Mikhail Gorbachev Quote

"Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika … is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy. ... I would like to be clearly understood ... we, the Soviet people, are for socialism. ... We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy. ... More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life. … We will proceed toward better socialism rather than away from it. We are saying this honestly, without trying to fool our own people or the world. Any hopes that we will begin to build a different, non-socialist society and go over to the other camp are unrealistic and futile. Those in the West who expect us to give up socialism will be disappointed. ... It’s my conviction that the human race has entered a stage where we are all dependent on each other. No other country or nation should be regarded in total separation from another, let alone pitted against another. That’s what our communist vocabulary calls internationalism and it means promoting universal human values."

by:	Mikhail Gorbachev (1931- ) General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the last head of state of the USSR (1985-1991)
Source:	Perestroika -- New Thinking for Our Country and the World (1988)
Rating:
Categories:	Collectivism, Communism, Democracy, NWO, Socialism
	Tweet

This one deserves at least 10 stars for accuracy of perception but, I give it a thumbs down because of the realized application and what it has done to man's noble mind, body, patriatism, morality, and spirit.  -- Mike, Norwalk
ABSOLUTELY!!! Democracy is the pure essence of socialism! Pure Democracy ends in majority rule absolutely with no alterations, exceptions, or limitations! Societal Democracy is Socialism, pure and simple. When the majority of the workers revolt against the store owner and take over his business as a collectivist revolution (violently or by blunt force), this is Communism! When the majority of workers pass laws against the store owner and then take over his business through due process and through political motives, this is Socialism! What protection do property owners, business owners, or any other individual person possibly have in a Democracy? Are we REALLY to rely on the fact that the majority is usually always right? This facet of "Wikiality" is bludgeoning our thoughts and raping our heritage! Truth by mass consent solely is NOT truth! No matter how you put it! When you rely on the majority only, you alienate inalienable liberty! If you base your entire system of government on majority rule only, then you base your system of government upon an idea that it was the majority that gave rights in the beginning and that it is the majority that will take them away from you! How can the majority grant inalienable rights when tomorrow the majority can choose to alienate these from you?!?! How ABSURD is this reasoning?! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! We are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" that among these are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"! THIS IS THE SOURCE OF OUR RIGHTS!!!! OUR CREATOR!! Was the majority our CREATOR?! When we base our government on majority rule only, we base our government on socialist doctrine! The ignorant blundering fools who support Democracy still cannot answer what arbitrary ratio the majority's consent must reach to make Rape or incest "moral". Why? Because they are cowards who cannot support their own ideology -- they fain to profess knowledge, but are shown ignorant when they cannot even ask a simple question. WHAT IS THE RATIO?!?! 1:2? 1:10? 1:100? 1:1,000? or how about 1:1,000,000? Does one million people against a single person constitute a "moral majority" in condoning rape and incest? What is your magic number? There ARE eternal absolutes wherein the majority simply cannot have sway or make a moral judgment!! This is the very vile basis of Socialism! The majority DOES NOT set the basis for right or wrong! To think otherwise makes reason shake and crumble in atrophy!  -- Logan, Memphis, TN
The western government have adopted communism wholesale. Which of these are missing from our society? "1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc." -- The 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto.  -- J Carlton, Calgary
The enviromental movement is a perfect example of socialism. It's control of where you can live, what you can eat, what you can drive, what you can do with your property, etc. And to go right along , there is "political correctness" to control what you can say and even what you can think. Then we have the War on Drugs which allows the cops to stop cars for any reason and ask to search your car, and if you refuse they can hold you there while they get a warrent. They can also,and do, take your property without even charging you with a crime. So you think I'm wrong, then read "Bad Trip", available on Amazon. If you think that we live in a FREE country, think again.  -- jim k, austin
As long as we can all live together here on earth without stepping on eachothers toes I think we will be ok.  -- Me Again
