Found a very interesting yet frightening read.

[GreatBarren]

I was searching random information about the Constitution of the United States and came across this. Our Founding Fathers had the foresight that apparently not many Americans have today. Please read this and tell me what you think.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guilt of the 4 Isms

Democrat = Socialist = Communist = Fascist

A study of the Democratic, Socialist, Communist and Fascist National Party Platforms reveals striking similarities. Put another way, Democratism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism have common objectives. For purposes here, they are the same in that they all support a democracy and support the severe altering of the Constitution of the United States. Socialism is incorporated by all of them. They will be referred to as the “four isms”; the “Notorious 4 Isms”, as it were.

It requires little thought to assume that candidates running on the platforms of the Notorious 4 Isms recommend a democratic form of government and do not accept the Constitution of the United States. This presents a dangerous problem to be elucidated here.

Now for the reasoning that sets the record straight.

History has shown that the four isms decay into totalitarianism, which is a police state, which is a dictatorship. Those forms of jurisdiction destroy the government they infect. A Democratic form of government “gives the store away”. Well aware of these dangers, the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that created a Republic.

Both Hayek and Kuehnelt-Leddihn explained that as the 4 isms mature, they decay into such a state of affairs that governing them requires tactics which respectful people will not employ. But apparently disrespectful leaders by then have assumed sufficient power to enable them to do what is necessary to save their government. Thus, a police state is created. The Founding Fathers did their best to steer us away from that fatal trap.

Instituting the platforms of the four isms will require altering our Constitution that has stood tall over the centuries. This fact brings the loyalty of the candidates of the 4 isms to question.

Candidates running for government offices have a legal obligation to support the Constitution of the United States. Since this fact is not revealed by those involved, their underlying political platforms will be exposed here.

Upon assuming office, all state and federal candidates are required by Article VI of the Constitution of the United States to take an oath of office in which they must swear (or affirm) to support the Constitution of the United States. The point made here is that those candidates will violate their oaths of office if they attempt to install any one of the four isms: Democratism, Socialism, Communism or Fascism. This will be a very serious crime.

Continuing, the Supreme Court of the United States has cited the Federalist Papers as a definitive document for the Constitution of the United States.

That makes those Federalist Papers an integral part of (if not integral, certainly a vital link to) the Constitution of the United States. It is probable that few public servants even know what the Federalist Papers are, or who wrote them, or why. They do not know the law of the land they are to govern. This is an alarming situation, especially if they do not even care.

The importance of the former paragraph lies in the knowledge of the fatal nature of a Democracy. On page after page in the Federalist Papers, the Founding Fathers made it very clear that our country was never intended to be a Democracy, but rather, a Republic guaranteed by a Constitution -- a Constitutional Republic. In the Federalist Papers they discussed the historical failure of democratic forms of government resulting from “giving the store away”, etc. That form of government simply implodes. The Founding Fathers did NOT favor democracies.

Reasoning further, a federal law, Misprision of Felony, mandates that any citizen of the United States who is aware of a felony must report same to authorities. Destruction of the Constitution of the United States is certainly a felony. It is also sedition, and probably treason, punishable by death. (In the early days of our country, they took traitors out and shot them.)

Concerning responsibility, a 1945 California case set a precedent that responsible persons “could have known and should have known”, a precedent dating all the way back to Abraham Lincoln. Candidates for political office have no excuse not to have known.

The platforms for the 4 isms promise extensive health care. (I thought that was called socialized medicine.) But nothing is said about who is to pay for it. Nothing is said about the fact that several other countries that have comprehensive health care programs are in serious financial trouble.

In their varying discussions about taxes in the platforms of the 4 isms, no mention is made about the fact that not one, thin dime of IRS income tax money ever reaches Congress to pay the bills. 1/3 is lost, 1/3 is wasted, and the 1/3 that is collected goes to pay interest only on the national debt. So much for federal government efficiency. And that remaining 1/3 probably goes to the owners of the Fed -- the Federal Reserve System. We don’t even own our own national banking system. That should tell somebody something.

Nor is any word given to the fact that the IRS is unconstitutional. Nor does anyone on the Left mention that the IRS has no authority to enforce, yet they purchase munitions a million bucks a pop.

