If only we understood that socialism CREATES the "ignorant and poor" -- and just how is it that the ignorant, who have to rely on the "forced charity" of others and the poor, who do the same, are not plundering our society? TANSTAAFL!! This is one of the main reasons immigration is SO important! If we're going to have a mixed socialist/capitalist economy then we cannot allow ANYONE into our country illegally and keep our economy! If we're going to have a mixed economy we need to stand on our borders ready to shoot-to-kill any man, women, or child that seeks to come across illegally! Otherwise, get rid of our Socialist economy and welfare-state, and rid ourselves of the bloody leeches that are bleeding the country dry!

Yet another reason why the Income Tax is so vile.

The problem can't be sovled by laws, due process, or by passing things that can be "enforced"-- you CANNOT legislate morality, virtue, or giving. If we use the foceful hand of government in order to collect on "charity" - where are we really? FORCED chairty? FORCED virtue? FORCED good? These are oxymorons. If you force chairty, virtue, or goodness, then you've destroyed them at their core. Compelled compliance to help others only results in class hatred - this is already evident - the rich hate the poor because the poor think they have a right to share in the wealth of the rich. I've been on both sides of this issue - I've lived in "poverty" when I've had nothing to eat for 3-4 days and I have lived in "wealth" where I could get nearly anything I wanted (within reason). Gov. welfare is not a great "safety net" that's been provided for men to get back on their feet-- it's a way of putting responsibility on another person. Once a person is given the chance to put his responsibility onto another to provide for him, where is the motivation for him to change or get better? With very few exceptions, there is none! Whether government screws up the welfare situation or pulls it off perfectly, it's not important - what IS important is that government welfare CANNOT exist within a Republic. We have a choice, we can have welfare or we can have a Republic - sadly, it's really that easy. When the subject of privatizing welfare is ever brought up, it's the "Churches" that are always listed as the first source to go to. Why? How did they get their money to begin with? Who gave it to them? Churches aren't able to print money for the poor anymore than government can. The fact is, Churches get their money through FREE Charity, FREE virtue, and through those who want to do something good because it is good (Kantian Ethics). "Good will" reigns supreme when men are given their liberty to be good, free from coercion and compulsion - we have just been fed the socialist facade for so long that men hate each other and will never give to another in need, that we have forgotten the simple fact that people like to give. Churches get their money from somewhere too. They aren't the only private source of financial aid-- There are large organizations that have been established on charitable donations. Charity and giving to those in need is not a "religious" idea-- it's built on the basic human desire to help people. Let's give back to the people the responsibility and accountability of helping those around them-- and let them have their own free choice in doing so. "America is great because she is good. If she ever ceases to be good, then America will cease to be great" - Alexis de Toqueville - You can't force goodness!

I agree with you concerning Christianity. Socialism is the anti-thesis of true Christianity. There are those who claim to be Christian yet beat their wives, steal, cheat, lie, abuse their kids, profain the name of God, etc. These are not Christians, regardless of what they profess. Marx did borrow the structure of Christianity for his Manifesto, this is not new information-- when he saw the many "professing" (key word here) Christian churches that did not follow their own doctrine but sought for political power and doctrinal control - he revolted, as would I. Marx, however, did not see the true essence of the religion he hated -- the essence of complete freedom, agency, and liberty. He saw professing Christians who used this doctrine to force men to be moral - in essence, the church began to legislate morality - "forced virtue" is an oxymoron. When he made his manifesto - he began to run into the same problem as the churches he hated so badly - he could not overcome the problem of everyone not wanting to enter his utopian mecca - so what did he do? Created a government of coercion and control - Vile "professing" Christians had used God as a control ("God wants you to be good - then we'll force you to be good) - Marx simply substituted God for government. As for the disabled - yeah, everything should be done on a privatized basis, apart from government. Churches are a good source for those who are church going - however, this is not the only source possible. Are we really saying that the only way to protect our poor and needy is to force those who have to give? Is that what America is finally admitting? The so-called "most giving" country in the world has to be forced and compelled (see, the whole "compulsion" factor again to do something "good") to help those around them? I don't believe it. I see angry Americans who are tired of being forced into paying for their neighbors 16 y/o daughter to have her baby because she screwed up and doesn't have any money. Government welfare, at its core, robs man of his own accountability and responsibility and places it, by force, upon the heads of other men - such an idea is diametric and cannot exist within a Republic.

