<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Day in the Life of Joe Republican</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oscarnuno.com/2009/09/12/current-events/a-day-in-the-life-of-joe-republican/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oscarnuno.com/2009/09/12/current-events/a-day-in-the-life-of-joe-republican/</link>
	<description>The Weblog of Oscar Nuño</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:18:22 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Colin</title>
		<link>http://www.oscarnuno.com/2009/09/12/current-events/a-day-in-the-life-of-joe-republican/comment-page-1/#comment-2224</link>
		<dc:creator>Colin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:50:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oscarnuno.com/?p=420#comment-2224</guid>
		<description>I wanted to share something about the political spectrum, and somehow this seemed like the right place.

We are told that on the far Left of the political Spectrum we find Communism, which is admittedly dictatorial.  But, we are told that equally to be feared is the opposite on the far Right, which is labeled Fascism.  We are constantly told that we should all try to stay in the middle of the road, which is termed Democracy, but by which the establishment means Fabian (or creeping) Socialism.

What this offers is false alternatives.  We are given the choice between Communism (international socialism), on one end of the spectrum, Naziism (forced national socialism) on the other end, or Fabian stealth socialism in the middle.  The whole spectrum is socialist!

This is absurd.  Where would you put an anarchist on the spectrum?  Where would you put somebody who believes in a Constitutional Republic and a free enterprise system?  He is not represented by this spectrum, yet this spectrum is used for political definitions by a probable 90% of the people of this nation.

The U.S. was a Constitutional Republic when it was founded, but for the past 100 years, we have been moving leftward across the spectrum towards total government with every piece of socialist legislation.  

Communism is, by definition, total government.  If you have total government, it makes little difference if you call it Communism, Fascism, Socialsim, Caesarism, or Pharaohism.  It&#039;s all pretty much the same for the people who live and suffer under it.  If total government by any of it&#039;s pseudonyms represents the far left, then the far right should represent total anarchy or no government, and the middle a Constitutional Republic of the People.

Our founding fathers revolted against the near total government of the British Monarchy.  But they also knew having no government at all would be chaos.  So they set up a Constitutional Republic with very little government.  They knew that mankind prospers under liberty and suffers under tyranny.

Although the free enterprise system is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is the only one which could exist under a Constitutional Republic.  All collectivist systems require power in government, which the constitution does not grant.  

We are living in a day where our current government has little to no regard for the Constitution.  Our founding fathers had no intention of allowing the government to become an instrument to steal the fruit of one man&#039;s labor and give it to another who had not earned it.  Our government was designed to be one of severely limited powers.

Karl Marx Communist manifesto calls for SOCIALISM, not for Communism.  But socialism leads to Communism.  

We are being socialized in America and everybody knows it.

What&#039;s wrong with socialism?  It&#039;s a share the wealth system, right?  Well, that is the theory, but is that how it works?  Let&#039;s examine the socialist countries of history according to the socialist definition of the word in world history.

These are the Communist countries of history and today (USSR, China, Cuba).  The Communists themselves refer to these as socialist countries (as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).  Here in the reality of socialism, you have a small oligarchical clique at the top, usually no more than 3% of the total population.  3% controlling the total wealth, total production, and the very lives of the other 97%!  Certainly Mr. Castro, Mr. Brezhnev, and Mr. Mao did/do not live their lives like one of the poor peasants out on the Russian steppes.  But according to the socialist theory, he is supposed to do just that.

If one understands that socialism is not a share the wealth program, but in reality is a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of the super rich men like the Rockefellers, Gettys, and Rothschilds who promote socialism becomes no paradox at all.  Instead it becomes the logical, even perfect tool of power seeking megalomaniacs.  Communism, or more accurately socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses but of the economic elite.  The plan of the conspirator insiders is to socialize the United States, not to communize it.

