SACRAMENTO, August 27, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In legal briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court, which is considering whether to license "same-sex marriages" next year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both stated that a future Legislature could abolish marriage and yank marriage rights from a married husband and wife. A group hoping to place a question on the 2008 ballot to defend traditional marriage suggests that the briefs are evidence of the urgent need for the ballot initiative.

  In the Governor's brief, filed by his team of lawyers, Schwarzenegger says, "The Administration submits that use of the words 'marry' and 'marriage' is not required by the California Constitution. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as 'marriage' could be changed.'

 In his brief, Brown says similarly, ". . . the words 'marry' and 'marriage' have no essential constitutional significance under the California Constitution. Thus, the Legislature could change the name of the legal relationship now known as "marriage" to some other name without any constitutional impediment."

 In the briefs the Governor and Attorney General also suggest that marriage rights and marriage benefits for a husband and wife can be eliminated by the California Legislature.

 Said Brown ". . . except for this essential ability to choose and declare one's life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose."

  Schwarzenegger's brief states: ". . . except for the ability to choose and declare one's life partner in a reciprocal commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose."

  "This is proof positive that the VoteYesMarriage.com initiative, which will prevent marriage from being abolished and prevent marriage rights from being eliminated, is absolutely needed to protect the sacred institution of marriage from activist judges and liberal politicians," said Randy Thomasson, an organizer of the VoteYesMarriage.com California Marriage Amendment, which is aiming for the 2008 ballot.

 "Protecting the word 'marriage' in the state constitution is useless if the politicians can still get rid of marriage and marriage rights for a man and a woman," concluded Thomasson. "Clearly, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, which will override the judges and politicians and preserve everything about marriage for one man and one woman, is the only way to protect this special institution for future generations to respect and enjoy."

See PDF of AG Jerry Brown's 8/17 brief:

http://www.voteyesmarriage.com/uploads/AG%20Jerry%20Brown%20Supplemental.pdf

See PDF of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 8/17 brief

http://www.voteyesmarriage.com/uploads/Gov%20Arnold%20Schwarzenegger%20Supplemental.pdf

FAXDC.com has learned that the Union Pacific has announced plans to build a $90
million state-of-the-art 300-acre intermodal rail terminal alongside Interstate
35 in San Antonio, advancing the city's goal to establish itself as a NAFTA
inland port.

In an Aug. 23 announcement, the railroad said the San Antonio terminal will
process more than 100,000 truck trailers annually when completed in 2008, with
the capacity to grow to a potential of 250,000 trailers and containers per year.

Kyle Burns, president and CEO of the Free Trade Alliance San Antonio, stated,
"The new Union Pacific Intermodal facility located in south San Antonio will be a
benefit to San Antonio by further enhancing our world-class logistics and
transportation infrastructure, that currently handles interstates and rail lines,
running both north-south and east-west. San Antonio is at the cross-roads of
U.S.-Mexico-Canadian trade."

With over 80,000 semi trucks currently traveling to rail yards within the San
Antonio city limits to pick up or drop off containers and trailers, the new
facility is designed to relieve traffic in the city.

Action Alert!!! Texas city at 'crossroads' of U.S.-Mexico-Canadian trade.
American sovereignty is under attack! Is America ready for a North American
Union? You can Fax Congress with this important message today! Send YOUR Blast
Faxes to ALL 535 Congressman NOW. To Fax Blast Washington D.C. click here:
http://faxdc.com/sos.htm

Additionally, the new terminal will give truckers the option to drop off their
containers with easy access from I-10 and I-35, accommodating in San Antonio many
trucks that now must go through the city to Houston to drop off containers for
trains bound for other destinations.

Union Pacific plans to utilize advanced computer systems and technology to
coordinate the movement of rail cars, trucks, trailers and containers such that,
"a truck entering or leaving the facility will be stopped at the gate for only 30
to 45 seconds, compared to the national average of four minutes."

In making the announcement, Union Pacific positioned the railroad as a North
American railroad, commenting, "Union Pacific connects with Canada's rail systems
and is the only railroad serving all six major gateways to Mexico, making it
North America's premier rail franchise."

