Understanding Rebellion

[PoliticalChic]

1. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography: The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

a. Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:
The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai, "Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy," Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz, pp. 26–27)






So, for the fascist, and the national socialist, individuals must give up any right to rebel against the collective.

So....once a government is in place, it is the duty of the serfs....er, citizens, to accept it.

Not only do we see this view from the French Revolution onward, but, judging from the millions slaughtered, communism is pretty serious about this view as well.






And to see the very opposite view, one need look no further than the Tea Party.

And the demands of the Tea Party, based on individual rights, according to Charles Kesler, is the problem that another iteration of the above philosophies, Liberalism, has with the Tea Party.

"Charles R. Kesler (born 1956) is professor of Government/Political Science at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University. He has a Ph.D in Government from Harvard University, from which he received his AB degree in 1978." Charles R. Kesler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






2. " Liberal impatience with partisanship—that is, with people who oppose their plans—arises from the fact that in contemporary liberalism, there is no publicly acknowledged right of revolution.

3. That may seem like a strange thing to say, but if one looks at some of the political theorists who were most important to modern or statist liberalism—Kant and Hegel in Germany, say, or Woodrow Wilson here in the United States—they are usually quite explicit in rejecting a right of revolution.

4. In their view, a people always has in the long run the government it deserves. So there’s no right of the people to “abolish,” as the Declaration of Independence proclaims, the prevailing form of government and substitute a better one.

In particular, there is no conceivable right to overturn contemporary liberalism itself; as liberals today are so fond of saying, there is no turning back the clock. To liberals the Tea Party appears, well, bonkers, precisely because it recalls the American Revolution, and in doing so implies that it might not be such a bad thing to have another revolution—or at least a second installment of the original—in order to roll back the bad government that is damaging both the safety and happiness of the American people.





a. What is it, exactly, that the Tea Party means by limited government? Limited to what? And limited by what?

Clearly the Tea Party’s form of conservatism points back to the Constitution as the basis for restoring American government."
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/2014_01_Imprimis.pdf

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

. . . What is it, exactly, that the Tea Party means by limited government? Limited to what? And limited by what?

1. A representative-republican form of government predicated on the natural law of inalienable human rights.

2. A government limited to the imperatives of the Constitution as predicated on the sociopolitical philosophy of the Declaration of Independence.

3. Ultimately, by an armed citizenry.

 

[Moonglow]

The original one was flawed, why do it over again.....?

 

[KNB]

Where were the Teabaggers screaming for limited government and citizens' rights when Bush signed the USAPATRIOT Act?

 

[Moonglow]

Where were the Teabaggers screaming for limited government and citizens' rights when Bush signed the USAPATRIOT Act?

Cheering while watching Fox News...

 

[williepete]

Where were the Teabaggers screaming for limited government and citizens' rights when Bush signed the USAPATRIOT Act?

Where were the leftists screaming when Obama signed the Patriot Extension Act?

Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans

By Stephen C. Webster
Wednesday, February 9, 2011 13:26 EST

Faced with a looming vote on a planned one-year extension of special powers authorized in the USA PATRIOT Act, the Obama White House did not object or propose reforms, as the president vowed to do as a candidate.

The Obama administration instead asked Congress to grant those powers for an additional three years.

As a US Senator and candidate for the presidency, Barack Obama never actually argued for a repeal of the Bush administration’s security initiatives. Instead, he’s consistently argued for enhanced judicial oversight and a pullback on the most extreme elements of the bill, such as the use of National Security Letters to search people’s personal records without a court-issued warrant.

While many in his own party opposed the PATRIOT Act outright, as president Obama has said repeatedly that the emergency measures remain a valuable tool for law enforcement engaged in national security prerogatives.

On Tuesday, ahead of a House vote to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act for another year, the White House did something unexpected: they asked for even more.

Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans | The Raw Story

Patriot Act Extension Signed By Obama

Obama Signs Last-Minute Patriot Act Extension | Fox News

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. The American Liberal, or Progressive, view, is less American than one might imagine.

The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled: Germans have a history of accepting authoritarian rule.


a. .... a natural law tradition widely accepted by the American founders. Virtually all of the framers of the Constitution, led by Madison, believed in the existence of natural rights – that is, rights given by God rather than Government – that individuals retained during the transition from the state of nature to civil society. There was broad consensus during the founding period about which rights were natural:
they included the right to alter and abolish governments,
to worship God according to the dictates of conscience,
to speak freely,
and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.


b. “Locke stated that since the society made the government they have the power to abolish it, whereas in Hobbe’s theory the government was all powerful and the people would dread going back to the state of nature that the leviathan will not be overthrown… Locke favoured a limited government whereas Hobbes favoured an authoritarian one. Lockes society is designed to protect property, but Lockes definition of property is not the same as everyone else’s.

