A Quick And Easy Overview of World Governments
What You Weren't Taught In School!
Free - Civics in Seconds (PDF)
Types of Monopolistic Governments (Capital-based)
Fascism in the United
States of America?
Story: Joe, The College Student
Types of Government (Rule-based)
Democracy
Republic
Communism
"Republic v. Democracy" by David Barton
"The Constitution, Yes! The UN Charter, No!" by John F. McManus
U.S.A. State Constitutions (Website)
Capital – Means of Production
(Tools, Machines, Working People)
Monopolistic |
Competitive |
|
|
|
|
Capital is owned privately or by the government. |
Capital is owned privately (by the citizens). |
|
|
|
|
Prices are high, like Poland in the '80s. Shortages (long lines exist for basic necessities). Certain individuals, or the government, control all capital for a type of business or service and therefore set prices and the level of production output. |
Prices are low. Different businesses compete and therefore lower prices. There is an abundance of goods (ex., how many brands of detergent or cars are available in the U.S.A for purchase?). |
|
|
|
|
Quality is low. With no competition, there is no initiative for improvement. |
Quality is high. People buy the best products, which, logically, drives process improvement among competing producers. |
|
|
|
|
No private property. |
Private property for all. |
|
|
|
|
Communism, socialism, nazism, and fascism are all forms of monopolistic economic systems. Who chooses to live in a monopolistic society? Those who are too lazy to work against competition and too lazy to get competition underway. Monopolistic state-controlled systems are the work of criminals who seize control of governments and set themselves up as monopoly producers for their own profit and power. Four elements are required in order for you to have true private property:
"The theory of the communists may be summed up in a single sentence: abolition of private property." Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848 |
|
Types of Monopolistic Governments
Communism |
Socialism |
Nazism (Stands for national socialism!) |
Fascism |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government-controlled capital |
Government-controlled capital |
Government-controlled capital |
Government-controlled capital |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All capital owned by govt. |
Major capital owned by govt. |
Some capital owned by govt. |
No capital owned by govt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Communism is socialism in a hurry. Ex., The Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics. |
Ex., government-owned communications, transportation, utilities, export industry, banking industry, etc. (ex., England). Those in favor of a socialist government want to get the citizens to vote themselves into socialism (no force). See the story of Joe below! |
Ex., the Nazis owned Volkswagen but not other similar businesses; however, they controlled all of the businesses. |
Ex., Mussolini said to the business owner, "I don't want to own your business. I just want to tell you what to produce, how much to produce, who to hire, who to fire, where to buy your raw materials, and what price to charge. The rest is up to you." People still think that they own their businesses. They sweep the leaves in the Fall, paint the building in the Summer, worry about employee relations, but the government controls them to its advantage. |
Fascism in the United States of America?
From where? From all of our federal agencies. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the department of this and the bureau of that – so many regulatory agencies. The American Free Enterprise system is destroyed by these regulations. Are these regulations necessary? No. The U.S. Constitution makes no provisions for the federal government to be involved in these areas. Should states be involved? Yes. If a state exceeded what it was doing, then it would be shown and shown very quickly because the next state wouldn't exceed in its actions and people would move. Competition among the states is a beneficial thing, and it's one of the beauties of the federal system that the Founding Fathers gave us. But when Washington D.C. does these kinds of things, to what do you contrast it? You don't have anything else. What we see is government growing and growing and growing and growing. If it continues to grow it will be all-powerful.
Story: Joe, The College Student (Socialism)
Bob was a college student who was taking a course taught by an avowed socialist. He didn't know much about socialism - it never really crossed his mind. Bob was a football player, it was football season, and Bob didn't have as much time as he'd like to spend on his studies, so his classes suffered in the Fall.
One day the professor gave a writing assignment to everyone in the class. Everyone was to write a paper with the same title, "From Each, According to His Ability, To Each, According to His Need" (the classic statement of the socialist). Everyone began working on the assignment.
There was another student in the class, Joe, who was a strong socialist. Joe was very delighted about the assignment, and he was anxious to begin. Joe went home and worked vigorously on his paper. He read several books and articles, interviewed some socialist authors and experts, included many footnotes and a great bibliography, and followed the college's research paper style standards perfectly.
