United Socialist States of America - USSA

[Gxg (G²)]

I backtracked the source - the organization's website is a dud, and the original info is a SCRIB doc that seems to have mixed info. (commentary). Ie I couldn't verify the info.

The first article doesn't define socialism -- imo, unless the term is defined, it's useless.

So the info. may or may not be accurate, but in one case I couldn't determine that it was with the provided sourcing, and in the other case the terminology is too vague to allow any conclusion.

EDIT:

I just searched for the socialist organization named by the second article - there is no such website, and per wikipedia they disbanded or ceased to exist in 1972.

Thought I was the only one seeing that the information simply did not line up..and it can't be a conspiracy that people are simply trying to "hide a Socialist agenda" by a name change.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm a "progressive's nightmare"
.

Right there with ya...

 

[Thekla]

That's hilarious


Indeed. A lot of the claims about Progressives evolving from socialists are of the same mindset (IMHO) that says that the Republicans/Conservatives evolved from parties advocating slavery and Jim Crow. It's bad logic...

People don't prove anything just because they find something that they can place the label "socialist" on...for inherent in that thinking is that being called "Marxist/Communist or Socialist is bad" and all things bad done in the name of that are to be laid at the feet of all who have the label....but no one stops and questions why no one has an issue in saying "All things capitalist are good!!!". By that logic, would be be proper to lay all of the evils of Sweat Shops/Labor factories (as in what happened with the Industrial Revolution), Human trafficking, organized crime, piracy (for those who are paid to take from others and are called privateers like others were in the British Empire ) or debt slavery and starving others by ardent capitalists on the feet of every representative in Washington who happens to support capitalism? Of course not....

And that's the size of it - by focusing on labels and the value/meaning we attach to them, actual investigation and analysis is 'skipped'. (And no-one knows what anyone is actually talking about.)

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

It was usurped and suppressed by career politicians in Washington, who do indeed allow us free elections, but who also carefully control the pool of candidates we can choose from who actually have a chance of getting elected---they make very sure that anyone actually put into office is a member of their cartel.

And it's going to stay that way until we can break up the stranglehold of the two-party system.

I could not agree more, but how do we break this stranglehold?

 

[Thekla]

Everyone is "progressive" on one level or another..especially if believing that some things need to change in order to have progress.

There was an excellent article I once read on the subject that really made me think on how often terms are used interchangeably..by Randy Alcorn. As he said best:

When liberalism was popular it became arrogant and presumptuous and sunk to its lowest levels. I fear the same is happening to conservatism. And I fear it not only in society, but in the church.

The largely liberal philosophies that have dominated American media and politics for years have failed us miserably. Some past elections have testified to the fact that America was fed up with the lies and half truths of liberalism. While the media are still much more liberal than the country as a whole, even they have been penetrated. Rush Limbaugh, originally almost a lone voice, has been joined by a host of other conservatives who jam the airwaves with their ideology. Millions of Americans, including many Christians, are taking notes and saying “Amen.”
But what about conservatism? Does it have its own dangers? Or is “Conservative” simply a synonym for Christian?
Many people I have talked with and many articles I have read seem to equate conservatism with the Christian faith. I remember the mid-nineties when “Rush is Right” bumper stickers shared space with “Jesus is Lord” bumper stickers, as if both were undeniable truths existing on the same plane.

I get the feeling from excited politically-oriented Christians that voting Republican is equivalent to falling on your knees at a revival meeting and getting your life right with God. It’s like if America gets more conservative it’s the same as drawing near to God.

Though they are too slippery to allow simple definitions, the words “conservatism” and “liberalism” contain hints as to their essential nature. Conservatives want to conserve for society what is right. Liberals want to liberate society from what is wrong. To this extent, both philosophies are in theory right and biblical. Unfortunately, in their practice both are capable of being thoroughly unbiblical.

Liberals want to change the status quo. That’s good when the status quo is wrong. Liberals desired to change from the status quo of racism in the ‘60s and they were right. Even though I oppose most of what it does today, I thank God for what liberal groups like the ACLU accomplished in the racial arena.

But liberals didn’t know where to draw the line. They seemed to want to change everything, as if the notions that society once held (including that abortion, adultery, and homosexual relations are wrong) are restrictive and unhealthy, demanding liberation.

But it is wrong to seek liberation from all norms. Marriage used to be more sacred, divorce was much more rare, and abuse was much less common. Children learned how to read, achievement scores were much higher. Life was more sacred, religious values more respected and upheld.

Liberals have done much to “liberate” society from what is right, removing the guardrails that kept Americans on the road. In so doing, they have enslaved while claiming to liberate.

Too often, politically liberal Christians end up being liberals first and Christians second. They redefine compassion according to current political correctness. They act like you either have to hate and vilify homosexuals or you have to say their behaviors are right, as though these are the only two options.

They need to read Ephesians 4:15 about “speaking the truth in love.” We are not to choose between being loving and being truthful. We are to be both. Jesus loved the woman who committed adultery. He loved her the way she was, but loved her too much to let her stay that way. His love didn’t compel him to say “adultery is okay, you don’t have to change,” but “Go and sin no more.”

Conservative Christians, on the other hand, like to conserve and hold on to the existing or past norms. In a society they believe to have been ruined by liberalism, they want to go back to the way things used to be, i.e., the old status quo. They want to go back to when America was a Christian nation, when there was prayer in public schools, when abortion and homosexual behavior were illegal and known to be immoral.

Conservatives seem to want everything the way it used to be, like it was when kids weren’t bringing guns to school and killing each other in gangs and dying of AIDS and when television wasn’t filled with garbage (which many of them watch, despite their complaints).

Well, that all sounds good. But you have to qualify what you’re talking about. “The way things used to be” includes women being unable to vote. “The way things used to be” includes slavery. In the post-slavery era it included notoriously racist Jim Crow laws and segregation. And frankly, to their shame, many—even most—conservatives wanted to conserve these unjust practices.

Many conservatives today want to go back to the days when prayer was allowed in the schools. But they forget the same schools that allowed prayer did not allow black children. To be nostalgic without qualification about times that were racist and demeaning to many Americans is unjust and insensitive. Politically conservative Christians can end up being conservatives first and Christians second.

As undiscerning liberalism tries to liberate us from not only the bad but the good, undiscerning conservatism tries to conserve the bad along with the good. Liberals live under the false notion that change is always good, conservatives under the equally false notion that change is always bad. (“Who do those northern agitators think they are, comin’ down here and stirrin’ up our [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]s?”)

So when conservatives talk about going back to our godly roots, theologically conservative but socially liberal Christians (both black and white) are understandably skeptical.

“You mean go back to those godly roots where black people were enslaved and beaten and raped and had their families torn apart by plantation owners who were deacons in their conservative churches? Or back to those days of Ozzie and Harriet and Leave it to Beaver, when you wouldn’t let black people in your restaurants and theaters and schools, and you wouldn’t let us drink out of your water fountains?”

I know conservative evangelicals who are selective in standing for what’s right. They may want the schools to be more hospitable to truth and Christianity. But they may not bother intervening on behalf of the unborn. They may be active in prolife work but ignore or minimize the issues of poverty and racism and responsible care for the environment. In the ‘50s and ‘60s, while defending the Scriptures—a very good thing, they defended institutional racism—a very bad thing.

As some liberals have no discernment as to the fact that some people are poor due to laziness and need to be required to work, likewise some conservatives seem to have no heart for the truly poor, those who are not at fault for their poverty and who, given opportunity and training, would work hard to escape it.

Some conservatives seem to think that free enterprise (in which I believe) solves everything. They appear to have no ecological concerns, as though a sense of stewardship of the earth God entrusted to us is restricted only to “environmentalist wackos.” Of all people, shouldn’t Christians lead the way in being good stewards of the earth God entrusted to our care in Genesis 1 and 2?
Some conservatives serve the god of patriotism. Their Christian faith is dangerously intertwined with their faith in America. Ours is a great country, as countries go. But countries only go so far. Despite its flaws, America deserves our respect and loyalty. But it doesn’t deserve our uncritical endorsement or our worship.

​

! Bravo

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And that's the size of it - by focusing on labels and the value/meaning we attach to them, actual investigation and analysis is 'skipped'.



(And no-one knows what anyone is actually talking about.)

The ways that feelings and meanings inscribed into what people see makes a world of difference when it comes to seeing the way something is. As Maya Angelou said best:

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.

​

There's a good side to that and a bad side. As it concerns the bad side, people saw the ways certain systems were portayed (as well as some of the failures that were done in the name of those systems) and from there values was ascribed to them to say the systems all are uniform as are the people supporting them...despite the facts that there are variations in every system (with good sides and bad sides) and that others in differing systems did not act the same (or according to the behavioral stereotypes many had of them ) and many had the same goals/successes as others in systems they had portayed to them as "good."

 

[Received]

One heck of a parallel reality when neoliberalism is socialism.

Note: I remember watching a documentary on psychopaths in corporations, and how one of the psychologist dudes was like, "the less people think critically as a society, the more prone this society is to fascism and/or being pushed wherever those in authority would like to go."

That, for me, includes believing Obama is anything for a right-leaner on the worst days.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

! Bravo

Good to know it connected. I think what he said needs to be considered more by so many, especially as it concerns code switching and how often terms are divorced from the context they developed in. Not everything "conservative" has always been good nor everything "liberal" been bad (and the converse is true to)...and not everything deemed to be "capitalist" equates to healthy success while all things deemed "socialist" leads to lack of progress, just as not all things deemed to be "Marxist" or "Communist" were automatically without merit because of where others did damaging things in the name of them.

 

[Veritas]

I love this idea!!!! None of us would have to be responsible for ourselves OR each other! Of course, life would be boring. I suppose we'd have to give up the internet unless there was a way to control access to only APPROVED websites. Maybe we could finally eliminate inappropriate content. That would definitely be a good thing. We could also do like the Chinese and pluck little babes out of the arms of their mommies to put them in gov. sports training facilities or special schools of indoctrination. Afterall, we just don't know well enough. We NEED the gov. to tell us what to think and believe. Overall, this makes a lot of sense especially if you don't like creativity, innovation and hard work. And frankly, who does?

 

[NightHawkeye]

I love this idea!!!! None of us would have to be responsible for ourselves OR each other! Of course, life would be boring. I suppose we'd have to give up the internet unless there was a way to control access to only APPROVED websites. Maybe we could finally eliminate inappropriate content. That would definitely be a good thing. We could also do like the Chinese and pluck little babes out of the arms of their mommies to put them in gov. sports training facilities or special schools of indoctrination. Afterall, we just don't know well enough. We NEED the gov. to tell us what to think and believe. Overall, this makes a lot of sense especially if you don't like creativity, innovation and hard work. And frankly, who does?

Hi, Veritas.

I'm confused. Your post makes everything sound so nice and rosy. All that evil would be eliminated because the right people in the government know how to accomplish all of that good work ... and they know all the right smart people who can fix everything ... and make the world perfect ... and finally we'll have global peace ... and the planet will begin to heal ... and the oceans will stop rising and start to recede ...

Yet ... you don't have a pro-Obama sign in your signature.


[NHE just couldn't help jumping on the bandwagon ... ]

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It was usurped and suppressed by career politicians in Washington, who do indeed allow us free elections, but who also carefully control the pool of candidates we can choose from who actually have a chance of getting elected---they make very sure that anyone actually put into office is a member of their cartel.

And it's going to stay that way until we can break up the stranglehold of the two-party system.

I would think it'd take more than getting rid of the two-party system monopoly, as even someone in third party could easily have the same reality hit them and them be bought off by the cartel. It would take something radical...

 

[Cromulent]

I would think it'd take more than getting rid of the two-party system monopoly, as even someone in third party could easily have the same reality hit them and them be bought off by the cartel. It would take something radical...

Well if there was a genuine multi-party system with a high degree of transparency, voters could always choose one of the parties least in thrall to big business.

I would also be in favour of devolving more power to the individual States, so one doesn't only have to control Washington to control the USA.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well if there was a genuine multi-party system with a high degree of transparency, voters could always choose one of the parties least in thrall to big business..

That could be the case. On the same token, there's the reality of how often groups have been subject AFTER beling elected to doing things they never really wanted to do--and it's not odd in Washington to see the multiple accounts of bribery, extortion, blackmail and intimidation when in the White House or Congress. There's just as much "Gangster" politics in the capitol as there can be on the streets...

Will the system corrupt a third partier? Quite possibly, especially one that doesn't have a lot of experience resisting the corruption.

I would also be in favour of devolving more power to the individual States, so one doesn't only have to control Washington to control the USA

Good points. Texas still has in their laws the ability to seperate from the U.S if it wanted to....and if they were to pull that card, who knows what would happen.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Good points. Texas still has in their laws the ability to seperate from the U.S if it wanted to....and if they were to pull that card, who knows what would happen.

