pogorocks

I guess I really shouldn't feed the trolls.... .....he's just so easy to mock....he does half the work....

Well, that's all pretty obvious...

Let me reassure you....you are incredibly pathetic, OutOfBrains. In addition to being an insane rightwingnut retard.

And just where is that "well regulated militia", numbnutz?

Another vacuous post, in a very, very long line of such meaningless moronic posts, from the troll OutOfBrains....

In the real world.... Gary Johnson: Trump's a fascist In the insane crackpot world of the rightwingnuts and gunnutz, you get the deranged and very ignorant OP of this thread... In the real world.... The Hitler gun control lie Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong Salon.com JAN 11, 2013 This week, people were shocked when the Drudge Report posted a giant picture of Hitler over a headline speculating that the White House will proceed with executive orders to limit access to firearms. The proposed orders are exceedingly tame, but Drudge's reaction is actually a common conservative response to any invocation of gun control. The NRA, Fox News, Fox News (again), Alex Jones, email chains, Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, Gun Owners of America, etc., all agree that gun control was critical to Hitlers rise to power. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ("Americas most aggressive defender of firearms ownership") is built almost exclusively around this notion, popularizing posters of Hitler giving the Nazi salute next to the text: "All in favor of gun control raise your right hand." In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled on the Hitler meme at length, writing: "In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler." And it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If youre going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they cant fight back. Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyones guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesnt make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute. University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitlers, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them. The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition," Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years. The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works -- Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns dont kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide). Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldnt have had much success fighting back. "Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?" he told Salon.

Really.....just where did you see that? What I see.... U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013 Pew Research Center BY ANA GONZALEZ-BARRERA AND JENS MANUEL KROGSTAD Oct 2, 2014 (excerpts) The Obama administration deported a record 438,421 unauthorized immigrants in fiscal year 2013, continuing a streak of stepped up enforcement that has resulted in more than 2 million deportations since Obama took office, newly released Department of Homeland Security data show. President Obama today is scheduled to address members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, a group that has recently criticized the president on immigration. Last month, the caucus urged the president to take executive action on immigration by extending deportation relief to certain groups of unauthorized immigrants, such as parents of U.S.-born children. During his speech, Obama is expected to reiterate his pledge to make changes to immigration policy on his own, something he said he will do after the November midterm elections. The record number of deportations comes even as 580,946 young unauthorized immigrants have received relief from deportation and work permits since 2012 under a policy called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. One distinct feature of the record number of deportations is the increasing share of deportations by U.S. Customs and Border Protection after border apprehension. In 2013, 25% of all deportations were carried out by the agency, up from 17% in 2012. This rise in the number of deportations also coincides with stalled growth of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population since 2009, and a more recent rise in the number of apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2013, there were 414,000 apprehensions at the southwest border, a rise of 27% over 2011 (the most recent low in apprehensions). Also, a new shift in migration patterns emerged over the last two years: more Central American immigrants and unaccompanied children crossing the border. These trends have led to an increase in apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border. On the other hand, the number of Mexican immigrants apprehended at the border and the interior has continued to decline from a high of 1.1 million in 2005 to 425,000 in 2013.

Too bad the forum has no "Stupidity Limit", PoliticalPoopChute.......you would have been expelled permanently a long, long time ago for grossly and repeatedly exceeding those limits. Of course, so would most of the other rightwingnuts.....and then there would be nobody to mock for their clueless stupidity.....and what fun is that....