I think Gorby was correct about the interdependent part. Socialism well I don't think we even know what it is. The Chineese "Communist-capitalists" are now almost our best friends. I have often thought that if Mark could come back he would have admired America for its wide distribution of business ownership by the people through the mechanism of corporate stock. Are employee owned businessess socialist businesses. I think an honest answer would be "yes". Some bemoan the use of feelings over the use of thinking. I think and feel that is an oversimplification. Feelings can be a first intuitive reaction to a stimulus that then triggers thinking and expounding to relate the feeling and thinking to others. I agree that it is hard to relate feelings or intuition so they must be translated into logical thought. Many of you know that from my beginning on this site I had strong reaction (feelings) against several things that were said, not once but repeatedly. They still cause me chagrin. The first is the statement "The US is a republic not a democracy" my initial reaction was based on feeling or intuition and it took me some time to think through and relate my thought and feelings. Eventually I did get a correction and agreement that America is at leats "a majority ruled" society, which after all is my definition of democracy. The second oft repeated phrase "the soveriegn individual". Again I had and still do a somewhat violent emotional reaction to this almost oxymoron. I have to then think through and try to understand why I have these feelings. So feelings, intuition is a good starting point for thinking and analysis. Sovereign means "One who possesses supreme authority, especially a person or body of persons". To claim that in America all individuals possess this quality I think is an absolute sham. If we had this quality then when told we are under arrest we could just fire the cop. We do have rights under the common law and under the Bill of Rights, we do not have sovereignity. Their are some political theorist dreamers but they are far removed from reality. Any way FEELINGS, INTUITION is an important stimulus to incisive thinking.  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
Well, there you have it from the horse's own mouth. Democracy is a tool for socialism. It makes me laugh to see Waffler squirming as he comes close to realizing that he is indeed a socialist then coming up with some convulted excuse that we really don't know what socialism is, that there is no such thing as a sovereign individual, that we all are in agreement that America is at least a majority ruled nation! LOL, thanks, Waffler for giving us a peek at the inner workings of a deluded brain. America is a society ruled not by the majority but by law -- get that through your thick headed skull. Second, the American colonists were subjects of a soveriegn individual called the King of England. All of Europe was governed by the notion that people were merely subjects of their crown. The American Revolution changed that for the colonists -- they were subject to no king, no president, no Congress -- they were and we are free and sovereign individuals -- kings on our own land, subject to nothing but the rule of law and the laws of nature. And 3rd, yes, we sure do know what Communism is -- read the god damned Communist Manifesto -- it is NOT the same as the US Constitution. There have always been rich Communists -- WTF are you dense?! Sheesh, what do you think happens when you take over an entire nation -- somebody gets control of all that wealth. The same is true for a socialist democracy -- they lie and lie and lie about distributing the wealth among all equally while they plunder the country's wealth for their own gain and make us all responsible for an unpayable debt they benefited from. Grow up, you wankers, and get the education you didn't get in your government socialist school. You are a king and yet you act like a slave and wish nothing more than all of us to come down to your level of cowardice and dependency. I don't need my "feelings and intuition" to tell me that Waffler is a damn fool and a traitor to his country.  -- E Archer, NYC
Well Archer, Waffler, Carlton and Logen you said it all - well done  -- RobertSRQ
Alas Archer you react with feelings (that is good) but ignore any effort at logic. IF INDIVIDUALS ARE SOVEREIGN why the hell don't all of the prisoners walk the hell out of prison. If socialism is so bad (and I am not saying that it isn't) why are we buying all of our goods from it. If socialism(s) are unpatriotic why do we allow companies like United Airlines to be owned by the union etcetea.  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
Waffler, the principle behind individual sovereignty is as old as philosophy itself; it is the political and individual thought of the ages. Through the Enlightenment it was argued that men are born free with inalienable rights merely by reason of being born in a "state of nature"; they argued and reasoned that there was a Creator that gave us these rights; the argument against a Creator is thus not against the existence of a "Creator" but rather what form that creator takes: Is the Creator Jesus Christ, Allah, nature itself, happenstance, or any other divine entity? This is up to interpretation and can be argued; however, the point is that we are creatures of a divine creation wherein we are given rights that cannot be taken from us (whether by individual abdication or majority usurpation). In this line of reason it was concluded that each individual has the full right and ability of expressing their rights, so long as they did not infringe upon another's ability of doing the same. The "law" of nature thus "defined" the natural interaction of earthly creatures. This was basically the old definition of what a "sovereign" was: the individual who inwardly held full inalienable liberty... However, once a sovereign stepped outside his inalienable liberty and infringed upon someone else's inalienable liberty (which is not an inalienable liberty), then that sovereign has stepped outside the protection of the law to move and act in accordance to their own course. This was first defined by the Norman's as an "outlaw"-- or rather, someone who is outside the protection of the law. It was not a crime to