The San Antonio Business Journal noted the Union Pacific terminal was
strategically located to ship and receive containers with household goods both
from West Coast ports such as Los Angeles and Long Beach, as well as Mexican
ports such as Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas.

Additionally, the terminal will receive containers of auto parts destined for the
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas Inc. plant in San Antonio.

"Combined with multi-modal services at Port San Antonio," Burns said, "this new
facility provides a service and infrastructure that will assist existing
manufacturers and attract new manufacturing companies to join the already
successful Toyota tundra manufacturing plant."

The Free Trade Alliance San Antonio was created in 1994 as a trade group
dedicated to promoting the development of San Antonio as a world trade inland
port.

In a position paper on the Alliance website, the group notes "congestion in U.S.
West Coast ports combined with poor rail service has led to a virtual choking of
Chinese exports into the United States."

Action Alert!!! Texas city at 'crossroads' of U.S.-Mexico-Canadian trade.
American sovereignty is under attack! Is America ready for a North American
Union? You can Fax Congress with this important message today! Send YOUR Blast
Faxes to ALL 535 Congressman NOW. To Fax Blast Washington D.C. click here:
http://faxdc.com/sos.htm

The Alliance position paper continues to state, "San Antonio is working with
alternative ports in Mexico (Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas) and on the Texas
Gulf Coast (such as Houston and Corpus Christi) to offer Chinese exporters a
competitive and time-efficient alternative to their traditional distribution
routes through California."

Burns said, "International trade is growing at an unprecedented rate in our
community and we are pleased that Union Pacific is investing $90 million to build
a world-class intermodal rail yard to process freight in and out of our city."

Remarks by Alliance President Kyle Burns posted on the group's website in its
current newsletter documents the active steps being taken to promote San Antonio
in world trade.

Future events in the next few months include two Alliance-led trade missions, one
to Mexico and the second to China.

Additionally, the Alliance has scheduled in October its second annual Business
Conference China, second annual Mexican Business Leaders meeting, and the third
annual Inland Ports Conference.

Following a recent Alliance-led trade mission to Canada in July, the group is
planning trade missions yet this year to Mexico City and to China.

An advocacy position paper on the Alliance website makes clear the group strongly
supports the Department of Transportation's planned cross-border Mexican truck
demonstration project, arguing "this program is paramount to developing new
logistics and distribution opportunities for San Antonio."

The Free Trade Alliance San Antonio is a member of the North American Inland Port
Network, which has been incorporated as a subcommittee into the North America's
SuperCorridor Coalition, or NASCO, the Dallas-based trade group supporting the
development of NAFTA and WTO-related trade along Interstates 35, 29 and 94.

In addition the Kansas City SmartPort also has declared itself an inland port but
with intentions to open a Mexican customs office in Kansas City.

Containers entering the U.S. through Mexican ports such as Manzanillo and Lazaro
Cardenas would utilize cheaper Mexican dock workers instead of the longshoremen
who work at West Coast ports such as Los Angeles and Long Beach.

Additionally, containers transported from the West Coast overland to the
heartland today use U.S. truck drivers or United Transportation Union railroad
workers, who are typically more expensive than their Mexican counterparts.

The Free Trade Alliance San Antonio, the other members of NAIPN are
AllianceTexas, Kansas City SmartPort, the city of Winnipeg, The Central Mexico
Inland Ports Initiative, and Iowa Inland Port.

Action Alert!!! Texas city at 'crossroads' of U.S.-Mexico-Canadian trade.
American sovereignty is under attack! Is America ready for a North American
Union? You can Fax Congress with this important message today! Send YOUR Blast
Faxes to ALL 535 Congressman NOW. To Fax Blast Washington D.C. click here:
http://faxdc.com/sos.htm

The ports of Houston and New Orleans are preparing to handle an increased flow of
containers from China, including the post-Panamax container ships from China
designed to travel through an expanded Panama Canal.

The Wall Street Journal reported March 28 that Princeton economics professor Alan
S. Blinder, the former Federal Reserve vice chairman who advised President
Clinton to push through the passage of NAFTA, now estimates the U.S. could lose
up to 40 million jobs to outsourcing over the next two decades as the country
transforms into a service economy.