Those numbers are a result of some basic structural problems with capitalism, dork33. President Obama has done a great job of improving the economy in spite of enormous amounts of very determined Republican sabotage and obstructionism, but a number of built-in aspects of our corrupt economic system, plus enormous amounts of greed, have inevitably resulted in rapidly growing economic inequality. The more wealth the 1%ers squirrel away (often in tax-free foreign hidey-holes) and hoard, the more ordinary people will wind up poor and needing food stamps through no fault of their own (or President Obama's). U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928 Pew Research Center BY DREW DESILVER Credit: Dorsey Shaw; Source: Emmanuel Saez, UC Berkeley President Obama took on a topic yesterday that most Americans don't like to talk about much: inequality. There are a lot of ways to measure economic inequality (and we'll be discussing more on Fact Tank), but one basic approach is to look at how much income flows to groups at different steps on the economic ladder. Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC-Berkeley, has been doing just that for years. And according to his research, U.S. income inequality has been increasing steadily since the 1970s, and now has reached levels not seen since 1928. (The GIF file at the top of this post, created by Dorsey Shaw of Buzzfeed, compares growth in average income of the top 1% of Americans with everyone else.) Using tax-return data from the IRS, Saez has built extensive income-distribution datasets going back 100 years. He defines "income" as pre-tax cash market income - wages and salaries; dividends, interest, rent and other returns on invested capital; business profits; and realized capital gains. He excludes Social Security payments, unemployment benefits and other government transfer payments, which are more substantial today than before the Great Depression. In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation's income distribution: By 1944 the top 1%s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades. But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier's income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saezs preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%'s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise). A century ago, Saez notes that the highest earners derived much of their income from earnings on the accumulated wealth of past generations. By contrast, "the evidence suggests that top incomes earners today are..."working rich", highly paid employees or new entrepreneurs who have not yet accumulated fortunes comparable to those accumulated during the Gilded Age." Americans arent unaware of these trends. More than half (61%) of Americans said the U.S. economic system favors the wealthy, while just 35% said it's fair to most people, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in March. A similar share (66%) of Americans said the gap between rich and poor had increased in the past five years; nearly three-quarters of respondents said the rich-poor gap was either a "very big" (47%) or "moderately big" (27%) problem. As one might expect, low- and middle-income people were most likely to say the U.S. economic system favors the wealthy, but even 52% of high-income people agreed that it does. And while 54% of low-income people and 49% of middle-income people called the rich-poor gap a "very big" problem, only 36% of high-income people did so. A third of the high-income group said the rich-poor gap was either a small problem (19%) or not a problem at all (14%). More than half (55%) of Republicans said the economic system is fair to most people, but majorities of Democrats (75%) and independents (63%) said it favors the wealthy. And 61% of Democrats and 50% of independents said the gap was a very big problem, versus only 28% of Republicans. Four-in-ten Republicans termed the gap either a small problem (22%) or not a problem at all (18%).

Nope! Wrong again, little retard. What he, and pretty near everybody else, thinks is that you anti-science global warming deniers who ignore this kind of evidence of climate change are hilariously insane.

I'm sure you do.......but unfortunately, you are very obviously severely retarded, so your dumbass wishes are as stupid and absurd as you are.

Nope! You just have your head jammed up your ass so far, you can tickle your tonsils by wiggling your ears. Your normal position on all the issues, newly regurgitated. In the real world where the sane people live.... Obamacare Has Been Even More Successful Than Expected The New York Times Dean Baker - economist and the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. SEPTEMBER 22, 2015

You moron! Your link leads to this: Page Not Found We're unable to locate the page you requested. The page may have moved or may no longer be available.