Capitation tax, yes - except in direct proportion to a state census. I have no problem with business taxes. I am a firm supporter of the Fair Tax.

As in opposed to mere personal security within society? Yes, I would argue that it not only includes Roosevelt's S.S. program but countless other measures as well. This was the proported main objective of Roosevelt's plan: to create a secure social environment, economically, physically, emotionally, educationally - however, it was a facade, Social Security is a contradiction in terms. Society can never be absolutely guaranteed safety, no economy will endure forever, everyone will eventually die, etc... Social Security, socialistically speaking, is the goal-- is it not? It's main problem is that it puts the power of compulsion and coercion into the hands of the government... Government then becomes the very entity it was supposedly protecting the people from.

The interesting thing I find with socialism/communism is its similarity to Christianity - this was not by mistake. Marx hated Christianity because he felt it was the cause of the social distortion in Europe. And to be fair, it probably was - the Christian churches had largely become complusive and coercive and were seeking political power. However, Marx, though he hated Christianity, saw the strength in its structure (after all, it had endured its own existence for the last 1800 years). The Communist Manifesto was simply a charter of Christianity in which "God" was substituted for "government". It's not hard to see. Many of the provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sound good, as do many points of Communism and Christianity alike. The fact that Article 22 says that every member of society has a "right" to social security, by definition, makes this a socialist/communist document (it makes sense since Communist CFR members drew this document up) - There is absolutely no "natural law" (Delcaration of Independence - "laws of nature and of nature's God") that says that men and women have a "right" for their neighbor to be taxed to pay for their "needs". Article 23 (1) Yes, I have a right to work, no I don't have a right against unemployment... I don't have the "right" to force my employer to do anything - I do have the "right" to leave or stay under his employment. (3) You can't legislate morality and the way people treat people - this is a dangerous slippery slope. (4) Unions are the bane of Capitalism. Article 24 - Are you serious? People have the right to kick back and have their employers pay them for their "rest" and "leisure"? This has nothing to do with slavery. This is a stab at trying to create some utopian socialistic community - Where's the natural law that makes this a "right" anyway? Article 25 (1) This is so socialist it's scary. Volumes could be written on this alone - an obvious slippery slope for people who would abuse it - It's not my duty, as an employer, to pay anything to anyone... If they want to work for me for free, that's their deal! If I contract with them for X amount of dollars, then that's our deal. If I live in San Fran and pay a guy $2/hr to sweep up my store, so what? He doesn't have to do it if he doesn't want to - I'm not concerned if he's getting enough to pay rent, he can get another job. What natural law does this "right" come from? (2) Besides this being an allowance for the break-up of families - Who will pay for the out of wedlock babies and single mothers?! Money has to come from somewhere. 3rd world countries are notorious for having out of wedlock babies -some of the women in these countries have up to 10 children easily in these countries... Who is going to pay? If this is going to be the case then we need an international maximum standard to be set for how many children a family can have. Again, how blatantly Socialist can we become? What natural law does this "right" come from? Article 26 - (1) No, the founding fathers were not supporters of free education - they didn't even know the concept. Free education is one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. What natural law does this "right" come from? Article 27 - 29, What natural law do these "rights" come from? Article 29 (2) democratic society? It says it all right there! Laws and Rights are inseparably connected - in a Republic that recognizes natural law, natural and unalienable rights are acknowledged. In a democracy, there are no unalienable and natural rights because "law" and "rights" are relative. What was a "law" or a "right" one day can no longer be a "law" or a "right" on another day - it depends solely on the attitude of the majority that particular day. Government can't take care of everyone - what government can actually really take care of itself? Socialism has given the world the power to proclaim their "wants" and "needs" as their "rights" - this is wrong.

