The fundamental problem with America's retreat

Mar 22, 2014 17:44:15 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your comparison of Ho Chi Minh to George Washington is, well, utterly jaw-dropping. But perhaps it should not be considered especially strange, given that you prefer to describe Ho Chi Minh as a mere "socialist" (which is a term so flexible as to be confused, rather easily, with the democratic socialists who dominate Europe nowadays), rather than as the hardcore communist that he actually was.

I certainly agree that Saudi Arabia is no friend of the US--not really--and that it embodies principles that are quite antithetical to the principles that most Americans (including me) embrace. 

The fact that you might consider the Contras worse than the Sandanistas--and believe that "democracy" now reigns in Nicaragua--is utterly appalling to me.  Yes, Nicaragua now has elections--which, in and of itself, is certainly no sure indicator of democracy--and the communist revolutionary, Daniel Ortega, won in 2006 with just 37.99 percent of the vote (or about three votes out of every eight).  He won re-election five years later; and the Nicaraguan constitution was changed to allow him to run for a third term.  (Shades of the late Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela!)   

Ho Chi Minh v George Washington

Actually the similarities between George Washington and Ho Chi Minh are far greater than their difference predominate of which is that both sought to rid the people from foreign colonial control and domination. They both sought  freedom from foreign control and both fought for that with the primary difference that Minh fought his entire life and never saw that goal realized while Washington fought for six years before total independence was gained. Ho Chi Minh fought against Japanese, French, and eventually the United States in striving for Vietnamese independence. Of historical interest in 1945 Ho Chi Minh authored the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence which included the declaration, "All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." While we can condemn the deaths of about 50,000 and imprisonment of about 100,000 people under Ho Chi Minh we can also condemn the slavery in the United States when George Washington became our President.

Of note we've discussed Executive Orders elsewhere so would you have supported an Executive Order by President George Washington declaring slavery illegal and unconstitutional based upon the 9th Amendment that was clearly being violated by the insitution of slavery? Should a President support the US Constitution above the statutory laws of government and do they have the Constitutional authority to do that? 

www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1863.html

Communist v Socialist

What I would also put forward is that in comparing socialism and communism there has been a misuse of the term "socialism" by conservatives where they use the term to refer to government social welfare programs funded by capitalism that is based upon private ownership of enterprise with actual socialism that is based upon public ownership of enterprise. In truth there is little difference between communism (a political system) and socialism (an economic system) because communism employs the economic system of socialism. Communism refers to the government and socialism refers to economy under communism.  So yes Ho Chi Minh politically was a communist and economically was a  socialist but is that really much different than a "Corporate Capitalism" and "Crony Capitalism" in the United States where the government has an economic policy designed to benefit the top 1% of the people?

So, as I noted in first addressing this the greatest problem is the misuse of the term "socialism" as opposed to there being any significant difference between socialism and communism and communism isn't much worse than corporate/crony capitalism.      

www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

Presidential Voting: Ortega (2006) 37.99% v Obama (2012) 51.1% 

People like to toss out numbers without recognizing the differences between elections. In Nicaragua there are three major political parties and two lesser parties in the presidential elections of 2006 while the US is dominated by a two-party system that is, to a large degree, rigged to prevent third party representation. The last time we had a third party canditate allowed to participate in the Presidential Debates was Ross Perot over 20 years ago. If we were to compare and equal split of the vote between major parties in the election it would be 33.3% in Nicaragua and Ortega surpassed that by over 4% while in the United States it would be 50% and Obama only surpassed that by 1%. We should also note that voter turnout in Nicaragua was over 80% of voting age adults while it was only 58% in the United States.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_general_election,_2006#Election_results

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=NI     

Election Process in General

Of course I'm not expert on Nicaraguan elections or politics as I basically limit myself to US elections and I seriously question an election process designed to represent the People in federal government (i.e. House of Representatives) where the party that receives the most votes does not secure majority representation as that clearly reflects gerrymandering of the election. As for the change in the election process that allowed a third term for Ortega so long has that was conducted according to the laws governing election process then who are we to complain? We limited presidential terms based upon the 22nd Amendment but we could change that as well.