When Joe received his paper, he was astonished to see a "C+" grade. Joe immediately stormed up to the professor and demanded an explanation for a grade that was far below Joe's expectation. The professor replied, "Joe, you should be very proud of your paper. It was exceptional. Bob, who sits in the back by the door, when he's here, didn't do so well. So I gave Bob some of your credits to give you both a C+. You know, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
|
Monarchy |
Oligarchy |
Democracy |
Republic |
Anarchy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rule by One |
Rule by Elite |
Rule by Majority |
Rule by Law |
Rule by None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monarchies do not exist. Others are required to assist the person in charge; therefore, they share power. |
Examples: Russia 1917 Hitler during WWII Nicaragua 1979 Iran 1979 |
Example: The Greek city states before Christ (B.C.). A transitional form of government from one to another. |
Example: U.S.A. for about 150 years after the birth of the Constitution |
Only exists for a short period of time, existing between democracy and republic or oligarchy. Standing governments are either a republic or an oligarchy. |
Contrary to popular belief, the United States of America is not a democracy. Recall the Pledge of Allegiance, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands…."
"Democracy" – from the Greek "dEmokratia" - dEmos (the people) + -kratia (to rule) –cracy.
When more people want something than don't, the majority rules, a.k.a., "rule by majority."
Suppose the majority wants to take away your home, business, or your children. Obviously, there's a problem! The flaw in democracy is that if you allow majority rule, then everybody's rights are up-for-grabs. All you have to do is get more than ½ of the people to want something, on any given day, and you no longer have any rights. It's sometimes called "the tyranny of a majority."
The fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic is that if someone or a group of people came up to you and said that they were going to take away your home or business or children, you'd probably stand up and say, "No, you can't do that! I have my rights protected by the Constitution of the United States of America." And if you said that, you'd be describing a republic.
"Republic" – from the Latin "respublica" - from "res" (thing) + publica (the public). The public thing. The law.
A true republic is one that starts out by recognizing that individuals have rights, and so the limitation in the law is not upon the people but upon the government and the mob and the majority.
Communism is socialism in a hurry. Ex., The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Communist dictators establish socialism with a lightening-quick coupe by creating and maintaining a police state.
What did Karl Marx say were the steps to bring a nation under communist rule? "…the first step in the revolution of the working class… is to win the battle of democracy." Karl Marx, 1848, The Communist Manifesto
This means, get to the point where democracy is prevailing and then get the people to follow your point of view. You have then won the battle of democracy. Karl Marx also said, "The theory of the communists may be summed up in a single sentence – 'abolition of private property.'" Karl Marx, 1848, The Communist Manifesto
Republic v. Democracy
|
The Constitution, Yes!
The UN Charter, No!
by
John F. McManus
President, The John Birch Society
Houston, Texas -
January 18, 2003
As we all know, a very long list of individuals must swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution when they begin to perform their duties. Every President, cabinet official, member of Congress, member of the military, even all who serve in state legislatures must be bound by oath to support the Constitution. Each of us, therefore, has a right to expect that these individuals know what the document contains, and will abide by its provisions.
If you asked any one of these persons why a member of Congress serves for only two years, a member of the Senate for six years, and a President for four years, he or she would point to the Constitution. Those portions have never been amended and are well known. If you asked whether the Constitution might be changed or added to, you'll get a positive response. This is also well known.
But when you point to Article I, Section 8, Clause II, you'll invariably get a far different reaction. The clause in question states in part, "Congress ... shall have power to declare war…." That only Congress has such power is obvious because no similar grant is given in the Constitution to any other branch of government or any person. And there has been no amendment altering that delegation of power.
There are, of course, those who claim that the designation of the President as "commander in chief" means that he has the power to declare war. If so, then the men who wrote the Constitution are rather stupid for having assigned war-making power to Congress earlier in the document. They would seem to have delegated the same power twice. But they weren't stupid. They didn't grant such power to the President or anyone else. They saw to it that Congress, and Congress alone, can send the nation into war.
