am neglecting Communism because history has shown that though there may be some similarities in goals, the means of achieving them are entirely different.

In fact, recently I posted an article concerning possible Socialist Progressive presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's eleven commandments of progressivism and compared it to the Socialist agenda from 1908 Socialist Party Platform and Manifesto of the Communists Party (Manifesto). But like all speeches by Socialists Progressives, they don't always tell the real story.

Now I will good further in depth and attempt to enlighten those who don't know that when Progressives talk about their agenda, they are REALLY talking about a Socialist Agenda.

In the following I am going to use two main sources, Center for American Progress (CAP), The Progressive Tradition in American Politics, Part 2 and the Socialist Party of America Platform of 1908 as found beginning page 373 of the History of Socialism in America by Morris Hillquit, 1910. 

Other sources will be noted as required.

The format will be Progressive reforms in bold print, followed by the what the 1908 Socialist Party platform had to say on the same subject in italic with Editor's Note in bold as needed. So open your mind and look at what actually is the Socialists agenda that has been put in place by the so-called Progressives.

The eight-hour workday and 40-hour workweek – 1908 Shortening the workday in keeping with the increased productiveness of machinery and securing to every worker a rest period of not less than a day and a half in each week.

Worker’s compensation for on-the-job accidents – 1908 Abolishing official charity and substituting in its place compulsory insurance against unemployment, illness, accident, invalidism, old age and death.

Unemployment insurance – 1908 See above on Worker's compensation.

Social Security and Medicare to aid the elderly and Medicaid and CHIP to help low-income families and children – 1908 See above on Worker's compensation.

Prohibitions against child labor and workplace exploitation – 1908 Forbidding the employment of children under sixteen years of age and forbidding the interstate transportation of the products of child labor.

The legal right of people to organize within labor unions and engage in collective bargaining for fair wages and benefits – Editor's note: Although the 1908 Socialist Party Platform does not directly address this subject, it does state, The government shall also loan money to States and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works. It shall contribute to the funds of labor organizations for the purpose of assisting their unemployed members, and shall take such other measures within its power as will lessen the widespread misery of the workers caused by the misrule of the capitalist class. Also if one researches the forming of the various labor unions though out American history you will find that a majority of those founders were socialist. 

The constitutional right to vote, full legal equality, and the elimination of formal discrimination for women and minorities – 1908 Unrestricted and equal suffrage for men and women, and we pledge ourselves to engage in an active campaign in that direction.

The graduated income and inheritance tax – 1908 The extension of inheritance taxes, graduated in proportion to the amount of the bequests and to the nearness of kin and a graduated income tax. Editor's note: This is also addressed in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Manifesto of the Communists Party (Manifesto) of which Engels wrote in the Preface of the 1888 Edition: “Yet, when it [sic The Manifesto of the Communist Party] was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated” classes for support.”

Protections against contaminated food and medicines – 1908 The enactment of further measures for general education and for the conservation of health. The bureau of education to be made a department. The creation of a department of public health.

Hundreds of millions of acres of protected wilderness areas, waterways, and national parks – 1908 The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power and the scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swamp lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the public domain.

National infrastructure including electrification, railways, airports, bridges and roads, and the Internet – 1908 The collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamship lines and all other means of social transportation and communication.

Minimum wage laws and income support for the working poor – 1908 The immediate government relief for the unemployed workers by building schools, by reforesting of cutover [sic] and waste lands, by reclamation of arid tracts, and the building of canals, and by extending all other useful public works. All persons employed on such works shall be employed directly by the government under an eighthour [sic] work-day and at the prevailing union wages.” (Does this sound at all familiar?...OM)

Public education, college loans and grants for students, and the GI Bill – Editor's note: Although the 1908 Socialist Party Platform does not address this, I once again draw your attention to the Manifesto, “Free education for all children in public schools.”

National supervision of banks and the creation of a flexible national currency – Editor's note: Again one must draw their attention to the Manifesto, Centralisation [sic] of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Can anyone say Federal Reserve?)

Federal insurance of bank deposits – Editor's note: Please see above.

Bans on speculative banking practices – Editor's note: Please see above.

The Progressive reforms that were not directly mentioned in neither the 1908 Socialist Party Platform nor the Manifesto:

Anti-monopoly and anti-competitive regulations of corporations

Direct elections of U.S. senators, although the 1908 platform does mention abolishing the senate.

Direct primary elections of political candidates, and the initiative and referendum process in the states.

Civil service tests to replace political patronage

Regulation of the securities industry although by stretching the meaning of the Manifesto's, Centralisation [sic] of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly this could fall into part of the Socialist agenda.

Refinancing and foreclosure protections for home and farm owners.

Considering that sixteen (maybe 17) out of the twenty one or 76% (81%) of the Progressive reforms that the Center for American Progress brags about can be traced directly to the Socialist Party and/or the Manifest of the Communist Party.

I will allow you the reader to draw your own conclusion that when Democrats call themselves Progressives, they are actually American Communists using a name that won't scare the sheeple or actually show their true agenda and the media both conservative gleefully goes along.

Finally consider what the poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg, a former socialist who later supported Democrats such as Adlai Stevenson and John Kennedy, said of the 1960 Democratic platform: “That’s a very good imitation of the national Socialist Party platform adopted in Chicago in 1908.” Note: Not to be confused with the National Socialist Party of Germany, NAZI...OM

Special thanks to Igor for his assistance and editing.

Let me know what you think.

Semper Fi