retain by force a sovereign who had impeded upon another sovereign's inalienable liberty. The law would no longer protect unjust persecution or detainment upon the guilty party. Being incarcerated does not alienate inalienable liberty; however, by reason and logic, it is concluded that detaining a person who is no longer in factual control of their inalienable liberty may be forcefully contained until they are able of paying recompense and restoring the "equitable" portion to the infringed sovereign. This is why an "individual sovereign" cannot just walk out of prison: because they are an "outlaw" (outside the encompassing protection of the law) and are not protected in their inalienable rights. As for socialism, yes it is unpatriotic to our American Republican government that was to be maintained on republican principles as based on the "laws of nature and of nature's God". Why do we then allow companies like UA to be owned by the unions? Because you have to allow freedom to all people and organizations. It would be unjust to force people to work for a union, as well as it would be unjust to force people to not work in a union. Unions are argued to be a form of societal socialism; however, as there is still as yet a choice as to whether you work for this societal socialistic organization or not, then there is nothing the government can do about it (justly). However, for the government to be involved in socialistic practices would be unjust, because government is the only entity on earth that can use the power of coercion "legally" (if, however, unjustly). Once force is used on innocent people who have not infringed upon the rights of their neighbor, then tyranny and usurpation is present.  -- Logan, Memphis, TN
Waffler, for your further progress, in a representative republic, the majority can not make law (by vote or any other means). Depending on your religious, or otherwise philosophical belief (inalienable rights endowed by their creator or all rights exist equal in each individual as a faculty of birth) each individual is equal, individually and/or in concert. Archer and Logan gave good explanations (-; aside from the frustration;-). As per the American Constitutional Republic, the God of Nature is the giver of all laws. It is up to the people to discover what those laws are and pass codes, ordinances, rules, statutes in harmony with and, that most closely define those laws for any given society fit and welfare. By way of example: God gave the catch all broad law: Thou shalt not steal. The Republic discovered that law and defined it, to best fit the subject society; namely grand theft, petty larceny, theft be deception, etc. At times, the majority is ultimately in charge of the forming of such codes, ordinances, rules, statutes through their representatives. When government takes it upon them selves to create law, such as that which is compelled compliance, license, larceny with impunity (income tax, paper money, etc.), victimless crimes, torture for information, etc. it is (see Logan's comments) out of law. Such is a government of men, not a government of law. When voting for a representative in a democracy, or other socialist, communist, fascist, despotic, tyrannical, etc. state, you are voting for an individual to represent the state, not you. Man can not create law, by majority or otherwise.  -- Mike, Norwalk
It is the application of the law that is subject to change, not the law. It is the application, proceedure, enforcement of the law that can be modified to fit any given situation, not the law itself. A democracy claims to have right and ability to create law through the concepet of a majority collective, which is a mis-direction, mis-information, non-substantive facade. An individual can not make law, and that doesn't change when he stands with a billion other individuals that can not make law. The individual, or concert thereof can only define application.  -- Mike, Norwalk
Logan how do you fit the heritage of such villages and institutions as the Shakers and Amana society into your history of the United States. Also almost entire Eruope villages moved to the US if not en masse over a period of a few years and reestablished their village and lives here. I am not saying they were socialists. They were not politcal theorists. But they coomperated with each other for their common welfare and survival. I agree 100% that all of us come forth with the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as anyone ever born or to be born. But an historic sovereign like Henry VII broached no dissent and thus he had the innocent head of Sir Thomas Moore removed. That is absoute power and that is what the dictionary says is SOVERIEGNITY. I still think y'all need a better vocabulary when it comes to sovereignity and "republic not a democracy".  -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas
America is a wonderful and a great country, and was built upon the idea wherein if men worked they would not be hindered by others in succeeding. The Amish, Shakers, Mormons, and Amana's (to name a few) all share a similar story of groups and organizations that established a sub-culture under each state's protection in individual sovereignty (inalienable right). Each group took its marching orders from a more religious or theocratic leader than their political leaders, but each group, as history shows, never actually did anything in the infringement of inalienable liberty. Each group was free to join and free to leave (although each had a criteria or joining), even if you had to leave behind family, friends, and everything you knew -- you were not compelled to stay. The American history's treatment of the Mormons is actually an interest test case wherein there was actually an official extermination order (kill order) put out against them by the state of Missouri that was in effect from the late 1830's to as late as the 1970's when the state officially repealed the order (how's that for protection in inalienable liberty and religious freedom?). Such groups, to my knowledge, were not in violation of the state's intent to administer justice in regards to infringement upon individual inalienable liberty (or, in other words, " individual sovereignty"). (It is also noteworthy that no where is it ever shown that the majority ever holds "inalienable rights" -- only the individual; after all, isn't the majority just a collection of individuals? Unless we arbitrate a number wherein a majority automatically assumes an inalienable liberty, then we must reason that the majority maintains no right, power, or privilege beyond the individuals that make up the majority). Our system of government was built on the understanding that each person was "sovereign", which turned on its head the previously held philosophy in England that people believed that the King of England was the only legitimate "sovereign" and that he then beneficently gave freedom to the people (in other words, that freedom came not by natural design but by the King or "sovereign" -- this concept was an adaptation borrowed by Rome). It was through the writings of Locke and other of his contemporary philosophers that such a notion as existed for over several centuries in England was finally rejected. The Declaration of Independence boldly declared that the people, not the King, were endowed by a Creator with inalienable rights and were individually sovereign, and that among these rights (but not limited to these) are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which "pursuit of happiness" is a term most defined to render as "property" as defined through the 1600's-1700's). Republics are variant of Democracies in that while both systems of government share majority consent to conduct the affairs of government, Republics adhere to a separate code of laws wherein a frenzied majority cannot, in a state of panic (9-11, for instance), violate or infringe upon the individual inalienable liberty of the people. Under this notion, John Adams once wrote that man, therefore, cannot "make" law, he can only define the natural law that already exists in nature to adhere societal statues to. Not all Republics adhere to a just codex of laws and are not inherently praiseworthy; however, as per our own Republic, the founders wisely established the outside codex of laws wherein the majority must bend its will upon the "laws of nature and of nature's God" (a term that was used quite often, due to the philosophical period known as the "Enlightenment"). Sadly, since the founders first wrote these words, the ideology and philosophy behind what these words meant in their day and age have been left out in most educational facilities; these terms are now used as a meaningless cliches by people who haven't been shown or haven't taken the time to know what was once meant by these words. Because we don't use these phrases in today's political movements, we have lost their meaning, and whenever they're even remotely referenced the majority who has never researched the original meanings react quickly with a flippant response that quite nearly states: "the laws of nature? What is that? As if anyone even knows! No one even knows what that IS!" The problem is that there are some people who actually study this stuff who DO know what it is; however, the people who study this also realize that philosophy, language, thought, and movement evolves, and unless the people are taught to look back to their foundation, they will forget the wisdom of their founders -- a fact that is quickly becoming a reality in our country. Just because Henry VII was considered the sovereign and the government operated on this fact, does not morally justify any of his actions (especially the act of beheading Sir Thomas Moore -- one of my historical favorites). Just because someone is sovereign does not mean their actions are inherently morally praiseworthy -- it merely means that they have full mobility, liberty, and agency to move and act without being infringed upon by another power in their course of life, liberty, or property (a course of action that the people of England had no "right" to without consent, or rather "license", from the sovereign). I have no problem with organizations establishing themselves that mimic themselves according to socialism, so long as the freedom of choice and the freedom against coercion is enforced through justice and equity (but this is an oxymoron, because socialism cannot exist without coercion); although I would disagree with such a system, I wouldn't seek to politically have it squelched unless it infringed on life, liberty, or property.  -- Logan, Memphis, TN
Wow, there are some really strong feelings here. My point is that it is the lawyers that want us to believe that we are a nation of laws. If laws rule us, then lawyers are lofted to the highest positions in society. Last time I looked I saw that we are a nation of, for and by the PEOPLE, and not a nation of the lawyers, for the polititions, by the cops. Jesus said that the law does not liberate, it condemns. If you need a law to make you do the right thing, then you are condemned by that need and law. We need to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and not because a law orders us to do it. It is only necessary for man that he respect all things and all beings. Beyond this there is no law. Live by that creed and no law will ever condem you. PEACE PROFOUND  -- Ken, Milford Pa.