Some who want war claim that the Constitution gives this power to the President by designating him "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States…." A reading of the intent of the Founders confirms that this is an assignment of responsibility when events call for it, not a grant of power. The President is not authorized to use the military at his pleasure. Nor is he to be the commander in chief of U.S. forces when they are part of a coalition under NATO, or under the United Nations, or under some other multi-national grouping. And he cannot legitimately transfer command of those forces to NATO or to the UN where foreign officials can require them to engage in some military action.
The Founders were pretty adamant about who would have power to send the nation into war. South Carolina's Charles Pinckney took part in the 1787 deliberations where the Constitution was created. When he went back to his state to inform the people about it so that they would approve ratification, he said of this crucial matter, "... the President's powers did not permit him to declare war." That's pretty clear.
Thomas Jefferson wasn't at the 1787 convention, but he knew the Constitution well enough to state: "... the question of declaring war is the function equally of both houses of Congress…." He even expanded on this important point when he added, "The power of declaring war being with the Congress, the executive branch should do nothing necessarily committing them to decide for war."
In the more than 200 years since the Constitution became the "supreme law of the land" sworn to by all government officials, Congress has declared war only five times. In other words, the Constitution's grant to Congress alone to declare war was well known and respected. Congress used its authority at the start of the War of 1812. Then, in 1846, Congress declared war on Mexico; in 1898, on Spain; in 1917, on Germany; and in 1941, on Japan. These were clear-cut declarations, issued jointly by both houses of Congress. (When Germany then declared war on our nation in 1941, Congress certified that a state of war existed relative to that nation.)
Does it come as a surprise to recall that our nation won each of those declared wars? This is not a small point. We haven't won a war since 1945. The reason we haven't won any since WWII is that, essentially, we gave up our sovereignty to the United Nations in 1945. We no longer act in America's best interests; we submit to world opinion. We don't win our wars; we either lose outright or allow the situation to fester. One reason why some wars aren't ended seems to be that they can be re-ignited for future unconstitutional purposes.
Let's now look at how the Constitution's grant of power to Congress to declare war has been ignored. On June 25, 1950, the forces of communist North Korea invaded friendly South Korea. President Truman used legitimate powers in sending American troops to rescue approximately 2,000 Americans in the region. This is a proper use of the military but it should have ended right there. Two days later, the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling on "all members of the United Nations" to aid South Korea militarily. President Truman immediately summoned congressional leaders to the White House and informed them he was sending America's forces in response to the UN's resolution.
When House Speaker John McCormack informed the full House of the President's plan, its members stood and cheered. That meant that the U.S. Constitution's grant of sole war-making power to Congress had been shoved into a bottom drawer. It has never been retrieved.
In 1950, America was fearful of communism. Eastern Europe had fallen. So had China. Numerous revelations of communist penetration of our own government and society had been in the headlines. What wasn't in the headlines, however, was that our own leaders had made the Soviet monster formidable; our own leaders had betrayed China into the hands of Mao tse-Tung; and many of our own leaders were doing everything they could to shield communists at home. Given the chance, those who wanted the U.S. to become the UN's submissive underling used anti-communism to accomplish their goal.
But, even though anti-communism was prevalent and there was no doubt that North Korea's communist hordes intended to establish communism in South Korea, there were some in Congress who believed their oath to the Constitution was important. The very day after President Truman's announcement, Ohio Senator Robert Taft told his Senate colleagues that he would support a declaration of war against North Korea if one were requested. But, and this is this consideration I want to stress, he said he would not willingly allow the President to usurp the power of Congress to use the Armed Forces of our nation without such a declaration. He stated: "If this incident is permitted to go by without protest, at least from this body, we would have finally terminated for all time the right of Congress to declare war, which is granted to Congress alone by the Constitution of the United States." Note that he said "alone."
It, of course, remains to be seen if Senator Taft's use of the phrase "finally terminated for all time" was correct. Whether Congress's sole power can be properly restored is up to the people in this room and our tens of thousands of compatriots throughout the nation.
Mr. Truman knew what the Constitution said about which branch of the government had the sole power to send the nation into war. That's precisely why he repeatedly referred to the struggle as a mere "police action," not a war. But war it was, and war it has come to be labeled. Certainly the families of the tens of thousands of Americans who perished in Korea knew it was war. One month after it started, Secretary of State Dean Acheson announced with great delight, "All actions taken by the United States to restore peace in Korea have been under the aegis of the United Nations." That has been the case ever since in the Korean War that has never ended. Though an armistice of sorts exists, the conflict has never been settled and 37,000 American troops are still posted in South Korea.