To handle the anticipated influx of millions of containers with cheaply
manufactured Chinese goods into North America, transportation economists have
emphasized "intermodal" as a methodology for moving containers efficiently by
ship, truck and train, without having to reload the contents.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

To visit FAXDC.com, click here: http://faxdc.com/

To Fax Blast Capitol Hill, click here: http://faxdc.com/sos.htm

To place a Fax order, click here: http://faxdc.com/sos_order.htm

It's time to send a LOUD MESSAGE to our hired hands in D.C.!

It must be done today! America needs your help!

Do your civic duty now from the comfort of your home or office. FAX HAMMER today,
tomorrow will be too late and America will be lost!

What are you waiting for?

Thank You Patriot! Your friends at:

FAXDC.com

By Daniel Downs

As presidential campaign rhetoric spews across America’s airwaves, liberals of all stripes and special interests fault Republican’s for their zealous efforts to defend Terri Schiavo’s right to life. Even the prestigious financial publication, The Economist, got in on the act recently. The liberal spiel is that the federal government had no legal right to interfere with a state judicial matter. More important to Michael Schiavo and supporters is the view that family not government should decide such medical matters.

What is missing in liberal rhetoric is the interest of Terri Schiavo. In her Slate article Not Dead at All, Harriet McBryde Johnson, a disability-rights lawyer, argued that Congress did have a right to defend Terri. Because she was neither terminally ill nor was the Florida court deciding on an end-of-life decision making issue, congressional legislation giving the federal court the last word was proper procedural law. Johnson wrote that Terri had “a federal constitutional right not to be deprived of her life without due process of law.” She also had “a statutory right under the Americans with Disabilities Act not to be treated differently because of her disability.” Because “killing is not ordinarily considered a private family concern or a matter of choice,” it was appropriate for Congress to give federal courts jurisdiction to make sure state courts respected her federally protected rights.

Congress also acknowledged the right of the Terri’s parents, the Schindlers, to challenge the decisions of the state court to end her life. Her parents did not stop being such after she got married. They demonstrated to the world the deep and abiding love of normal parents. What liberals fail to mention is that Congressional Republicans acted on an appeal from her parents. The appeal was based on evidence from qualified medical experts that contradicted assessments made by pro-euthanasia physicians about her condition. As stated above, Congress created a procedure giving the federal court review authority to guarantee Terri’s Constitution rights were not being violated. This read the neurological exams as well as court hearing transcripts. It was apparent that a great travesty of justice resulted when the Supreme Court refused to review the case and when a federal court upheld the state court’s decision to deny Terri food by any means. Judge Greer ordering Terri’s death was an unpardonable injustice perpetrated both by his disregard of evidence proving she was not in a vegetative state of any kind and his refusal to order proposed medial treatment that would have enabled Terri to communicate her own will about whether to she actually wanted to live or die. As her tombstone makes clear, her husband Michael considered her disabled state the same as death. The date of death chosen by her husband was 1990 when her disability occurred and not when she was starved to death in 2005.

The charged of judicial murder made by Nat Hentoff and many others was not inappropriate but true.

Johnson also refutes current accusations by liberals and Democrats implying that Republicans were solely responsible for attempting to protect Terri’s constitutional rights. She mentioned Democrat Senator Tom Harkins’ outspoken support for the presumed unconstitutional federal remedy, but 46 other Democrats also supported the legislation.

Contrary to Johnson, Terri Schiavo was a victim of America’s culture war. Terri represents the many unknown victims of the clash of American civilizations. Directly or indirectly, all Americans have been drawn into this war between left and right, liberals and conservatives, secular humanists and Christian fundamentalists, globalists and nationalists, socialists and capitalists, humanists and traditionalists, Democrats and Republicans. Some even describe this clash of American civilizations as a cultural war between new barbarians of the liberal left and the often less than lion-hearted traditionalist right.

However described, the culture war began in the late 19th century between liberals who intended to strip Americas of all its public religious heritage and Christians who sought to preserve it…It was in midst of that diffuse social struggle that [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice David Brewer adjudicated an official definition of our nation. He said, “America is a Christian Nation.”