How do they accomplish it?  By destroying the system of our founding fathers.  The Constitution fractionalized and subdivided governmental power in every way possible.  Each branch of government, whether at the federal, state or local lever would never surrender their powers to centralized control.  Also many phases of our lives (such as charity and education) were put almost totally out of the grasp of the politicians.  Under this system a dictatorship was impossible.  No segment of government could possibly amass enough power to form a dictatorship.  In order to have a dictatorship one must have a single branch of government holding most of the reigns of power.  Once this happens, a dictatorship is inevitable.

A dictatorship was impossible in the Constitutional Republic of the United States because the power was widely diffused.  Today, as we close in on total democratic socialism, all power is being centralized at the apex of the executive branch of the federal government.  This concentration of power makes a dictatorship inevitable.  Those who control the president indirectly gain virtual control over the whole country.

I&#039;m sorry if I ruin the day of Joe Republican or Johnny Democrat, but the same secret societies control both of your parties.  There is not a 2-party system in the United States with Republicans and Democrats, there is a one party system with 2 factions - both controlled by the same economic elite.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wanted to share something about the political spectrum, and somehow this seemed like the right place.</p>
<p>We are told that on the far Left of the political Spectrum we find Communism, which is admittedly dictatorial.  But, we are told that equally to be feared is the opposite on the far Right, which is labeled Fascism.  We are constantly told that we should all try to stay in the middle of the road, which is termed Democracy, but by which the establishment means Fabian (or creeping) Socialism.</p>
<p>What this offers is false alternatives.  We are given the choice between Communism (international socialism), on one end of the spectrum, Naziism (forced national socialism) on the other end, or Fabian stealth socialism in the middle.  The whole spectrum is socialist!</p>
<p>This is absurd.  Where would you put an anarchist on the spectrum?  Where would you put somebody who believes in a Constitutional Republic and a free enterprise system?  He is not represented by this spectrum, yet this spectrum is used for political definitions by a probable 90% of the people of this nation.</p>
<p>The U.S. was a Constitutional Republic when it was founded, but for the past 100 years, we have been moving leftward across the spectrum towards total government with every piece of socialist legislation.  </p>
<p>Communism is, by definition, total government.  If you have total government, it makes little difference if you call it Communism, Fascism, Socialsim, Caesarism, or Pharaohism.  It&#8217;s all pretty much the same for the people who live and suffer under it.  If total government by any of it&#8217;s pseudonyms represents the far left, then the far right should represent total anarchy or no government, and the middle a Constitutional Republic of the People.</p>
<p>Our founding fathers revolted against the near total government of the British Monarchy.  But they also knew having no government at all would be chaos.  So they set up a Constitutional Republic with very little government.  They knew that mankind prospers under liberty and suffers under tyranny.</p>
<p>Although the free enterprise system is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is the only one which could exist under a Constitutional Republic.  All collectivist systems require power in government, which the constitution does not grant.  </p>
<p>We are living in a day where our current government has little to no regard for the Constitution.  Our founding fathers had no intention of allowing the government to become an instrument to steal the fruit of one man&#8217;s labor and give it to another who had not earned it.  Our government was designed to be one of severely limited powers.</p>
<p>Karl Marx Communist manifesto calls for SOCIALISM, not for Communism.  But socialism leads to Communism.  </p>
<p>We are being socialized in America and everybody knows it.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s wrong with socialism?  It&#8217;s a share the wealth system, right?  Well, that is the theory, but is that how it works?  Let&#8217;s examine the socialist countries of history according to the socialist definition of the word in world history.</p>
<p>These are the Communist countries of history and today (USSR, China, Cuba).  The Communists themselves refer to these as socialist countries (as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).  Here in the reality of socialism, you have a small oligarchical clique at the top, usually no more than 3% of the total population.  3% controlling the total wealth, total production, and the very lives of the other 97%!  Certainly Mr. Castro, Mr. Brezhnev, and Mr. Mao did/do not live their lives like one of the poor peasants out on the Russian steppes.  But according to the socialist theory, he is supposed to do just that.</p>
<p>If one understands that socialism is not a share the wealth program, but in reality is a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of the super rich men like the Rockefellers, Gettys, and Rothschilds who promote socialism becomes no paradox at all.  Instead it becomes the logical, even perfect tool of power seeking megalomaniacs.  Communism, or more accurately socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses but of the economic elite.  The plan of the conspirator insiders is to socialize the United States, not to communize it.</p>
<p>How do they accomplish it?  By destroying the system of our founding fathers.  The Constitution fractionalized and subdivided governmental power in every way possible.  Each branch of government, whether at the federal, state or local lever would never surrender their powers to centralized control.  Also many phases of our lives (such as charity and education) were put almost totally out of the grasp of the politicians.  Under this system a dictatorship was impossible.  No segment of government could possibly amass enough power to form a dictatorship.  In order to have a dictatorship one must have a single branch of government holding most of the reigns of power.  Once this happens, a dictatorship is inevitable.</p>
<p>A dictatorship was impossible in the Constitutional Republic of the United States because the power was widely diffused.  Today, as we close in on total democratic socialism, all power is being centralized at the apex of the executive branch of the federal government.  This concentration of power makes a dictatorship inevitable.  Those who control the president indirectly gain virtual control over the whole country.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sorry if I ruin the day of Joe Republican or Johnny Democrat, but the same secret societies control both of your parties.  There is not a 2-party system in the United States with Republicans and Democrats, there is a one party system with 2 factions &#8211; both controlled by the same economic elite.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Colin</title>
		<link>http://www.oscarnuno.com/2009/09/12/current-events/a-day-in-the-life-of-joe-republican/comment-page-1/#comment-2008</link>
		<dc:creator>Colin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:00:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oscarnuno.com/?p=420#comment-2008</guid>
		<description>I like your friend&#039;s perspective, Oscar.  It&#039;s pretty accurate.  Just a couple things were overlooked:

When this country was founded, the government had no right whatsoever to tax income, and take out of &quot;Joe&#039;s&quot; paycheck.  In an emergency provision during the World War, a liberal fought a good fight to tax income to pay for supplies for U.S. troops.  But the same liberal never fought to take away the new right of the government to tax income after the war was over.

Joe&#039;s breakfast had little to no real nutritional value because of the chemicals and hormones the liberal permitted the FDA to drown his bacon and eggs with.

Right now, a liberal is fighting to require that Joe&#039;s car be fitted with a GPS tracking device.  

Joe Republican does need a wake up call.  But so does Danny Democrat, Carl Conservative, and Larry Liberal.  They&#039;re all busy looking at the &quot;right-left&quot; paradigm, the illusion.  

Joe is cheering on the republicans as they defeat the democrats; Larry is rooting for the liberal democrats as they defeat conservative republicans.

But they both fail to realize that behind the scenes, the same puppetmaster is controlling both sides.  It&#039;s the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that they owe allegance to, not to a political party.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like your friend&#8217;s perspective, Oscar.  It&#8217;s pretty accurate.  Just a couple things were overlooked:</p>
<p>When this country was founded, the government had no right whatsoever to tax income, and take out of &#8220;Joe&#8217;s&#8221; paycheck.  In an emergency provision during the World War, a liberal fought a good fight to tax income to pay for supplies for U.S. troops.  But the same liberal never fought to take away the new right of the government to tax income after the war was over.</p>
<p>Joe&#8217;s breakfast had little to no real nutritional value because of the chemicals and hormones the liberal permitted the FDA to drown his bacon and eggs with.</p>
<p>Right now, a liberal is fighting to require that Joe&#8217;s car be fitted with a GPS tracking device.  </p>
<p>Joe Republican does need a wake up call.  But so does Danny Democrat, Carl Conservative, and Larry Liberal.  They&#8217;re all busy looking at the &#8220;right-left&#8221; paradigm, the illusion.  </p>
<p>Joe is cheering on the republicans as they defeat the democrats; Larry is rooting for the liberal democrats as they defeat conservative republicans.</p>
<p>But they both fail to realize that behind the scenes, the same puppetmaster is controlling both sides.  It&#8217;s the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that they owe allegance to, not to a political party.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