If the war in Korea had been properly declared, it would have ended - and it would have ended in victory. But it wasn't declared and the placement of U.S. forces serving under UN command began.
In Vietnam, there again was no declaration of war. This conflict was fought under SEATO, a UN "regional arrangement" which is the term appearing in the UN Charter. Again no victory, and again tens of thousands of American families in mourning as their sons, husbands and fathers were brought home for burial. There weren't any UN flags flying this time, but the UN - through SEATO - was in charge. And though there eventually were many protests, there were none about sending our forces into battle without a declaration of war. The pertinent portion of the Constitution stayed in that bottom drawer.
In 1991, George Bush (the elder) sent U.S. forces into Iraq to rescue Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. But he went to the UN for authorization, got what he wanted, and said his dual purpose was to bring about a "reinvigorated" United Nations and build a "new world order." He later boasted, "I didn't have to get permission from some old goat in Congress to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait." And the old goats in Congress allowed him to get away with that incredible insult to themselves and the Constitution. The U.S. role as the policeman of the world for the UN had been intensified.
Other examples of the misuse of America's military occurred during incursions into Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia. But we must turn our attention to the current buildup of U.S. forces in the Middle East and their preparations for a war against Iraq.
On September 19,2002, President George W. Bush sent a resolution to Congress seeking approval for an invasion of that nation. His justification for such a request cited Iraq's non-compliance with numerous UN Security Council resolutions. He even cited the congressional authorization given by the UN to his father 11 years earlier for action against Iraq. But the key here is Article 25 of the UN Charter which states: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." If the UN says attack, we must attack. We have committed to do so by agreeing to the UN Charter. Other UN member nations (191 in number) are equally obliged to do so - but no one seems to care about the obligations of these others.
In February 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell met with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at UN headquarters in New York. Less than one month at his new post, he made the administration's position clear about the preeminence of the UN over the U.S. Constitution. He stated: "With respect to U.S. policy, when it comes to our role as a member of the Security Council, we obviously are bound by UN resolutions." What about the Constitution that he, President Bush, and all federal officials have sworn an oath to uphold? Part of that Constitution states that it shall be "the supreme law of the land," not the UN Charter or UN resolutions.
Yes, we have a veto. But no, the kind of leaders we have had for decades won't use the veto to assert the independence of this nation. They willingly submit to UN dictates that they obviously feel must be obeyed. Their loyalty is to the UN Charter, not to the Constitution. And when these leaders seek authorization from the UN to use our forces to carry out UN dictates, aren't they admitting that the UN is our superior? One seeks authorization from a superior, not an inferior.
What is crucially important to understand is that our nation is being delivered to the UN by America's leaders. The UN isn't taking us over; we're being given to the world body. Kofi Annan and all his staff aren't the problem; our own leaders are doing us in.
When our nation was placed in the UN in 1945, America's leaders agreed to carry out the decisions of the Security Council. Is America still a sovereign nation?
Sovereignty does not square with that commitment. Shouldn't Congress take action to reverse that travesty? Shouldn't America get out of the United Nations? The purpose of our nation having a military force must be restored to the intent of the Founders - and I might add - to the intent of the overwhelming majority of the American people. That purpose is to protect the lives, liberty and property of Americans. That's all!
Congress debated Mr. Bush's September 19th request for it to sanction the use of our nation's military to attack Iraq. Like his father before him, Mr. Bush doesn't concede that he needs congressional approval. But it serves his purpose and that of his mentors to have Congress provide it. As the measure worked its way through the House, it became the subject of debate in the House International Relations Committee chaired by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois. One of this committee's members, Texas Representative Ron Paul, introduced an amendment calling for a declaration of war by the Congress. He let it be known that he intended to vote against his own amendment because he doesn't believe we should go to war against Iraq. He wanted to begin reestablishing the Congress's prerogative, to get the Congress's war-making power out of that bottom drawer. But his amendment was defeated in a 45 to 0 vote.