Justice Brewer’s pronouncement is important because most of the social issues over which members of America’s two civilizations clash have been settled by the federal courts. Instead of public debate leading to public law created by Congress, public opposition to liberal agendas has led to judicial activism and lawmaking. Post Civil War reconstruction led to civil rights legislations ending slavery and eventually to the enforcement of equality for both blacks and women. However, civil rights became a tool of liberal extra-legislative lawmaking benefiting their ideological agenda, which has included special rights for sexual promiscuity, sexual equality of gays, and killing the unborn. The murder of Terri Schiavo represents new efforts by the left to establish the right of doctors to kill those considered less than fully human. As Johnson pointed out, Terri Schiavo was not a terminally ill patient. The court did not decide on an end-of-life issue; it decided whether her husband and his physicians had the right to end her life and probably against her will.

Could this case have motivated most medical schools to reinstate the Hippocratic Oath? According to a study by Robert D. Orr and Norman Pang, only 26% of medical colleges required graduates to take some form of the oath in 1926. By 1993, 98% made taking the oath a graduation requirement. Today, only 14% of graduating doctors still pledge not to perform euthanasia and only 8% abortion. American Medical Association (AMA), the organization responsible for licensing doctors, does not adhere to any version of the Hippocratic Oath. The AMA has a written code of ethics, which neither mentions the high value of life nor prohibits euthanasia. Instead of an oath, the code of ethics requires adherence to the law. Under Roe v Wade, abortion is ethical. Euthanasia is still prohibited in most states. Consequently, it is an unethical practice for physicians in those states.

The hodge-podge of medical ethics and ethics standards requires citizen participation to create legal and ethical standards reflecting the unalienable right to life. In order to prevent judicial murder of another disabled or helpless person like Terri Schiavo, Americans who value the constitutional right to life, must engage in the conflict to change medical ethics and public legislation.

Moreover, false rhetoric of liberal pundits, politicians, and their supporters must not be allowed to demean those who defend life or who pursue justice by appropriate means. The news media aided the judicial injustice when it failed to expose it. Instead, the media supported the views of the practitioners of injustice. Failing to combat such rhetoric of injustice effectively allows the value of life, the right to life, the Constitution that guarantees it to continue to diminish. It is especially reprehensible when the type of demeaning rhetoric is employed for monetary or political gain – From the “American Chronicle” Web site.

Source:

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=918&PHPSESSID=26381c24d2a4cf9d54c411efd9838ab6

Move America Forward is a controversial, conservative non profit political action group based in California in the United States. Through media-saturation campaigns that include television and radio commercials; lobbying politicians at the local, state, and federal levels; and by encouraging grass-roots activism, Move America Forward has sought to advance a conservative agenda that includes the removal of the United Nations headquarters from the United States, the recalling of state governors it deems too "liberal," restricting what it terms "liberal" or "activist" media, the closing of the U.S.-Mexico border and the deportation of illegal aliens back to their country of origin, opposition of what it deems "liberal" political candidates and political action groups, and advocacy for conservative political candidates and appointees. Move America Forward vocally supports and advocates the policies of the Bush Administration.

Move America Forward was established in May 2004 by political consultant Sal Russo, former Republican assemblyman Howard Kaloogian and Melanie Morgan, a talk show host at KSFO 560 AM, both of whom now serve as Move America Forward's co-chairmen. Both Russo and Kaloogian served in key roles in the successful Recall Gray Davis Committee that prompted the California's 2003 gubernatorial California recall election, Kaloogian as chairman of the recall campaign, Russo as chief strategist. In November 2003, one month after the recall election Russo told the Daily News of Los Angeles of the 120,000 recall supporters in his database "We took on the political establishment and won, and they feel empowered, . . . They want to be involved. . . . We'll change the name to something like 'Move America Forward,'" and go national, he predicted. A week later, the Web site address MoveAmericaForward.com was registered to Russo's Russo Marsh & Rogers. Both Kaloogian and Russo continued on with Move America Forward in essentially the same roles as in the Recall Gray Davis Committee.