Anonymous, I don't know how to put it any more plainly. It's impossible to reason with ignorance, but I'll try it one more time - You cannot rely on learning the truth of the foundations of our country by reading or trying to conceptualize the facts of history from modern-day sources alone (such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, history books, etc.). Truth and history is re-written through time and definitions are changed multiple times, often within a single generation. The truth is plainly manifest when reading that the founding fathers hated democracies, of any form, and did everything they could to keep us from being one. George Washington, the man "who would not be king", was known for saying that he would rather have a monarchy in America than any form of democracy. Now, that being said, this does not mean that we have not left a Republican form of government for a democracy - for, truthfully, such is the case. Your dictionary very well might say that we're a democracy (or a "representative democracy"), I have no doubt - I'll even go so far as to agree with it (sadly, that might be where we've ended up) - just a few days ago, while at Boarders bookstore, I looked up in a world encyclopedia from Europe to see what form of government it listed the United States as having - a "Socialistic Democracy" was listed. Is this right? Perhaps. Does it mean this is the form of government the founding fathers wanted? No, it has no bearing on it whatsoever. Democracies and Republics cannot exist at the same time - democracies are the Achilles Heal of republics. As I said before, both democracies and republics can vote and be governed by the "voice of the people, and have representative government - these are not ideas that are monopolized by one system of government in particular. In a Republic, law is absolute and exists independent of government as "natural" law - the people are born naturally inherit, individually, with unalienable rights. These rights are theirs regardless of government. The Declaration of Independence talks about the "laws of nature and of nature's God" - these laws, which are physically eternal, existed before man and government ever got around to defining them - they exist regardless of government or the majority. In a Republic, the majority cannot overstep and infringe upon the rights of even a single man, this is the blessing of a Republic. In a democracy, however, there are no "natural laws" - "law" in a democracy, representative or otherwise, is relative and according to the whim of the established majority. There is no sovereignty in a democracy because there are no inherit rights - The only rights you have are what the majority SAYS you have. In a democracy, every person would vote on what the "law" is (remember in a republic, law exists independent of definition, man, or government- as John Adams said, "Man cannot MAKE law... only define it") - in a representative democracy the representatives would vote be the ones voting. Law in a democracy is de facto (opposite of de jure) - which means that it exists but with no substance backing it other than what can be enforced. A Republic means more than mere representation and a democracy is more than mere numbers. When asked what form of government we had, a republic or a monarchy, after the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin quickly quipped, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Republics, truly, enable the highest protection of inalienable rights, produce the most freedom, and are the most difficult to maintain. Sadly, freedom is never free, nor does it always win. Our republic HAS given way to democracy - Machiavelli's words have proven true once again.

Very well said Chicago.

The Constitution and Declaration of Independence pose no threat to our present form of government...

lol, Okay dude, you go with that. Just thought you might be interested in the "blah blah" of the founding fathers. "[We] intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism." Fisher Ames "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide." Samuel Adams "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practiciable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." Alexander Hamilton "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths." James Madison, The Federalist, No. 10 "Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fire the building, and perishes." Fisher Ames There are several more references and quotes to be given, but I don't want to waste my time. I find it interesting that "democracy" appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution OR the Declaration of Independence - however, Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution says that a "Republican form of government" is "guaranteed" (in fact, this is the only "guarantee" in either documents). When I pledge alligience to the flag, I don't do it to the "democratic Republic" or "respresentative democracy" for which it stands... but to the "Republic" for which it stands... But hey, I'm sure your American College Dictionary has built, founded, and fought for a Nation too and knows what it takes to keep it strong and free... so yeah, you go with that.

Also, by definition, full-fledged democracies have representative government too - that is not a monopolized idea of Republics either - So, in reality, a "representative democracy" really has NOTHING to do with a Republic whatsoever.

Our Republic was based upon the idea/principle (among many), that “Governments are the servants, not the masters of the people” (Thomas Jefferson) and that each individual of a Republic is the "Caesar" (as it were) to that Republic. Simple "representative democracies" are just as easily destroyed as full fledged democracies. It is the simple principle behind what a democracy IS that makes it so dangerous! In our Republic, the people are the source of the power, with individually assumed unalienable rights. In ANY form of democracy, there are no "unalienable rights" - the only "right" you have in a democracy is what the majority says you have - in so doing, all "rights", in a democracy, are de facto! It is not the de jure place of the specific servant (government), among many of the Republic's sovereigns (We the People) to bind its master. The Constitution (a contract between "We the People", not "We the People and you, the Government") is finite based on certain unchanging principles, not a living document, emphatic in limiting the powers of We The People's constituents, NOT LIMITING We The People. In a Republic, you cannot delegate to your representative a 'right' that you don't have within yourself to enforce - however, in a "representative democracy", rights can be assumed (or usurped) by government by a mere majority vote, regardless of what sovereign individual they trample over. A “democracy” does not hold a monopoly on “voting” or “the voice of the people” – There is also “voting” and “the voice of the people” in a simple Republic – not a “democratic republic” or a “representative democracy” – just a simple Republic… Try looking it up at dictionary.com – A Republican form of government is ruled by the voice of the people with absolutely no reference to democracy. They are two entirely different forms of government. Yes, our Republic IS being destroyed by Democracy.

Always worth a reply - good job, Editor.

Thumbs down for the mere idea. The U.N. charter was based on the Communist Manifesto - funny that the main difference between Socialism and Communism is not in the doctrine (because they're twins) but in how they're established: Communism is created by a revolution of war and Socialism is created over time through infiltration of laws by "due process". "Conquest or Consent"... he should have just said it like it is, "Communism or Socialism".

Well, that's what you get for only getting 2 hours of sleep a night (for the last week), a newborn, and 21 credits at school. Thanks for the input. lol

Washington's policy still makes sense. For some reason, Americans seem to enjoy recalling her founding fathers as country bumpkins who didn't have a focus on reality or a foresight to see the problems of the future. Such is the problem of the ages: each new generation claims to have a new set of problems that has never been dealt with before, which requires some "new innovations" to combat these new problems. Such we have seen with our own current President who has made it his point to take away the freedom of the people because it is necessary in order to protect them from the 'terrorists' -- this drastic measure, they claim, is justified because we have never been in this kind of situation before. That is bogus! The founding fathers didn't have to see all the new ways we've found to kill people to know what principles to build a Republic on. They knew the history of what makes or breaks a Republic ■ and they established this nation accordingly. The principles of a Republic are as applicable today as they were in the days of Sparta. Even Machiavelli talked about treatise and alliances within a Republic - If a Republic is going to be a bully to other nations and take on the role of a police force, then yes, treatise are not only a good idea, but are necessary. The best possible situation, however, should be to establish "friendships" with other countries away from alliances or treatise. Yes, we should become "friendly" and establish these friendships with other countries, sure; however, it is never a good idea to bind a Republic down to certain unmovable terms under another country - there are few things that will destroy sovereignty faster than a treaty or alliance. Time does not change principle.

Sorry, I'm not a socialist, thumbs down for directional content. I'm not a part of the greater whole - I supposedly live under the protection of a Republic (At least that's what my Constitution says)!! That means "to hell with you!" I'll do want, when I want, for whom I want... So long as I don't infringe upon your rights, I'm good to go. I'm not a conglomerate ball of goo floating within the sphere of "the greater good". For myself, I'm the greatest good I'll ever know, and I would hope every person in the America would be able to say the same thing. I provide for myself and my family and I'll decide where my charity goes (if I decide to give it), thank you very much. I have no obligation to save the whales, protect the baby-seals, feed the starving Ethiopians or the Jones' who live down street, or hire anyone who is not qualified because of the color of their skin. A single greater whole? I live in a Republic! I am not a Socialist! I live for myself!

Reston, only if you're a Socialist... Yes, we are all human beings and members of this planet we call Earth, this is true; therefore, in looking towards the progress of humanity, let's look at the fall-out of our decisions on an international level. There IS something that has set America apart from the rest of the world - In this day of "technology", what has put America at the front of every major discovery in science, made her the leading food producer for the last century, helped her create more wealthy men and women, and has enabled herself to be the international super-power for approx 200 years? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal - then why aren't all the other nations in the world as wealthy and as prosperous as those in the U.S.? It's insulting to America that George W Bush could be ever be associated with George Washington-- and, NO, they aren't saying the same thing... GBll is a tyrant who is spreading "democracy" throughout the world by forced compulsion - George Washington fought against tyranny, denounced democracy, abdicated his power, and helped to establish a Republic by the free voice of the people... BIG DIFFERENCE!! That's what has made America who she is - Freedom! No one here is going to argue against world peace - but Washington is absolutely right, we SHOULD NOT bind ourselves down by making promises to other countries that don’t promote the same values that we in America do - that would undermine our own national security, let alone our sovereignty-- The U.N. is one of the greatest facades the world has ever known - it does not seek "world peace"! It is hell-bent on world domination - Washington's words have never been more poignant.

I would that there be no U.N. at all - its goal is not world peace, but world domination... No organization could simply come into existence and then expect all the nations of the world to instantly give up their national sovereignty to it - these things take time... America is the greatest nation in the world because of the virtues (define them as you will), principles, and the capitalist foundations that it's built on - She has, however, largely turned from these principles and foundations and has given us a mixed society of democracy, socialism, and internationalism. To hell with the U.N. - Nothing in any U.N. charter secure to man or women any unalienable rights - I was not born into this life being given my 'rights' and 'privileges' from government - national or international; I assumed these rights of myself and to myself independent of any civil government. World peace DOES sound good - but it cannot be compelled! Compulsion and coercion are the pillars of anarchy and tyranny - and that's just what the U.N. seeks to establish... give up the last of my freedoms in MY OWN country to be a lackey of the international mafia? No thanks!

No where is it written that the American Empire will live forever... The US will be the international super-power for only so long - it will eventually fail like every other government that has gone before it. America has turned over her own freedom of choice to an international power - it doesn't matter if we've been heavily sanctioned in the past - there is a slippery-slope towards global rule and the United States has (and continues to) played into it. There will come a time when the United States will have to pay her dues and own up to the 'contracts' that she has signed of her own free will and choice... such is a sad reality... We can talk about keeping our own sovereignty and making our own choices as a nation all day - and, for now, we very well might be able to do that - but as things move forward, the United States will only be able to be the international bully (police force) for so long before the world has had enough. Regretfully, America is not innocent of wrong doing.

I wonder if you could get a copy of the Patriot Act on one of those rolls of toilet paper...

I'm blown away that people still support the U.N. - Peace keepers? No. Give up American sovereignty for what? World coercion in the hands of an un-elected and select few? This surpasses the gun-control issue... This would not simply result in the suicide of our freedoms but the actual genocide of entire societies...

The 'right' of the PEOPLE to 'keep and bear Arms' encompassed every kind of weaponry of self-defense - it was not specific to projectile weaponry, however, it was as inclusive of these weapons as in all other forms. There are, if you look closely, several words in the Constitution that are capitalized when they shouldn't necessarily be - this was not done by mistake. According to their rules of grammar, this type of capitalization was their way of adding emphasis on a single word. 'Arms' isn't a word that requires capitalization, in our day, but was done so to add emphasis to the importance of the idea behind it. What is important enough that they thought the citizenry should be protected inviolate in their right of bearing Arms? On the premise that 'Arms' meant any type of weapon (including but not limited to 'rifles' or 'guns') - It cannot be reasonably argued that a "well regulated militia" was the sole intent of the 2nd Amendment. Their type of warfare and understanding absolutely required a rifle (not even a pistol, at the time, would be sufficient). A sword, bayonet, knife, or other weapon, could be used by the army or militia, but were suicide if used without a rifle... In writing the Bill of Rights, the word ‘Arms’ (an all inclusive ‘right’) was used instead of something more specific – it is clear that the founder’s intent was focused upon the right of self-protection by ‘Arms’. The man who fears his law abiding and responsible neighbor, because he has a particular tool or ‘Arm’ of self-defense, is the same man, if in a foxhole, that I would rather give myself up to the enemy than to ask him to watch my back.

Very nice, Mike.