Subscriber Login

Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
Mr. Moe distorted American history PDF Print E-mail

Dear Editor:

Please allow me to not only correct the record, but more importantly, to defend the most consequential document in American history from the distortions put forth in Terrance Moe’s letter last week, “The Declaration of Independence inherently socialistic,” which was a response to mine the week prior, “Foundation of nation is still individual liberty.”

By misrepresenting the clearly stated objective of my letter, which centered around the individual liberty that a minority of Americans are determined to diminish, Mr. Moe was then able to beat the drum for universal health care in an unusual fashion.

Apparently, if one can convince the uninformed masses that the founding of this nation is actually based in socialism, it will be an easier lift to have them accept the socialistic nature of government-run health care.

That said, it appears that to make the case, Mr. Moe took a few words out of context and combined them with some editorializing in order to produce a unique interpretation of the Declaration of Independence.

In doing so, Mr. Moe distorted historical fact by claiming that “The preamble clearly states that all men are created equal, and therefore, all are deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Left unchallenged, one could logically reason that the founders themselves bequeathed to the American people some rewards they are deserving of, and thus, reasonably conclude that the founders did indeed endorse a basic tenet of socialism known today as either social equity or social justice.

However, when one investigates these most profound determinations in their entirety, a much different and historically accurate interpretation is confirmed. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

So in its unabridged form, this timeless American creed is unequivocally clear that all people are created equal with a specific set of rights, not because we deserve them, but simply by virtue of being human. Additionally, these gifts are granted individually to each and every one of us by God and can never be taken away or altered by the government that we the people create and control for the express purpose of protecting this sacred birthright.

Furthermore, these self-evident truths are the bedrock of an exceptional American system originally designed as a means by which individuals determine their own destiny, hence, the antithesis of the socialistic philosophy that some Americans now feel emboldened to openly embrace.

Frank Gabl

Prospect Heights, Ill.

and Eagle River

Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:10 AM


-8 #58 2013-12-23 12:03
Read this:

A good example of what happens to an economy when the socialists take over.
-2 #57 2013-12-22 10:36
some great quotes on socialism:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery
Winston Churchill

Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it
Thomas Sowell

The goal of socialism is communism
Vladimir Lenin

And my favorite:
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.
Margaret Thatcher
-4 #56 2013-12-21 10:25
Same old argument Jeff: Protestant Reformation vs Catholicism. Usury laws, rich vs poor, it will never end. Just irritating when you see a guy like Leonardo DiCaprio ranting against the excesses of capitalism which seems to be the theme of the month emanating from the White House. Maybe Leonardo should give up his private jet, mansion in LA, and a great portion of his wealth to put his money where his mouth is.
Maybe GM needs to pay the taxpayers back?>

Unions got 90 cents on the dollar, investors 10 cents.
-5 #55 Frank Gabl 2013-12-20 14:09

Why did you just become so defensive and incensed?

I'm proud of what I espouse, aren't you?

Frank Gabl
+3 #54 Jeff Laadt 2013-12-20 12:43
Just give it a rest. How many times, and in how many postings, can you say the same thing....over and over. Whatever the question, the answer is always SOCIALIST! or UN-AMERICAN!

Dennis was right, this has become tedious.

Jeff Laadt
+2 #53 Denny Erardi 2013-12-20 10:32
We've got common ground in principle about a couple things on your list. I have no issue conceptually with employee ownership of companies -- not as a freebie, however. I don't know enough about the impact economically of raising the minimum wage to intelligently comment on that. And I believe wholeheartedly in providing opportunities to those at the lower end of the wage scale to improve their financial options and career alternatives. Private enterprise can lead in that regard, not the government.

Out the gate, I patently cannot get behind labor as an equal partner in corporate decision making. I don't believe that the investment equation is equal nor that the risk/reward relationship is equal between labor and management (for lack of a better word).

I've ordered the Kelly book and look forward to discussing.
-2 #52 Frank Gabl 2013-12-20 09:34

You forgot to mention – “America Beyond Capitalism” by Gar Alperovitz -
with praise from “fellow traveler” Noam Chomsky:

"Concrete and feasible ways to reverse the ominous course of the past several decades and to open the way to a vibrant democracy with a sustainable economy… A marvelous book…I recommend it all the time"
—Noam Chomsky
-3 #51 Frank Gabl 2013-12-20 09:11

Even though your response was purposely vague, you still divulged a wealth of information into your world view and personal philosophies, which predictably, are not based on this country's founding or foundation.

As anyone knows, this nation was founded on the following declaration of which you can muster support for only the three obscure “goals” (as you put it instead of rights) at the very end, which taken separately and without the related context, can be interpreted in any way possible making the concepts virtually meaningless: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

You go on to cite three references to give further insight into your way of thinking, but the only legitimate representation is the troubling

Cont. below:
-3 #50 Frank Gabl 2013-12-20 09:08

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which confirms your interpretation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in its opening declaration: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

It is imperative to note that contrary to this nation’s Declaration, where “unalienable rights” are an inherent part of our humanness which cannot be separated, “inalienable rights” are those which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Which means, inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government since government is where the rights originated from unlike ours which are endowed by a Creator.

Cont. below:
-3 #49 Frank Gabl 2013-12-20 09:07

The preceding analysis is confirmed in Article 29-3 of the UN’s Declaration, which states: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” Or in other words, government controls the people, which is the antithesis of America’s foundation.

The reason for this on my part is solely for the purpose of illustrating that your thought patterns and determinations about society and culture are not based in the bedrock principles and values of this country. Which begs the question: other than the absolute right that you have to present whatever you like, how are your solutions for this country’s current political and economic issues valid when they are not even grounded in Americanism?

Cont. below:

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.

Security code