Russo Marsh & Rogers is a Sacramento-based political public relations firm with strong ties to the Republican Party. Russo, a principal in Russo Marsh & Rogers, worked on the political campaigns of Ronald Reagan, Alfonse M. D'Amato, George Pataki, Jack Kemp, and Orrin Hatch.

Prominent Move America Forward campaigns have included the closing of the US-Mexico border (the MAF's "Secure Our Borders" campaign) and the ending of amnesty programs to illegal immigrants (through nomoreamnesty.com), support of John R. Bolton, an outspoken critic of the United Nations, to serve as the US representative to the United Nations, and restricting the distribution of the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 911. MAF's border policy is in stark contrast to that of the Bush administration. In August 2005, Move America Forward sponsored a "You don't speak for me, Cindy!" tour to counter Cindy Sheehan's protest at President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch (and the vigils in support of Sheehan that were held around the country).

Malcolm Maclachlan wrote in the Capitol Weekly that Move America Forward "has been criticized for running such advocacy ads while maintaining a 501c3 nonprofit tax status. However, several political watchdogs noted that the group adheres to the letter of the law. For instance, the group does not give to candidates or directly call for people to vote for anyone."

Though Move American Forward describes itself as "...a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization committed to supporting America’s efforts to defeat terrorism and supporting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces" , its actions have been almost wholly partisan and hence restricted to the political arena.

In 2004, whatreallyhappened.com published an online exposé revealing the ties of Move America Forward to the GOP PR firm Russo Marsh & Rogers. Using a domain name look-up service, whatreallyhappened.com showed that Russo Marsh & Rogers established the Move America Forward website. Siobhan Guiney, Executive Director of Move America Forward, admitted that Russo Marsh & Rogers did register the site for them and that the two groups shared a building and a phone receptionist . Not long after the exposé Move America Forward purged all references to Russo Marsh & Rogers from its domain registration, going to so far as to list a Sacramento bar as its registrant phone number at one point.

When asked about the seeming disparity between Move America Forward's mission of supporting the troops in America's war on terror and its history of advocating for the conservative policies and agenda set forth by the Bush Administration, Siobhan Guiney, Executive Director of MAF, stated: "He's our Commander in Chief. It's his policies in place [and we] have to support those policies." [10]

Additional controversy erupted in August 2005 centered around Move America Forward's "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy!" campaign countering the protest of Cindy Sheehan. Observers and the press have noted that some pro-Bush activists in the MAF entourage were aggressively confrontational and verbally abusive, calling the anti-war protesters "communists", saying they are "aiding and abetting the enemy".[11]

In April 2006 controversy erupted again when Kaloogian's campaign website posted a picture on his website that he claimed depicted a peaceful Baghdad neighborhood, and the claims that the Iraq conflict was going well. Quickly, however, internet watchdogs correctly identified the picture as coming from Istanbul, Turkey, and the picture was removed. Kaloogian later said using the photo was "a stupid mistake".[12]

Laffer Lawsuit

Russo was successfully sued by Arthur Laffer over a $200,000 campaign in favor of a flat tax. Laffer successfully argued to the court that Russo was in breach of contract and was required to pay $20,000 to Laffer and return $20,000 to donors. [13]

Laffer also claimed that Russo was responsible for the hiring of a convicted drug dealer, Paul Edward Hindelang, to the campaign Russo ran for Bill Simon.

 Nonprofit status

On September 9, 2006 the Sacramento Bee ran the article Iraq war backers proudly pugnacious — But critics say Move America Forward may abuse nonprofit status by Todd Milbourn. In it Milbourn detailed a number of issues with Move American Forward's activities that might affect its nonprofit status. Chief among these were concerns public donations to MAF may be indirectly or directly subsidizing partisan activity prohibited nonprofit organizations by law. Milbourn cited as evidence the statement by Melanie Morgan that the Bush administration is running "one of the most inept communications departments I've seen." and "That's one of the reasons we started Move America Forward", "This administration is unable to articulate clearly why we went to Iraq, why we are there and why we're winning the war." He also noted that Move America Forward shares its office with Russo's PR firm, that one of Russo's private clients is the government of Kurdistan in northern Iraq and that his firm is running a campaign encouraging investment there. Milbourn says the Center for Media and Democracy has questioned whether the contract poses a conflict for Russo, given Move America Forward's promotion of the war.