Overall then, we are left with a society that is designed to prevent the abuse of power and to let people live peacefully and prosperously in an equal society. Hobbes however wanted the citizens to be restrained and have no say in the way the country was ran. Hobbes wanted there to be a dictatorship where decisions were solely in the hands of the sovereign and not the people whom lived in the democracy, so was this theory was actually liberal democracy.”
Hobbes And Locke

Hobbes would be a modern Liberal.





6. Progressivism was initially an academic phenomenon far removed from American politics. Particularly in the post–Civil War American university, professors — many of whom had obtained their graduate training in German universities, and whose thought reflected the “intoxicating effect of the undiluted Hegelian philosophy upon the American mind,” as progressive Charles Merriam once put it — articulated a critique of America that was as deep as it was wide.

It began with a conscious rejection of the natural-rights principles of the American founding and the promotion of a new understanding of freedom, history, and the state in their stead. From this foundation, the progressives then criticized virtually every aspect of our traditional way of life, recommending reforms or “social reorganization” on a sweeping scale, the primary engine of which was to be a new, “positive” role for the state.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

 

[Moonglow]

Where were the Teabaggers screaming for limited government and citizens' rights when Bush signed the USAPATRIOT Act?

Where were the leftists screaming when Obama signed the Patriot Extension Act?

Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans

By Stephen C. Webster
Wednesday, February 9, 2011 13:26 EST

Faced with a looming vote on a planned one-year extension of special powers authorized in the USA PATRIOT Act, the Obama White House did not object or propose reforms, as the president vowed to do as a candidate.

The Obama administration instead asked Congress to grant those powers for an additional three years.

As a US Senator and candidate for the presidency, Barack Obama never actually argued for a repeal of the Bush administration’s security initiatives. Instead, he’s consistently argued for enhanced judicial oversight and a pullback on the most extreme elements of the bill, such as the use of National Security Letters to search people’s personal records without a court-issued warrant.

While many in his own party opposed the PATRIOT Act outright, as president Obama has said repeatedly that the emergency measures remain a valuable tool for law enforcement engaged in national security prerogatives.

On Tuesday, ahead of a House vote to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act for another year, the White House did something unexpected: they asked for even more.

Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans | The Raw Story

Patriot Act Extension Signed By Obama

Obama Signs Last-Minute Patriot Act Extension | Fox News

Both times I was shaking my head, no, and knowing where this was leading, after the million policeman state was finally produced under der fuhrer BushII .

 

[Moonglow]

5. The American Liberal, or Progressive, view, is less American than one might imagine.

The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled: Germans have a history of accepting authoritarian rule.


a. .... a natural law tradition widely accepted by the American founders. Virtually all of the framers of the Constitution, led by Madison, believed in the existence of natural rights – that is, rights given by God rather than Government – that individuals retained during the transition from the state of nature to civil society. There was broad consensus during the founding period about which rights were natural:
they included the right to alter and abolish governments,
to worship God according to the dictates of conscience,
to speak freely,
and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.


b. “Locke stated that since the society made the government they have the power to abolish it, whereas in Hobbe’s theory the government was all powerful and the people would dread going back to the state of nature that the leviathan will not be overthrown… Locke favoured a limited government whereas Hobbes favoured an authoritarian one. Lockes society is designed to protect property, but Lockes definition of property is not the same as everyone else’s.

Overall then, we are left with a society that is designed to prevent the abuse of power and to let people live peacefully and prosperously in an equal society. Hobbes however wanted the citizens to be restrained and have no say in the way the country was ran. Hobbes wanted there to be a dictatorship where decisions were solely in the hands of the sovereign and not the people whom lived in the democracy, so was this theory was actually liberal democracy.”
Hobbes And Locke

Hobbes would be a modern Liberal.





6. Progressivism was initially an academic phenomenon far removed from American politics. Particularly in the post–Civil War American university, professors — many of whom had obtained their graduate training in German universities, and whose thought reflected the “intoxicating effect of the undiluted Hegelian philosophy upon the American mind,” as progressive Charles Merriam once put it — articulated a critique of America that was as deep as it was wide.