I'm also more concerned about allowing presidential candidates that were not born in the United States that became US citizens based upon the naturalization laws passed by Congress not being prohibited from being presendent even though the US Constitution clearly establishes that the president must be a "natural born citizen" (i.e. born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof - 14th Amendment). John McCain (a natural born citizen of Panama) and Ted Cruz (a natural born citizen of Canada) are not natural born US citizens of the United States and both were granted statutory (naturalized) citizenship based upon the laws passed by Congress.

Tyranny by Government

We both expressed the knowledge that Saudi Arabia is a tyrannical nation but I don't believe we should stop there. I oppose all forms of tyranny regardless of whether  that tyrannical nations is "friend or foe" of the United States. I oppose tyranny, period, and the ideology of the United States opposes tyranny by government. A tyrannical nation cannot be the "enemy of my enemy" because tyranny is my enemy and yet the United States continuosly supports tyrannical regimes based upon the foreign policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and we've supported some of the worst tyranical regimes in history. There is fundamentally no difference, for example, between the Islamic nation of Iran and the Jewish nation of Israel as both were established based upon aparthied. Iran oppresses the non-Muslim and Israel oppresses the non-Jew based upon their "national character" which is inherently invidious. Except in the extent of the tyranny there is no fundamental difference between a nation founded upon Islam, an nation founded upon Judism, and a nation founded upon Aryan national character.

My point is that I oppose tyranny, period, because I believe in the ideals established for the United States that oppose tyranny. I oppose tyranny by other governments and the people of other nations and I oppose tyranny by the United States government and people that live in the United States.

Tyranny is my Enemy!   

BTW - I love this discussion.

Mar 24, 2014 1:24:14 GMT pjohns1873 said:

As you have conceded, there is really very little difference between "socialist" (in one sense of the word, anyway) and "communist"; although the former is certainly capable of being confused with adherents to the doctrine of democratic socialism, as practiced in Europe.

Yes, there are some superficial similarities between George Washington and Ho Chi Minh--just as there are some superficial similarities between Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler--but that hardly makes them perfectly analogous. 

The horrribly odious institution of slavery cannot (reasonably) be defended.  But if George Washington had attempted to ban it by executive order, I believe that would have been a mistake.  It was precisely because slavery was not banned that the various states came together to form the United States (thus superseding the very loose union of the states under the Articles of Confederation). 

If Nicaragua chooses to elect its president by popular vote (and I am not fundamentally opposed to that--even though the US does it a bit differently), it would be nice if the winning candidate were to receive a majority of that vote--not a mere plurality of it.  If no candidate receives 50-plus percent of the vote, a runoff between the two top vote-getters would be a good idea, I think. 

As to the House of Representatives in the US:  Yes, the various congressional districts are certainly gerrymandered.  But let us not pretend that the Democrats are above doing this exact sort of thing, whenever they are in power.  (In fact, Democrats engineered the so-called "safe" districts in majority-minority areas.) 

I am merely lukewarm toward Sen. McCain--I do not despise the man, as some others on the right do; but he is a bit too heterodox for my tastes--yet I would not so easily dismiss him as (supposedly) not being a natural-born citizen.

As Snopes.com puts it:

In other words, it is not an easy, black-and-white issue.      

I never meant to imply the the similarities between Ho Chi Minh and George Washington were "perfectly analogous" but there were definate similarities. It was also amazing that Ho Chi Minh also embraced, at least in words, the same fundamental idealism as expressed in the US Declaration of Independence when he authored the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence.

If for no other reason Ho Chi Minh deserves respect for his lifelong effort to overthrow the colonial rule and foreign occupation of "his" nation that neither the Japanese, French, or US had any business controlling. He fought for aVietnam of the Vietnamese People regardless of whether we support his economic and political actions. Always remember that in theory the United States could also be a "socialist" nation if that's what the People of the United States wanted because the US Constitution would allow it so long as the Rights of the Person were also protected. The US Constitution does not establish the ecomonic system of the nation. It would certainly be different than socialism under historical communist regimes but by analogy we could have "polygamy" as well but it certainly wouldn't be the same as Islamic polygamy.   