Ken, to say that we "are a nation of, for and by the PEOPLE, and not a nation of lawyers, for the polititions, and by the cops" is a non-sequitur-- the premise is false. Of course we are a government of, by, and for the people (Gettysburg Address), but we are still a nation of laws. If there is no law, there is anarchy. Now, admittedly, anarchy is a term that people like to loosely throw around, but seldom understand. There can be no absolute anarchy, because even in the worse cases of "anarchy", when there have been group riots of uncontrollable masses, we still have the ability of finding a certain "order" or law (patterns of predictability) within these masses. There is a difference, however, between "law" and "statute". Lawyers, judges, and politicians haven't dealt in the founding term of "law" for a very long time; however, they HAVE dealt in doling out and fast tracking statutes. There IS a difference. Law, even biblically, was defined as the entity that defined the way things WERE. Philosophers of the Enlightenment argued that there WAS a certain order that nature took naturally, and we, as creatures of nature, must take a natural course too. How do we define that course? Well, the term was called "law". Now, this doesn't mean that this term has been used forever and in everything. Today, we've convoluted the terminology of law to represent a codex of regulations and rules wherein people are to be controlled. Such was NOT the original intent of the founders. Christian philosophy states that we are sinners, but that through the atoning sacrifice of a perfect and sinless individual we may overcome the way things are (or, rather, "the law"). No, the law does not liberate, nor is it meant to: it is meant merely to define how things are, and associate the natural penalty (the act with the actor) wherein the scales of justice may be balanced and the equitable portion returned. To say that we either have a government of, by, and for the people or we have a society of law is a huge logical fallacy built on several false premises.  -- Logan, Memphis, TN
Logan, you must be a Lawyer, and like Lawyers you believe that if you sound high minded, then you will intimidate everyone, and then you are right, and win. As to our founding fathers, John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Paine all stated (in different words) that the purpose of government is to create the greatest amount of happiness for the largest number of the people for the greatest percent of the time possible. It is the governments job to serve the people and not the peoples job to serve the government. You may be a Lawyer, but you cannot school me on Jesus as I am a Minister. Jesus said love God and your fellow man and there is no law against you. Laws are only for those who cannot, or will not do the right thing on their own. The second that a law is written it condems those that it applys to, as it shows a lack of ability to self govern, your own affairs. I normally would not reply, but I felt that silence would give the illusion of error. I do not mean to belittle you only correct. Love and respect everyone, and there is no need for condemning laws. Lets all try to get to a higher level of consciousness. PEACE PROFOUND  -- Ken, Milford Pa
Intimidation does not equate with the rightness or wrongness of a principle. Whether or not I am a lawyer doesn't mean that I am any more intelligent in the law than you being a minister means that you are in the gospel of Christ; however, I agree with the substance of your response, albeit, historically, the terms may be a little mixed. I admire good and intelligent debate, in that we use the ability of logic wherein God has given us the ability to think and reason. This is a chestnut of the legal/philosophy/political science world -- a real "which came first, the chicken or the egg" kind of moment -- in that we argue which came first: law or equity? The law simply defines the way things are in how they move and interact with each other. It is not the "law" that gives power to gravity, because law is simply the entity that defines the effects of what would happen should you jump off a cliff without a parachute. Gravity simply exists, and law defines the movement of nature (natural law). Law simply defines the consequences of what happens if a certain action is committed by an individual. Law defines the course of justice, and justice is what associates the act with the actor, whether good or bad. As John Adams said that man cannot "make" natural law, but rather "define" it; man did not "make" gravity, God did... but man may define and reason the consequences of jumping off the cliff. When the man hits the ground, it is not the "law" that killed him... it was merely a consequence of the actions of the operating individual (sovereign). If I told a man that standing in front of a train would end his life, I would never be considered responsible or the killer for him choosing to stand on the tracks after I told him the way things were. Consequences follow everything -- whether good or bad (depending on how you define the terms) -- and the law has defined the limits wherein we can all move and act justly, appropriately, and peacefully with each other and receive the consequences. That's the the way it is.  -- Logan, Memphis, TN