The Guardian reporter dispute

There are several claims on right wing website that a Guardian newspaper reporter named Damien Benson contacted Move America Forward requesting information. It seems that when the organisation told the reporter their views on the British sailor's arrest in Iran, he refused to give them publicity for moral reasons. What followed was a war of words where Move America Forward's leader Melanie Morgan accused one of the United Kingdom's most respected newspapers of being "far left".

A section of Move America Forward's statement was as follows:

"The message was very informative although I don't think it would be the best idea to quote your comments on the sailor's capture – it's an extremely delicate situation here," Benson said.

I think Benson is confused. We are not interested in a biased left-wing reporter cherry-picking parts of our message that are in line with his liberal political beliefs. He wanted the opinion of the other side and he got it."

As the publicity of this dispute increases, rumours are circulating that Damien Benson is in fact some kind of hoax on the part of Move America Forward . Indeed, the only search results on Google for the words "Damien Benson", "Guardian" and "Reporter" are from Morgan's own online columns. In addition the extreme nature of "Benson's" comments published by "KSFO" talk radio, plus the fact that these comments seem completely out of sync with the Guardian's normal stance could suggest an elaborate ploy.

Racism and political discrimination

The theme of Move America Forward calling anyone who disagrees with them "Liberals" is a recurring one - in addition they frequently describe Nancy Pelosi, the respected house speaker in the United States as a "cheese eating surrender monkey". This was demonstrated in a Move America Forward rally, the organisation later admitted that the term "cheese eating surrender monkey" was also intended as an insult to France

Another incidence of political discrimination is the aforementioned abuse of anti-war protesters who were described as "communists".

Move America Forward's hardline leader Melanie Morgan and her supporters regularly dismiss those who challenge them as "communists" or "far-left". She also regularly preaches free speech and free press - despite her organisation's aims to "restrict liberal and activist media".

In addition, Morgan has been permanently banned from appearing on PBS for her constant attacks on debating opponents. .

Funding

Move America Forward has raised about $1.2 million, mostly from small, undisclosed donors, Russo has said. Most of the money, $693,456, has been spent on television and radio spots and rallies, tax records show. About $113,000 funded programs directly benefiting soldiers, such as mailing them cookies, coffee and beef jerky.

 References

1. ^ ^{a b c d} Iraq war backers proudly pugnacious But critics say Move America Forward may abuse nonprofit status Todd Milbourn. Sacramento Bee, September 9, 2006.
2. ^ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55753 Morgan attacks British news outlets
3. ^ http://forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?t=62064&start=10&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=704d89ed71f9335fcf316f64f34575da Rumours circulate of Guardian reporter hoax
4. ^ http://www.ksfo.com/viewentry.asp?ID=361103&PT=hosts "Benson's" comments from KSFO.
5. ^ http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55764 Move America Forward ridicules Pelosi
6. ^ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55298 Morgan attacks journalists who criticise the right to keep and bear arms. Describes them as communists
7. ^ http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/18/melanie-morgan-permanently-banned-from-the-news-hour/ Morgan banned from News Hour

Move America Forward - Who Pays Its Bills

Moving Backward with Move America Forward Tanya I. Garcia. Right Web. 20 April 2005

At Russo Marsh & Rogers the "truth" is always on tour Article reporting how Russo Marsh & Rogers is related to Move America Forward and does PR for the Kurdistan Regional Government, at MediaTransparency.org

Comment-Odd Morgan supports NeoCons, yet accuses other as "leftists", such as she has accused us of, yet we are supporters of Ron Paul and Constitution Party-not very lefty!!. Then again, we will in Orwell's 1984. Also, they will not take me off their email list and I cannot block the suckers. Neoconservatism is Free enterprise mixed w/good old Troteskyism, a left wing belief. Furthering "democracy" is the same lingo as Marxism-our way at the point of a gun!!