Not yet recognized by the Left is Griffin’s ‘Creature from Jekyll Island’. Chapter ten, ‘Mandrake Mechanism’, explains that government financing in Congress does not even need the IRS. It is a separate operation. The IRS exists to keep the people poor and busy trying to make a leaving, thus keeping them “out of the back room” where the massive fraud machine operates. Congressman George Hansen called it correctly with the title of his book on the IRS: ‘To Harass Our People’. His book tells first hand about the Big Brother tactics of the IRS.

Summarily, then, it is highly probable that any and all government servants -- certainly those in politics -- who adhere to the platforms of the Notorious 4 Isms -- the Democratic Party, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and/or the Fascist Party -- are guilty of sedition, and quite possibly treason; and, upon election, guilty of violation of Oath of Office.

That is existing law. And violations are very serious.

Of dire seriousness, the silence on this subject by the Left is vociferously ominous.

A point to remember: Congress does not act; Congress reacts. It is time for people to stand and be heard.

Forest Glen Durland

Copyright 2006 by Forest Glen Durland
------------------------------------------------------
Here is the link
http://www.nocommunism.com/democrats_and_communism.php

[Ten*K]

been saying it for years.

and the republicans have become plutocrats

which is why nothing gets done in our Congress ans Senate anymore.

The Plutocrats want more for themselves by bankrupting the Middle Class

The Socialists want more for everyone else in the world by bankrupting the middle class.

[TaePo]

This is where the rubber meets the road for the Second Amendment, so to speak.

In a democracy, majority rules. No matter what. Our Founding Fathers understood that plurality thinking is not neccessarily righteous thinking.

This is why I tend to interpret the Constitution as a 'purist'.

The Bill of Rights, no less the 2nd Amendment, can never be repealed or 'amended' / changed.

Even if everyone in the US decided weapons were no longer required for any reason, we cannot strike down the Second Amendment. If only one person wanted to carry, we must let them. Even if no one carried anymore or kept arms, the 2nd would still stand for future use. The only way it can be restricted is if everyone decided not to exercise it anymore. But the right itself can never go away.

Sort of sounds like the way OC is being treated. Sure, it is your right but we will harrass, embarass and otherwise torture you publicly to make it too uncomfortable and difficult to exercise that basic right.

This is why I support those that OC 24/7.

Secondly, the last phrase in the 2nd, '...shall not be infringed.", has been infringed and the courts have openly determined that there can be reasonable limits. In reality, there are no reasonable limits. All men are created equal and we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Our history is full of such documentation and foresight but unfortunately we do not live up to the ideals in reality.

We allow ourselves to be subjugated because we want to be thought of as reasonable people, too. And a purist reading of the Constitution at first glance seems stubborn or obnoxious and, of course, unreasonable.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by TaePo

This is where the rubber meets the road for the Second Amendment, so to speak.

In a democracy, majority rules. No matter what. Our Founding Fathers understood that plurality thinking is not neccessarily righteous thinking.

This is why I tend to interpret the Constitution as a 'purist'.

The Bill of Rights, no less the 2nd Amendment, can never be repealed or 'amended' / changed.

Even if everyone in the US decided weapons were no longer required for any reason, we cannot strike down the Second Amendment. If only one person wanted to carry, we must let them. Even if no one carried anymore or kept arms, the 2nd would still stand for future use. The only way it can be restricted is if everyone decided not to exercise it anymore. But the right itself can never go away.

Sort of sounds like the way OC is being treated. Sure, it is your right but we will harrass, embarass and otherwise torture you publicly to make it too uncomfortable and difficult to exercise that basic right.

This is why I support those that OC 24/7.

Secondly, the last phrase in the 2nd, '...shall not be infringed.", has been infringed and the courts have openly determined that there can be reasonable limits. In reality, there are no reasonable limits. All men are created equal and we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Our history is full of such documentation and foresight but unfortunately we do not live up to the ideals in reality.

We allow ourselves to be subjugated because we want to be thought of as reasonable people, too. And a purist reading of the Constitution at first glance seems stubborn or obnoxious and, of course, unreasonable.

I quoted this because it is pure truth.


The OP is full of assumptions and statements that need to be sourced and backed up.