LOL. That train left the station 150 years ago.

The Southern states exercised that perogative ... didn't work out too well for them. Texas was among them.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

LOL. That train left the station 150 years ago.

The Southern states exercised that perogative ... didn't work out too well for them. Texas was among them.

Actually, the train is STILL present for that station and was not exercised fully since. And can STILL be used again


Here is part of the Ordinance of Annexation passed July 4th, 1845 by the Texas Convention. Emphasis mine.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union. 2nd. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: First, said state to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other government, --and the Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action on, or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second, said state when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing to the said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third -- New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited."
​

Yes, Texas could be drawn and quartered to become 5 total states within the Union. But Texas as a state, nor any of those subdivided states may secede from the Union. But even with that being the case, it doesn't take away from the fact that Texans often feel they are free to do as they wish. Even if U.S. law says Texas cannot secede from the Union, the whole point of declaring independence is to free yourself from such laws. Nations never declare independence from within the framework of existing national laws - it only happens in the face of current laws. People are free to change the course of their lives at any time, in violation of any existing law, if they find the courage and the popular support necessary to achieve sufficient recognition among their own people. For all revolutions take place under precisely such a structure: When the will of the People shifts, old laws crumble away and new laws take their place.

There's validity in others noting how the United States of America has not acted with any real respect for the Law in a long, long time. From domestic surveillance to federal income taxation, the kidnapping of foreign nationals and the operation of secret prisons using government-approved torture methods, the U.S. government has demonstrated quite convincingly that it respects no law other than "might makes right" while still speaking of the Constitution.



As said best elsewhere:

Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?

A: This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1] (adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...")

Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).

Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [3]
​

 

[NightHawkeye]

Actually, the train is STILL present for that station and was not exercised fully since. And can STILL be used again

As said best elsewhere:

Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?

A: This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1] (adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...")

Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).

Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [3]
​

LOL ... Charlie Daniels ...
Charlie Daniels - Late 70's - The South's Gonna Do it Again - YouTube

 

[Gxg (G²)]

LOL ... Charlie Daniels ...
Charlie Daniels - Late 70's - The South's Gonna Do it Again - YouTube

Indeed...and as the old saying goes, "People never learn." It's foolish thinking people can't try things that've not been done before and not succedd simply because it didn't go as others wished. Again, there's nothing keeping a state from choosing to do its own thing if it wanted--and working from history can lead to others thinking in terms of "What happened is what will ALWAYS happen" as opposed to seeing what happened in the context it happened in.....

It was said at one point the U.S would never be anything but isolationist due to how others tried to go against it and the nation became closed off (same thing happened in Japan at one point when it shut down its borders for centuries)--but that has changed now, hasn't it?

Of course, others often debate the issue and have good points:

Alex Jones talks Texas secession
Texas CAN Secede, Alaska could SUCCEED
Thom Hartmann: Can Texas secede from the TSA?
Thom Hartmann & Alex Jones: Can Texas or any state secedes from the union?
Interposition, Nullification and Secession on Freedom Watch - Judge talks to Lew Rockwell​

 

[stamperben]

LOL ... Charlie Daniels ...
Charlie Daniels - Late 70's - The South's Gonna Do it Again - YouTube

Oh Lord... That's the one my neighbors will sing to the karaoke machine out on the back deck late at night after getting rip roaring drunk. Aside from that they are good people.

 

[Thekla]

Good points. Texas still has in their laws the ability to seperate from the U.S if it wanted to....and if they were to pull that card, who knows what would happen.

As an aside - in Spain, Catalonia is considering just that option:

A resolution, on the right of the Catalan people to cut off ties with the Spanish state, will be voted on Thursday by the regional parliament.

This statement of "the will of Catalan people to vote on the bond with the State of Spain" opens the way for forthcoming elections on November 25 to become a referendum on the sovereignty of Catalonia.

The Spanish military are not taking this lying down with the counter-threat that these 'separatists' and their 'inappropriate and unacceptable' threat to break-up Spain shall be, according to El Economista, charged with high treason.

Spanish Military Threatens Treason As Catalonia Seeks Secession Referendum | ZeroHedge

 

[NightHawkeye]

As an aside - in Spain, Catalonia is considering just that option:

The EU apparently won't allow any separation either. It may be an interesting statement from Catalonia ... and one worth watching ... but likely doomed to failure if the path of secession is followed.