Here's an interesting article from three and a half years ago that makes a number of good points that support the OP. From Freedom to Fascism, the Fall of the Republican Party DailyKos By CLisle 2012/08/30 When was the last time a Republican Presidential candidate warned the American public against the danger of the military? It hasn't happened in my lifetime, and I'm 48. To actually hear a Republican President warn the American people against the danger that the military poses to a democracy, one has to go search the archives and read, or watch now on youtube, President Eisenhower's Farewell Address given in 1961. As far as I can tell, he is the last Republican President to warn the American people that the growth of the American military posed a threat to our democracy. Here's what he said: "A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence economic, political, even spiritual is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." - Eisenhower To listen to a conversative Republican President warn his country against the dangers of the military is shocking in today's political climate. No recent US Presidential candidate would dare speak against the United States military in today's political environment. Instead, they all affirm how supportive they are of the United States military. Why? Why not speak against it? That's an important question we must answer. The answer to that question and why candidates can no longer speak out against the military shows a serious change in the United States political environment, and the answer should scare you. What happened between 1961 and now? When did the Republican Presidents stop signing great civil rights documents like the Emancipation Proclamation? When did they stop warning the American people about the danger of the military? When did the Republican Party replace conservative fascist fighting generals like Eisenhower with men like Romney who never fought in a war and are elected based on their ability to run a corporation? Something has obviously changed within the Republican party. If the definition of a "conservative" Republican Presidential candidate no longer includes a war hero President like Eisenhower, who led America's "Greatest Generation" in an all out war against Nazi tyranny, then the Republicans have changed from conservative, but to what? The only thing more "right wing" than a "conservative" like Eisenhower is something much more extreme, like a fascist. The Republican party has now morphed into the very problem President Eisenhower warned and fought against. They have become a fascist party supporting the rise of the "military industrial complex" attacking anyone who opposes it as unpatriotic and attacking the very civil liberties of its own citizens in an undeclared never ending "war on terror " being fought in the United States with warrantless searches, wiretapping, and suspension of habeas corpus. During World War II, when Americans were fighting not one but two fascist states, of Italy and Germany, the the people of the United States were worried about the rise of fascism in our own country. Then Vice President Wallace was asked what is a fascist, how many fascists were in the United States, and how dangerous were they. Here is a link to Wallace and his remarks: The Danger of American Fascism - Henry A. Wallace - former Vice President of the United States of America In this [article], Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.) As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." There is a noted change in the Republican party between then and now. In 1961, they elected Presidents like President Eisenhower and now nominate Presidential candidates like Romney based on their "business experience." Comparing Eisenhower and Romney is like comparing night and day. Isn't it some kind of philosophical oxymoron that the Republican businessmen don't want the government interferring in business yet want a man to lead the country that has business experience? Maybe, they need men like Eisenhower, who never led a business, whose only experience was leading the business of his country, which is the protection of civil liberties here and abroad. The Republican party has gone from electing fascist fighting conservative generals to men, with no military experience, who are elected based on business credentials. By our own dictionary definition of fascism, the Republicans have gone from "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." The Republicans have gone from freedom to fascism. In 1961, it was more than President Eisenhower saying "farewell", it was the Republican party saying farewell too. On that night, the Republican party of old, made up on the Greatest Generation, had done its service to the country, spilled its blood, led men into battle fighting fascism and liberating the enslaved peoples from it. On that night, they said "Farewell" to the country, and left us, and their own party, a warning, to beware of the rise of the military. The warning has not been heeded. The last President who fought against this military industrial complex was a democrat, President Clinton. He downsized the military significantly. What was the result? The biggest economic and political boom the United States has experienced since WWII. We had budget surpluses, the dollar was king, and we were the political and economic envy of the world. What do we have now? The largest military the world has ever known, the largest budget deficits the world has ever known, senseless casualties fighting wars which will never end, and the largest security apparatus ever created to fight an unending war against terrorism both here and abroad, but if you speak against it, you won't get elected. Where are the Republicans like Eisenhower when we need them?