Not to address the historical context of the initial formation of the United States under the Constitution I'd still ask the question of whether you would have supported an Executive Order by President Washington to abolish slavery based upon the 9th Amendment that was clearly violated by slavery regardless of statutory laws that allowed it. For you is it acceptable for a President to issue an executive order based upon the US Constitution when the statutory laws clearly violate the US Constitution? An interesting question because the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Natual Born Citizenship:

Snopes.com engages in obfuscation in addressing the issue of "natural born citizen" as do so many others. The US Supreme Court explored this issue in the case of the United States v Kim Wong Ark but it's even easier to understand than taking the time to read that Supreme Court decision.

The word "natural" is the application of John Locke's reference to "natural rights" which later became expressed as "inalienable (unalienable) rights" by the time Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. In short it refers the the "Inalienable Right of Citizenship of the Person" which must meet the following criteria:

An inalienable Right is inherent in the person (self), not dependent upon any other person, does not infringe upon the Rights of another person, nor does it impose an involuntary obligation upon another person. 

As an inalienable Right it is not subject to statutory definition and the Congress does not have the authority to either establish or to violate our inalienable Rights as a Person. Even if unenumerated they are protected by the 9th Amendment from infringement. Congress can certainly pass laws to protect our inalienable Rights but Congress does not create them and is prohibited from infringing upon them. Congress, under the US Constitution, does have the authority to create "uniform laws of naturalization" but that is all.

The discussion on Ted Cruz and John McCain hinges upon the differences between citizenship based upon jus sanguinis (Latin - the right of blood) and jus soli (Latin - the right of soil). There is no dispute that an Inalienable Right cannot be dependent upon another person and jus sanguinis is dependent upon another person (i.e. the parent or parents of the child) and cannot therefore be an Inalienable Right of the Person. Citizenship based upon jus soli is inherent in the person (self), not dependent upon any other person, does not infringe upon the Rights of another person, nor does it impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

Where the child is physically born, the "soil" upon which they are born, is the sole determining factor in establishing their Inalienable Right of Citizenship.

It is very clear that neither John McCain or Ted Cruz were born in the United States but let's even address "territories" of the United States.

A territory is a geographical area under the adminstrative control of a nation but is not a part of that nation. It can be either voluntary adminstrative control, such as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or of hostile adminstrative control, such as the Palestinian territories, but it is still a territory merely subjected to the adminstratve control of a foreign country. A person born in that "territory" is a Natural Born Citizen of the Territory and not a Natural Born Citizen of the foreign nation that has adminstrative control. A Palestinian born in the West Bank is not a Natural Born Citizen of Israel anymore than a person born in Puertor Rico is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. Of course if that "territory" later becomes a part of that foreign nation (e.g. if Puerto Rico becomes a part of the United States or the West Bank becomes a part of Israel then those born in the "territory" become Natural Born Citizens of the nation based upon Jus Soli.

The 14th Amendment clarified this issue by enumerating that "All persons born...... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."  In the Supreme Court decision of the United States v Kim Wong Ark the court pointed out that the 14th Amendment did not change the "definition" of natural born citizenship that had remained unchanged from even before the creation of the US Constitution because it was based upon the understanding and common law of "natural born subject" in England (monarchies don't have "citizens" but instead have "subjects" of the monarch under the Divine Right of Kings).

To be a natural born citizen you must be born in an actual State (or in a territory that later becomes a State) under the US Constitution. The only possible exception to this would be for a person born on a US flagged ship at sea or at an actual Embassy (not consulate) of the United States because "flagged ships at sea" and "embassies" both considered to be the "sovereign territory of the nation" under international laws and customs.   

The "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Citizenship" is not really hard to understand and those that try to make it sound as of there is an actual issue of debate are simply trying to obfuscate the issue for political purposes.