During consideration of the Paul amendment, Chairman Hyde (whom we are told is a conservative stalwart) stated that the Constitution's grant of power to Congress alone to declare war no longer applies. He said, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one." He called the portion of the Constitution in question "anachronistic," "inappropriate," and "no longer relevant to a modem society." In other words, leave it in the bottom drawer; we must obey the Security Council's wishes.
California congressman Tom Lantos, the committee's ranking Democrat, agreed with Hyde and said that the proposed amendment calling for a declaration of war had "a touch of frivolity and mischief." Yet the measure requested by the President was aptly described by California Republican congressman Ed Royce, another supposed conservative stalwart, as a statement that "permits the President to wage war." But he and the others who favored the President's plan for war, and recognized that his plan indeed called for war, would not declare war.
So the Constitution's requirement for a congressional declaration of war against Iraq was beaten down in committee. These members of Congress didn't want to honor the Constitution; they felt more obligated to the President and the UN. So they unanimously approved the President's request in their committee and sent it to the full House where it won approval, 296 to 133, on October 10th. The Senate followed with its approval the very next day by a vote of 77 to 23. Mr. Bush now has congressional approval to do what he said he would do anyway, use U.S. troops to enforce UN Security Council resolutions. The members of Congress who approved this measure actually deepened our nation's submission to the United Nations.
More than a dozen years before he became our nation's president, a young Abraham Lincoln addressed the matter of constitutional war-making power in a letter to his law partner. He stated:
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons…. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved so to frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing that oppression upon us.
Mr. Bush says Saddam must be attacked because he might have nuclear weapons. But China already has nuclear weapons and has boasted of aiming them at our West Coast cities. Mr. Bush says Iraq must be attacked because his human rights record is bad. But China's human rights record is worse. Our President reminds us that Iraq once attacked a neighbor nation. So has China, and the once-independent nation of Tibet has been absorbed by the Beijing regime. But Mr. Bush has targeted Iraq. Only a few months ago, in obvious contrast, he welcomed China's dictator, Jiang Zemin, to his Texas ranch for a barbecue. As Mr. Lincoln suggested, the power Mr. Bush is using is the power of a king. But America isn't supposed to be ruled by a king. The supreme law here isn't a man; it's a Constitution.
The Middle East has become a potential war zone once again. Any action we take there will likely result in stepped-up terrorist attacks here at home. Everyone knows this but it is being ignored. Saudi Arabia, supposedly our ally, has refused the use of air bases for any action against Iraq. Some ally! If this nation can thumb its nose at the UN, why can't ours? Our forces are supposed to rely on Qatar, a small kingdom that survived a Moslem fundamentalist coup attempt only recently. Placing our forces in that small nation endangers all of them.
There's another related consideration that is being ignored. Iraq is a secular state, not a religiously run nation like Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Other religions are permitted to exist in Iraq, but they are not tolerated in the religiously run Moslem states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al. Overthrowing Saddam would likely mean that Iraq would be converted into another bastion of extreme Islamic rule.
Finally, we come to the fact that what is being planned amounts to a preemptive war, a war begun by our side against another nation without any military provocation against us. I'm certainly no supporter of Saddam Hussein, but I think it's none of our nation's business who leads Iraq unless and until Iraq attacks us. We now hear the tern "regime change," and America's forces are supposed to work for that goal. Imagine how Americans would feel if some other nation - or nations - decided that we must submit to "regime change." Is this what the American people pay taxes to accomplish? Is this allowed by the Constitution? Is it allowed morally? Isn't a just war one fought in defense?
We have touched on a variety of topics but, overall, the Constitution is our subject. Its provision assigning sole power to Congress to take the nation into war must be restored. No more no-win "police actions"! No more presidents acting like kings! No more rubber-stamping congressmen who bow down before the President and the UN! No more submission to the UN!
The Constitution and membership in the United Nations cannot be reconciled. It's one or the other. Those who are required to abide by the Constitution cannot adhere to some of its provisions while ignoring others. Members of Congress certainly don't ignore Article I, Section 6 that says they "shall receive a compensation for their services." They are honor bound to each clause in the Constitution, not just some. This is the message we must bring to the American people. And we must do so without delay because time is running out if independence is to be preserved. The task ahead can be accomplished and I urge all to continue to be about this noble and essential work through The John Birch Society.