It began with a conscious rejection of the natural-rights principles of the American founding and the promotion of a new understanding of freedom, history, and the state in their stead. From this foundation, the progressives then criticized virtually every aspect of our traditional way of life, recommending reforms or “social reorganization” on a sweeping scale, the primary engine of which was to be a new, “positive” role for the state.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

Early American utopian societies were many in the USA, none survived but they were tried, mostly by anarchist and religious folk...

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

5. The American Liberal, or Progressive, view, is less American than one might imagine.

The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled: Germans have a history of accepting authoritarian rule.


a. .... a natural law tradition widely accepted by the American founders. Virtually all of the framers of the Constitution, led by Madison, believed in the existence of natural rights – that is, rights given by God rather than Government – that individuals retained during the transition from the state of nature to civil society. There was broad consensus during the founding period about which rights were natural:
they included the right to alter and abolish governments,
to worship God according to the dictates of conscience,
to speak freely,
and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.


b. “Locke stated that since the society made the government they have the power to abolish it, whereas in Hobbe’s theory the government was all powerful and the people would dread going back to the state of nature that the leviathan will not be overthrown… Locke favoured a limited government whereas Hobbes favoured an authoritarian one. Lockes society is designed to protect property, but Lockes definition of property is not the same as everyone else’s.

Overall then, we are left with a society that is designed to prevent the abuse of power and to let people live peacefully and prosperously in an equal society. Hobbes however wanted the citizens to be restrained and have no say in the way the country was ran. Hobbes wanted there to be a dictatorship where decisions were solely in the hands of the sovereign and not the people whom lived in the democracy, so was this theory was actually liberal democracy.”
Hobbes And Locke

Hobbes would be a modern Liberal.





6. Progressivism was initially an academic phenomenon far removed from American politics. Particularly in the post–Civil War American university, professors — many of whom had obtained their graduate training in German universities, and whose thought reflected the “intoxicating effect of the undiluted Hegelian philosophy upon the American mind,” as progressive Charles Merriam once put it — articulated a critique of America that was as deep as it was wide.

It began with a conscious rejection of the natural-rights principles of the American founding and the promotion of a new understanding of freedom, history, and the state in their stead. From this foundation, the progressives then criticized virtually every aspect of our traditional way of life, recommending reforms or “social reorganization” on a sweeping scale, the primary engine of which was to be a new, “positive” role for the state.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

In my experience, most leftists trace their ideology back to Rousseau, but both Hegel and Rousseau were statists for sure as opposed to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, i.e., the natural law of inalienable rights. Hegel was a fascist in contemporary terms, Rousseau, an authoritarian collectivist.

Rousseau’s particular form of authoritarianism goes back to Platonic political theory, and together, these are the precursors of Marxism.

Wilson, a vicious, moralizing little prick of a man, one of the most destructive presidents in the history of the Republic, admired Hegelian fascism. But of course all statists are vicious, moralizing little pricks.

More information. . . .

Prufrock's Lair: The "New Math" of American History and the Unobscured Truth

 

[natstew]

. . . What is it, exactly, that the Tea Party means by limited government? Limited to what? And limited by what?

1. A representative-republican form of government predicated on the natural law of inalienable human rights.

2. A government limited to the imperatives of the Constitution as predicated on the sociopolitical philosophy of the Declaration of Independence.

3. Ultimately, by an armed citizenry.

MY GOD!! You just described my beliefs!!

 

[FJO]

Where were the Teabaggers screaming for limited government and citizens' rights when Bush signed the USAPATRIOT Act?

Why should homosexuals/gays/ballsuckers/teabaggers object to the Patriot Act?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. The American Liberal, or Progressive, view, is less American than one might imagine.

The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled: Germans have a history of accepting authoritarian rule.


a. .... a natural law tradition widely accepted by the American founders. Virtually all of the framers of the Constitution, led by Madison, believed in the existence of natural rights – that is, rights given by God rather than Government – that individuals retained during the transition from the state of nature to civil society. There was broad consensus during the founding period about which rights were natural:
they included the right to alter and abolish governments,
to worship God according to the dictates of conscience,
to speak freely,
and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.


b. “Locke stated that since the society made the government they have the power to abolish it, whereas in Hobbe’s theory the government was all powerful and the people would dread going back to the state of nature that the leviathan will not be overthrown… Locke favoured a limited government whereas Hobbes favoured an authoritarian one. Lockes society is designed to protect property, but Lockes definition of property is not the same as everyone else’s.

Overall then, we are left with a society that is designed to prevent the abuse of power and to let people live peacefully and prosperously in an equal society. Hobbes however wanted the citizens to be restrained and have no say in the way the country was ran. Hobbes wanted there to be a dictatorship where decisions were solely in the hands of the sovereign and not the people whom lived in the democracy, so was this theory was actually liberal democracy.”
Hobbes And Locke

Hobbes would be a modern Liberal.





6. Progressivism was initially an academic phenomenon far removed from American politics. Particularly in the post–Civil War American university, professors — many of whom had obtained their graduate training in German universities, and whose thought reflected the “intoxicating effect of the undiluted Hegelian philosophy upon the American mind,” as progressive Charles Merriam once put it — articulated a critique of America that was as deep as it was wide.

It began with a conscious rejection of the natural-rights principles of the American founding and the promotion of a new understanding of freedom, history, and the state in their stead. From this foundation, the progressives then criticized virtually every aspect of our traditional way of life, recommending reforms or “social reorganization” on a sweeping scale, the primary engine of which was to be a new, “positive” role for the state.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

Early American utopian societies were many in the USA, none survived but they were tried, mostly by anarchist and religious folk...

You seem determined to miss the point.



7. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often described as a "progression in which each successive movement emerges as a resolution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


a.The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany")

b. The America “that [Teddy] Roosevelt dreamed of was always a sort of swollen Prussia, truculent without and regimented within,” wrote H.L.Mencken. He referred to Roosevelt as “Tammany Nietzsche.”

c.At least 20 of the first 26 Presidents had studied in Germany.
Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p. 94





"....The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule."

Brings to mind the behavior of the Democrat party.

In 1937, when Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the judiciary, and in 1938 attempted to purge Democrat Senators who defeated the scheme, there was a murmur of disapproval.

a. Senator Ashurst of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, denounced court packing as a "prelude to tyranny," but, when Roosevelt announced it, issued a one-line statement late that afternoon saying he was in "favor of the President's proposal." Lock-step Liberals.

b. Conservative Democrat Carter Glass of Virginia, explained it as follows: "Why, if the President asked Congress to commit suicide tomorrow they'd do it."

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. The American Liberal, or Progressive, view, is less American than one might imagine.

The source of Progressive ideas was Germany, specifically the philosophy of Hegel, and this euro-thinking placed the ruler above the ruled: Germans have a history of accepting authoritarian rule.


a. .... a natural law tradition widely accepted by the American founders. Virtually all of the framers of the Constitution, led by Madison, believed in the existence of natural rights – that is, rights given by God rather than Government – that individuals retained during the transition from the state of nature to civil society. There was broad consensus during the founding period about which rights were natural:
they included the right to alter and abolish governments,
to worship God according to the dictates of conscience,
to speak freely,
and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.


b. “Locke stated that since the society made the government they have the power to abolish it, whereas in Hobbe’s theory the government was all powerful and the people would dread going back to the state of nature that the leviathan will not be overthrown… Locke favoured a limited government whereas Hobbes favoured an authoritarian one. Lockes society is designed to protect property, but Lockes definition of property is not the same as everyone else’s.

Overall then, we are left with a society that is designed to prevent the abuse of power and to let people live peacefully and prosperously in an equal society. Hobbes however wanted the citizens to be restrained and have no say in the way the country was ran. Hobbes wanted there to be a dictatorship where decisions were solely in the hands of the sovereign and not the people whom lived in the democracy, so was this theory was actually liberal democracy.”
Hobbes And Locke

Hobbes would be a modern Liberal.





6. Progressivism was initially an academic phenomenon far removed from American politics. Particularly in the post–Civil War American university, professors — many of whom had obtained their graduate training in German universities, and whose thought reflected the “intoxicating effect of the undiluted Hegelian philosophy upon the American mind,” as progressive Charles Merriam once put it — articulated a critique of America that was as deep as it was wide.

It began with a conscious rejection of the natural-rights principles of the American founding and the promotion of a new understanding of freedom, history, and the state in their stead. From this foundation, the progressives then criticized virtually every aspect of our traditional way of life, recommending reforms or “social reorganization” on a sweeping scale, the primary engine of which was to be a new, “positive” role for the state.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=

In my experience, most leftists trace their ideology back to Rousseau, but both Hegel and Rousseau were statists for sure as opposed to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, i.e., the natural law of inalienable rights. Hegel was a fascist in contemporary terms, Rousseau, an authoritarian collectivist.

Rousseau’s particular form of authoritarianism goes back to Platonic political theory, and together, these are the precursors of Marxism.

Wilson, a vicious, moralizing little prick of a man, one of the most destructive presidents in the history of the Republic, admired Hegelian fascism. But of course all statists are vicious, moralizing little pricks.

More information. . . .

Prufrock's Lair: The "New Math" of American History and the Unobscured Truth

Excellent job in your blog!

You write:
"In truth, human nature is utterly corrupt, an aggrieved and restive beast below the surface that when unencumbered by the restraints of civilization becomes a pitchfork-wielding Neanderthal."

That alone represents a major...perhaps THE major difference between Liberal and conservative views of folks.
For the Left, from the French Revolution's acceptance of a 'general will' which all good people will acknowledge, we see the Founders saying nay, nay....human nature must be kept in check: Federalist #51..." If men were angels, no government would be necessary...."

 

[buckeye45_73]

Where were the Teabaggers screaming for limited government and citizens' rights when Bush signed the USAPATRIOT Act?

I Dont know, did you ask the gay community.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Mussolini is extremely misunderstood by most people, and grossly misidentified by the American Left. Mussolini was above all a collectivist. A radical Bolshevik, Benito officially became disenchanted with the failures of Communism, and particularly the handling of the movement under Vladamir Lenin. Unofficially, he was a megalomaniac who was not content to take orders from Moscow.

Either way, the portrayal of fascism as "right wing" is one of the great intellectual crimes of our age. It is a deliberate lie by academics who sought to dissociate Mussolini from the Marxist dogma taught in American universities. Mussolini sought to fix Marxism, by providing a viable method for collectivism to work in the real world.

It is no accident that Lenin's NEP adopted Mussolini's method of using corporations as agents of the state - nor that Obama does the same with the ACA.

 

[Moonglow]

Can I see your numbers on the leftist today tracing roots back to Rousseau?? Considering that the American Revolution was not one in the same as the French revolution considering the prior political systems they replaced.
The assumption without facts to assert your claim is most illogical and weak.

Same with the Russian revolution...European monarchies that were unwilling to allow political power to be shared by the new middle class of the industrial era were just as harsh as the revolutionary govts. that replaced them..
These motivations were not always political in nature but a payback for centuries of abuse...

Man in his very nature has proven through the millennia that he has an aggressive, destructive nature about him that has spread suffering and deprivation by his very lust for power and riches, no matter the form of government...or the party affiliation.

progressive are not democratic by nature, republicans, religious, non-religious progressive movements are in the history book and have yet to be affiliated with only one party.

 

[pvsi]

a. What is it, exactly, that the Tea Party means by limited government? Limited to what? And limited by what?

If you listen to the tea party leaders as you know them on MSM, which is Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain, by limited government they really mean limited to intervention overseas, and leaving America the hell alone. (except for entitlements for war veterans and others who know or once knew how to hold the gun and fought for a piece of American pie, in protecting the goose that lays the golden eggs, which is Federal reserve. my sig below has more)

 

[buckeye45_73]

Can I see your numbers on the leftist today tracing roots back to Rousseau?? Considering that the American Revolution was not one in the same as the French revolution considering the prior political systems they replaced.
The assumption without facts to assert your claim is most illogical and weak.

Same with the Russian revolution...European monarchies that were unwilling to allow political power to be shared by the new middle class of the industrial era were just as harsh as the revolutionary govts. that replaced them..
These motivations were not always political in nature but a payback for centuries of abuse...

Man in his very nature has proven through the millennia that he has an aggressive, destructive nature about him that has spread suffering and deprivation by his very lust for power and riches, no matter the form of government...or the party affiliation.

progressive are not democratic by nature, republicans, religious, non-religious progressive movements are in the history book and have yet to be affiliated with only one party.[/QUOTE7]

i schooled starkey inthat one, russo is founding father of modern communism. Jacobians were commies. The committee on public safety were commies

 

[Moonglow]

Can I see your numbers on the leftist today tracing roots back to Rousseau?? Considering that the American Revolution was not one in the same as the French revolution considering the prior political systems they replaced.
The assumption without facts to assert your claim is most illogical and weak.

Same with the Russian revolution...European monarchies that were unwilling to allow political power to be shared by the new middle class of the industrial era were just as harsh as the revolutionary govts. that replaced them..
These motivations were not always political in nature but a payback for centuries of abuse...

Man in his very nature has proven through the millennia that he has an aggressive, destructive nature about him that has spread suffering and deprivation by his very lust for power and riches, no matter the form of government...or the party affiliation.

progressive are not democratic by nature, republicans, religious, non-religious progressive movements are in the history book and have yet to be affiliated with only one party.[/QUOTE7]

i schooled starkey inthat one, russo is founding father of modern communism. Jacobians were commies. The committee on public safety were commies

maybe so, they were pissed....