Vice President Wallace warned us 72 years ago about rightwingnuts, Trump&Cruz, FauxNews, corporate-supremists, racists, military-industrial collusion, all of the Republicans in Congress, the Bush family, the Koch brothers, etc., etc., etc...... Three-quarters of a century ago, the United States was fighting in the world-wide battle against the (then) rising tide of Fascism. Tens of millions of American men and women were directly involved in that struggle (along with everybody else, a little more indirectly), and many of them got to witness first hand the ravages and suffering caused by the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists. Americans back then generally had a fairly keen understanding of the nature of the evil they were fighting. FDR's Vice President Henry A. Wallace was not only well briefed on the Nazi horrors, he personally investigated what was happening while on his diplomatic trips to our Allies. In April of 1944, just two months before D-Day, he wrote an informative article about the nature of fascism and how it might come to America if the people of America weren't vigilant and aware of the dangers. He tried to warn everybody, way back then, that: "The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power." ...and... "American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery. I think everyone sane and still in-brainwashed can easily recognize what he was referring to - "poison the channels of public information" - in our current situation with billionaire Rupert Murdoch's network of misinformation/propaganda outlets...like, of course, good ol' FauxNews...(and his many newspapers, magazines, radio station, etc.)....and the whole rest of the rightwingnut/corporatist media&internet echo chamber, created and supported by the likes of the Koch brothers (who brought us the tea party buffoons and are now spending close to a billion dollars, by their own admission, to try to buy the coming Presidential election). And "those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery" is quite obviously Trump, and the many, many other racist Republicans striving for political power by promoting prejudice and discrimination against minorities. In plain words....the current attempts by the ultra-wealthy elites and the big corporations to corrupt and take over our democratic system of government is FACISM. The Danger of American Fascism - Henry A. Wallace - former Vice President of the United States of America Originally an article in the New York Times, April 9, 1944. From Henry A. Wallace - Democracy Reborn (New York, 1944), edited by Russell Lord, p. 259. On returning from my trip to the West in February, I received a request from The New York Times to write a piece answering the following questions: * What is a fascist? * How many fascists have we? * How dangerous are they? A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party. The perfect type of fascist throughout recent centuries has been the Prussian Junker, who developed such hatred for other races and such allegiance to a military clique as to make him willing at all times to engage in any degree of deceit and violence necessary to place his culture and race astride the world. In every big nation of the world are at least a few people who have the fascist temperament. Every Jew-baiter, every Catholic hater, is a fascist at heart. The hoodlums who have been desecrating churches, cathedrals and synagogues in some of our larger cities are ripe material for fascist leadership. The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are doing this even in those cases where they hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms after the war ends. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead. American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery. The European brand of fascism will probably present its most serious postwar threat to us via Latin America. The effect of the war has been to raise the cost of living in most Latin American countries much faster than the wages of labor. The fascists in most Latin American countries tell the people that the reason their wages will not buy as much in the way of goods is because of Yankee imperialism. The fascists in Latin America learn to speak and act like natives. Our chemical and other manufacturing concerns are all too often ready to let the Germans have Latin American markets, provided the American companies can work out an arrangement which will enable them to charge high prices to the consumer inside the United States. Following this war, technology will have reached such a point that it will be possible for Germans, using South America as a base, to cause us much more difficulty in World War III than they did in World War II. The military and landowning cliques in many South American countries will find it attractive financially to work with German fascist concerns as well as expedient from the standpoint of temporary power politics. Fascism is a worldwide disease. Its greatest threat to the United States will come after the war, either via Latin America or within the United States itself. Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after "the present unpleasantness" ceases. The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination against other religious, racial or economic groups. Likewise, many people whose patriotism is their proudest boast play Hitler's game by retailing distrust of our Allies and by giving currency to snide suspicions without foundation in fact. The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy. They use isolationism as a slogan to conceal their own selfish imperialism. They cultivate hate and distrust of both Britain and Russia. They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection. Several leaders of industry in this country who have gained a new vision of the meaning of opportunity through co-operation with government have warned the public openly that there are some selfish groups in industry who are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage. We all know the part that the cartels played in bringing Hitler to power, and the rule the giant German trusts have played in Nazi conquests. Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself. It has been claimed at times that our modern age of technology facilitates dictatorship. What we must understand is that the industries, processes, and inventions created by modern science can be used either to subjugate or liberate. The choice is up to us. The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. It was Mussolini's vaunted claim that he "made the trains run on time." In the end, however, he brought to the Italian people impoverishment and defeat. It was Hitler's claim that he eliminated all unemployment in Germany. Neither is there unemployment in a prison camp. Democracy to crush fascism internally must demonstrate its capacity to "make the trains run on time." It must develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels. As long as scientific research and inventive ingenuity outran our ability to devise social mechanisms to raise the living standards of the people, we may expect the liberal potential of the United States to increase. If this liberal potential is properly channeled, we may expect the area of freedom of the United States to increase. The problem is to spend up our rate of social invention in the service of the welfare of all the people. The worldwide, agelong struggle between fascism and democracy will not stop when the fighting ends in Germany and Japan. Democracy can win the peace only if it does two things: * Speeds up the rate of political and economic inventions so that both production and, especially, distribution can match in their power and practical effect on the daily life of the common man the immense and growing volume of scientific research, mechanical invention and management technique. * Vivifies with the greatest intensity the spiritual processes which are both the foundation and the very essence of democracy. The moral and spiritual aspects of both personal and international relationships have a practical bearing which so-called practical men deny. This dullness of vision regarding the importance of the general welfare to the individual is the measure of the failure of our schools and churches to teach the spiritual significance of genuine democracy. Until democracy in effective enthusiastic action fills the vacuum created by the power of modern inventions, we may expect the fascists to increase in power after the war both in the United States and in the world. Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes. It should also be evident that exhibitions of the native brand of fascism are not confined to any single section, class or religion. Happily, it can be said that as yet fascism has not captured a predominant place in the outlook of any American section, class or religion. It may be encountered in Wall Street, Main Street or Tobacco Road. Some even suspect that they can detect incipient traces of it along the Potomac. It is an infectious disease, and we must all be on our guard against intolerance, bigotry and the pretension of invidious distinction. But if we put our trust in the common sense of common men and "with malice toward none and charity for all" go forward on the great adventure of making political, economic and social democracy a practical reality, we shall not fail.