This is so true. It is even happening in our very own country (except that our country is lying to us)! It has become overwhelming, with our freedoms practically being taken away day by day! We have the right to over throw the government like the Constitution says we do if our forefathers, were here right now, what do you think that they would do? Hmm? They would take action! That's what I say we should do! Like Waffler, poor simple minded Waffler, who doesn't believe that majority rules, or simply doesn't know what it means to work or any thing of that matter. I say we start a petition, about losing our rights! How about it, instead of sitting down on our lazy asses, how does it sound to do something about this maddness? I think that I should stand upon the rooftops waving our precious, and magnificent flag (God Bless that it may wave forever)shouting out my lungs until my bloody insides start to pour out, shouting just what's on my mind. And maybe, just maybe, if we get all together, all of us who believe in justness and liberty for all, (i'm talking about worthy and true, die-hard patriots) that just maybe they won't shoot us down, one by one, 'cause they will those good for nothing bastards! Just once is all i'm asking to do something that will change the steep paths of this country and change them for the good, maybe people will see us, maybe not as long as it helps my country i'm there, i'm willing, to die for such a country, a country in which i'm willing to die for.  -- Crystal, Pittsburgh, PA
Ken, being a minister you probably already know this but in ancient Israel's jurisprudence, equity differed from law. American jurisprudence defines equity as a part of law from Roman and later European usage, which has absolutely nothing to do with biblical usage. Equity defined the elements that made up God. For example: Hebrews 11.1 Faith is the substance ..., 1 John 4:8 God is love. God doesn't do love, He is love and all his actions are loving. It becomes semantics after that but if follows, we should be love and love God and all others. Workings do not save but rather the being of grace. "For we know that the law is spiritual." (Romans 7:14) Depending on your definition of spiritual, it is an intical part of creation. Law is neither to save us or to condemn us, it is only the definition of the actor's action. There are laws of Physics, science, etc., and to the actions of men. To jump off a cliff has immediate consequences. Fiscal laws may take a little longer to come to fruition but consequences there are, all-the-same. Those laws that define freedom and liberty were given of God to all humanity, the just and the unjust. When man takes it upon himself to become the law giver, passing edicts contrary to the God of Nature, (as in Gorbachev's democracy) there will be consequences. The loss of freedom and liberty is but a beginning to the consequences.  -- Mike, Norwalk
Gentleman, after rereading my quote I see that I misstated my position using the word am instead of was a minister. I resigned after over 10 years of service due to pressing family obligations. This sure seems to have struck a very sensitive nerve. I am very sorry for any distress that it may have caused. However although no longer having an official ordination, I have never stopped preaching. The difference is that now I am not restricted to dogma, or tenant. My only point is that one time in man's development he needed turmoil, anguish and even wars to spur him on to development, and laws to keep him from overstepping his bounds. Today in our present stage of emotional, intellectual, and spiritual evolution, we should not, and do not need misery to prod us on, and laws to keep us down. We need to exercise justice, mercy, compassion, kindness, respect and love, while assisting and sharing the worlds bounty with each other, because it is the right, moral, and GODLY thing to do. We can master our impulses of conflict, and embrace each other in harmony, and usher in the condition of PEACE PROFOUND  -- Ken, Milford Pa
Great quote to see inside the convoluted mind of a committed socialist. Democracy is ok if you can use it to create more socialism. The left worshiped him. They think like him. If you can call that thinking.  -- warren, olathe

Tweet  Rate this quote! How many stars? 0 1 2 3 4 5	What do YOU think?
Your name:	Your town:     CLICK JUST ONCE!

Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
Email: