The opinions and predictions coming from the pages of this blog have largely concerned this nations unknowing predisposition with the failed ideology of socialism. Anyone remotely familiar with history and politics should be able to acknowledge the radical shift in the democratic party's platform of "....ask not what your country can do for you..." to the current "nanny state" system of government that has begun to promote cradle to grave entitlements and  government solutions to all our nations problems. I have also no doubt stated many times that the Illinois Senator and democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the head cheerleader for socialism. If one has not been able to link Obama and his fellow democrats to socialistic ideas, they either don't know what socialism means or they don't care. I believe it is a combination of the two, as millions around this country, ignorant to history and the ramifications of socialism, are about to usher in a new era of government which shreds our Founding Fathers vision of limited government and the very document that lays out that vision, our Constitution.

 

When Barack Obama began his political career in Illinois, it was essentially started in the home of United States domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, when the two radicals held a fund raiser for Obama during his first campaign in 1995. Both Ayers and Dohrn, in addition to their radical anti-American views which lead them to bomb police stations, the U.S. Capitol Building, and the Pentagon, are admitted socialists. (Ayers, in an interview ironically posted on 9-11, has never shown any remorse for the bombings going so far as to say "we didn't do enough".)  Obama, having already grown up indoctrinated by his  admittedly anti-American communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, which he mentions in his first memoir "Dreams of My Father", already shared many views with Ayers and Dohrn, naturally allowing them to find common ground on many issues.

 

In 1995, Barack Obama's candidacy was endorsed by a radical socialist group called the "New Party" which was started by the Democratic Socialists of America. Obama and his campaign staff have repeatedly stated Obama was never a member of that party. Both the "New Party" and the Democratic Socialists of America have also denied any relationship going so far as removing letters and entries which mention Obama by name. But a recent discovery by the blog "Politically Drunk On Power", has discovered a October 1996 newsletter sent out to members of the "New Party" to update them on the local congressional races. Although deleted from the groups record it was located by going to the non-profit Internet Archive Organization and checking to see if any pages had been archived concerning Obama. Sure enough, there was the October 1996 newsletter in which stated, "New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago." The newsletter is very informative and should be read in its entirety as it gives you an idea what being a member of the socialist "New Party" entailed, specifically the last line which says, "Progressives should consider whether to take back the Democratic Party or take over the Reform Party. Since the Reformers are on the ballot in every state and have a guarantee of public funding in the next presidential race, somebody is bound to take it over."

 

Barack Obama is a socialist. I have never doubted that statement. This new look into the radical past of Barack Obama only solidifies what I have already known. He has duped America into believing he is a moderate with help from the mainstream media who have never questioned his background or record while they have been all too willing to dive into McCain's and Palin's earliest and most personal beliefs and associations. Democracy cannot survive when the agency responsible for informing the American people have an agenda that coincides with one of the political parties. Truth becomes victim to ideology and we, the American people, are the ones who are going to suffer for it. The left's takeover of the media and our schools and universities has begun to pay off. It has given the left a way into the hearts and minds of our people from a very early age and their message is only reinforced throughout our lives by what they put on our televisions as "entertainment" and what they allow us to know through various news reporting agencies, all the while claiming impartiality. There is a word for that, its called indoctrination. This has left us with generations of people incapable of making critical judgements and more importantly, it has left us with people too stupid to know the difference.

For a time now, I have tried to bring the threat of socialism to the forefront of political discussions much to the dismay of many family and friends. One major problem encountered during said discussions is the lack of knowledge concerning the issues, specifically socialism. Those who have elected to remain in the dark concerning politics, our history, and just how we have arrived at this point in our history, have left the finer details to self-interested politicians in a far away city. So whenever a discussion turns to politics and one is engaged with those I have described above, the task of not coming across as "preachy" and snobbish, almost elitist, is a difficult one indeed.

 

The recent financial troubles in our country have done nothing but allow socialism to creep into our system of self-government as a cure all to our problems. I actually feel somewhat vindicated. The threat of socialism that I have spoken of for so long has finally made its way to the forefront of government to the extent that no one could dare call it something else. Or can they? This "bailout" is nothing more than socialism and the nationalization of businesses. The American people have been asleep so long as to the realities of the situation that most are letting the government do what they do best, screw things up. If we allow this "bailout", where will it stop? Soon, we will be attempting to "bailout" credit card companies, oil companies, health insurance companies, etc., and the march to socialism will continue unabated and promulgated by an apathetic and uneducated electorate. The sad truth is government created the problems we face today and it is the direct result of the American people turning a blind eye to the expansion of government and the acceptance of that government to provide us with everything from our basic human rights to a retirement plan. Our government exceeded the Founding Fathers vision of limited government a long time ago and now we are paying the price for letting government into areas it was never designed to be a part of. Ladies and gentleman, government is the problem! Limited regulation is necessary, as long as it is limited. Free market principles are the only way to right the ship. You cannot have years of government interference into the markets and still call them  free markets. Moreover, you then cannot blame so-called free markets when they fail. They failed because of the government interference.

 

Some are at least calling this what it is I invite you to read Alan Keyes account. We must call this what it is, socialism, and stop it before its too late. http://www.americasrevival.com/articles/080925bailout.php

I recently ran across an article by "The Obama Nation" author Dr. Jerome Corsi in which he claims the 40 page rebuttal to his book was completely unfounded. Corsi has issued a rejoinder to the 40 page offering from the Obama campaign claiming Obama proved nothing and only shows how accurate his book truly is. But Corsi would like to shed some light on the issues on which the Obama campaign ignored and did not refute in their 40 page rebuttal. They truly are powerful points and are worth mentioning here. What you see below are excerpts from Corsi's article. The entire article can be found at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75478 .

 

Chapter 3, "Black Rage, Drugs, and a Communist Mentor"

I consider the following arguments from "Black Rage, Drugs, and a Communist Mentor," the third chapter of "The Obama Nation," are now conceded as true by "Unfit for Publication":

• The Obama campaign has conceded for the first time that the identity of "Frank," Obama's mentor in his high school years, was Frank Marshall Davis, the communist poet and journalist from Chicago who retired in Hawaii.
  
  
• The true identity of "Ray" is Keith Kakugawa, the high school friend who is a convicted drug felon, now living homeless on the streets of Los Angeles. [pages 74-77]
  
  
• Obama was deeply influenced by Frantz Fanon, the African psychiatrist whose revolutionary writings were influential in shaping the revolutionary political left of the 1950s and 1960s. [pages 80-84]
  
  
• In seeking his identity during high school, Obama was strongly influenced by reading Malcolm X's autobiography, identifying with many of the more anti-white passages Malcolm X wrote in that book. [pages 90-91]
  
  
• Obama was a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine in his high school and early college years; he drank alcohol and smoked cigarettes with Frank Marshall Davis while yet in his high school years. [pages 87-89]

These points were not disputed in "Unfit for Publication."

I consider the following arguments from "The Ideology of 'Change,'" the fifth chapter of "The Obama Nation," are now conceded as true by "Unfit for Publication":

• David Axelrod, Obama's campaign strategist, was lying when he maintained Sen. Obama and William Ayers knew one another because they live in the same neighborhood and their children attend the same school. Ayers' children are grown adults and Obama's children are young girls; Obama's children and Ayers' children never attended school together. [page 119]
  
  
• In his 2001 book entitled "Fugitive Days," Ayers openly admits his involvement in the 1970s bombings and the role he played as a radical revolutionary leader at the head of the SDS Weather Underground. [page 119]
  
  
• Obama was recruited by Jerry Kellman to head the Developing Communities Project in Chicago, to be a community organizer working within the system developed by Saul Alinsky. [pages 128-130]
  
  
• "Change" was a credo developed by Alinsky in his 1971 book entitled "Reveille for Radicals." "Change," for Alinsky, invoked radical socialism and meant the redistribution of wealth. [page 130]
  
  
• Alinsky advocated creating change through a set of carefully calculated power-politics, where the ends always justified the means. [page 131]
  
  
• Alinsky's goal was to set in motion a peaceful revolution, using the ballot box, not bombs or bullets, to wrench power from the hands of capitalist elites and business leaders currently in charge. [page 131]
  
  
• "Change" was Alinsky's code word for creating a socialist revolution, even if the methodology meant radicals would cut their hair, put on business suits, and run for political office. [page 131]
  
  
• Alinsky modeled Rules for Radicals after Machiavelli, also citing Lucifer as "the first radical" in one of three epigraphs with which Alinsky opens the book. [pages 133-134]
  
  
• After endorsing Obama to take her Illinois state senate seat, Alice Palmer arranged a function for a few influential liberals in the district at the Hyde Park home of Weather Underground activists Ayers and Dohrn to kick-off Obama's political campaign. [page 137]
  
  
• In 1995, Bill Ayers co-founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with a $50 million grant program for the Chicago public schools. Ayers selected Obama to be the first chairman of the board of the Annenberg Challenge, a position Obama held for eight years, until 2003, a period during which Ayers remained active with the Challenge. [page 138]
  
  
• Obama and Ayers both served on the board of the Woods Fund, at the time the Woods Fund made a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network (2001), followed by an additional $35,000 grant (2002). The Arab American Action Network collaborated with the American Friends Service Committee to hold an exhibition in Chicago on "Al Nakba," translated as "The Catastrophe," meaning 1948 and the founding of the state of Israel. [pages 140-143]
  
  
• Bill Ayers was photographed in 2001 standing on the American flag; the photos were taken for an August 2001 interview with Chicago Magazine. [page 146]
  
  
• Sam Graham-Felsen, one of the official bloggers for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, was a self-proclaimed student of Karl Marx when he was an undergraduate at Harvard and proudly displayed a Russian communist flag in his dorm room. [page 148]

These points were not disputed in "Unfit for Publication."

Chapter 6, "Tony Rezko and 'The Chicago Way'"

I consider the following arguments from "Tony Rezko and 'The Chicago Way,'" the sixth chapter of "The Obama Nation," are now conceded as true by "Unfit for Publication":

• Tony Rezko, a Chicago slumlord, helped bankroll Obama in five election runs – in Obama's successful 1996, 1998, and 2002 campaigns for the Illinois state senate, in 2000 for his unsuccessful run for the U.S. House, and in 2004 for his successful U.S. Senate campaign. [page 153]
  
  
• Rezko gave Obama his first political contribution, $2,000, on July 31, 1995, when he learned Obama was going to run for Alice Palmer's seat in the Illinois state legislature. [page 154]
  
  
• Obama has known Rezko for 17 years and he relied upon Rezko to help him raise contributions for his political campaigns. [page 154]
  
  
• Rezko wanted Obama to return to Chicago after he finished at Harvard so he could hire Obama in Rezmar, the name of Rezko's community development firm. [page 156]
  
  
• Between 1989 and 1998, Rezko got more than $100 million from the city, state, and federal government, plus bank loans to rehabilitate thirty buildings in Chicago. [page 160]
  
  
• A Chicago Sun-Times investigation in 2007 found the following: six of the 30 Rezmar buildings were boarded up; 17 had gone into foreclosure, most after Rezmar abandoned them; an 19th property was being foreclosed on by the state after Rezmar walked away from it; hundreds of apartments were vacant, most in need of major repairs. [page 160]
  
  
• Eleven of the Rezmar buildings were in the Illinois state senate district Obama represented. [page 160]
  
  
• Rezko's money today is gone and Rezko seems unable to account for what happened to the millions he had been lent or granted by the city, state, and federal governments, never mind the money from private investors and banks. [page 161]
  
  
• Obama's reputation was tarnished in Chicago, not only by his friendship with Rezko and the political contributions he took from him, but also by his involvement with the legal firm representing Rezko. [page 161]
  
  
• There is no record that Illinois state senator Obama ever so much as placed a speech in the record objecting to the public-housing practices perpetrated in his district by Tony Rezko, let alone calling for investigation of Rezko and his business practices. [page 164]
  
  
• The Chicago Sun-Times reported after a March 14, 2008, interview with Obama that Rezko had raised as much as an estimated $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought, up to and including his 2004 race for the U.S. Senate. [page 170]

These points were not disputed in "Unfit for Publication."

Chapter 9, "A Far-Left Domestic Policy"

I consider the following arguments from "A Far-Left Domestic Policy," the ninth chapter of "The Obama Nation," are now conceded as true by "Unfit for Publication":

• The National Abortion Rights Action League, which prefers to represent itself more euphemistically under its acronym, NARAL, gives Obama a 100 percent score on his pro-choice voting record in the U.S. Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. [page 239]
  
  
• As a state senator in Illinois, Obama supported various gun control measures, including a ban on the sale and transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, a bill limiting handgun purchases to one a month, and a bill requiring manufacturers to place child-safety locks on firearms. [page 243]
  
  
• Obama intends to increase capital gains taxes, arguing that current capital gains taxes are not "fair," even though lowering capital gains taxes have proven to stimulate investment and raise tax revenues. [pages 244-246]
  
  
• Sen. Hillary Clinton has charged Sen. Obama's proposal for universal health care will not work because his plan lacks mandates. [pages 246-250]

These points were not disputed in "Unfit for Publication."

Chapter 10, "Obama's Antiwar, Anti-Israel Foreign Policy"

I consider the following arguments from "Obama's Antiwar, Anti-Israel Foreign Policy," the 10th chapter of "The Obama Nation," are now conceded as true by "Unfit for Publication":

• A contributor to Obama's "no-nukes" policy is Joseph Cirincione who has been outspoken in his criticism of Israel's attack on the alleged North Korean nuclear plant in Syria. In a September 2007 interview with National Public Radio, Cirincione argued, "certain hard-line Israelis" were using the air strike to prevent U.S.-Syrian or Israeli-Syrian dialogue. [page 264-266]
  
  
• Obama promised during the CNN/YouTube primary debate in Charleston, S.C., on July 23, 2007, that he was willing to meet separately, without precondition, with enemies of the United States, including the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. [pages 272-274]
  
  
• Foreign policy is Obama's Achilles heel. McCain will succeed by pressing Obama on specifics, demanding Obama stop blaming George W. Bush for international problems that go back at least to the Clinton administration, if not farther into history. [page 279]
  
  
• As the Kenyan angle is investigated and Obama's interference to support Raila Odinga is understood, Obama may be seen to be inclined to pursue personal objectives in international relations, not necessarily objectives that derive from wide experience of a consistent concept of U.S. national security interests. [page 279]

These points were not disputed in "Unfit for Publication."

Given the substantive issues in "The Obama Nation" that have not been refuted by the Obama campaign, the attacks against the book have been ideologically motivated.

For the last few months, the American people have heard brief snippets about a relationship between the home-grown terrorist William Ayers and Barack Obama. Ayers was a member of many radical left-wing organizations in the 1960's, culminating in his leading membership in the Weather Underground, who were responsible for more than a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974. Considering the implications of such a relationship, one would think that Obama's political adversaries would have jumped all over the news story and brought it to the attention of as many people as possible. But the connection between the two has been largely ignored by the mainstream media which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, and the lengths at which some will go to cover up the Obama-Ayers connection is in and of itself rather radical.

 

Stanley Kurtz of the National Review decided to address the concerns and questions surrounding the relationship, and wanted to dig a little deeper to see what he could un-earth. Kurtz contacted the University of Illinois at Chicago who reportedly had 132 boxes of various documents concerning the relationship as Kurtz believes the documents may show Obama and Ayers were close—far closer than Obama has acknowledged—over oodles of foundation gifts on education projects the two worked on together. Kurtz was initially given permission to research the documents. But after having landed in Chicago, the library had changed their minds and denied Kurtz access to the documents. John Kass's article in the Chicago Tribune covers the story rather well and shows to what length Obama's Chicago cronies will go to see their man elected. His article can be found here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass-ayers-thurs-21-aug21,0,7140263.column  This Obama-Ayers relationship is important if only to point out Obama's extreme views for the country, his relationship with those who share the same views (terrorists mind you), and his massively flawed judgement which once again is called into question. How many associations with radical leftist ideologue's can Obama possible have without the people seeing that he himself is a radical leftist? A history of the Weather Underground and William Ayers is essential to understanding the critical nature of their relationship.

 

William Ayers radical history began with memberships in various radical left-wing groups such as the New Left and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The groups Ayers headed in Detroit and Michigan became one of the earliest gatherings of what became the Weatherman. Between the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the June 1969 SDS convention, Ayers became a prominent leader of the group, which arose as a result of a schism in SDS. In June 1969, the Weatherman took control of the SDS at its national convention, where Ayers was elected "Education Secretary".^[4]Later in 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot.^[7] The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway.^[8] The statue was rebuilt and unveiled on May 4, 1970, and blown up again by Weatherman on October 6, 1970.^[9][8] Built yet again, the city posted a 24-hour police guard to prevent another blast.^[8] He participated in the Days of Rage riot in Chicago that October, and in December was at the "War Council" meeting in Flint, Michigan.

 

The following year he "went underground" with several associates after the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, in which Weatherman member Ted Gold, Ayers' close friend Terry Robbins, and Ayers girlfriend, Oughton, were killed when a nail bomb that was under construction exploded. Kathy Boudin and Cathy Wilkerson survived the blast. Ayers was not facing criminal charges at the time, but the federal government later filed charges against him.^[1] While underground, he and fellow member Bernardine Dohrn married, and the two remained fugitives together, changing identities, jobs and locations. By 1977,  federal charges against both fugitives were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.

 

It is important to understand what the Weather Underground stood for and what their ideology represented. The Weathermen were initially part of the Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM) within the SDS, splitting from the RYM's Maoists by claiming there was no time to build a vanguard party and that revolutionary war against the United States government and the capitalist system should begin immediately. Their founding document called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements^[11] to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."

 

Since his involvement in the terrorist activities mentioned above, Ayers has never apologized for or never has hinted at regretting his radical past. Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since the year 2000 stems from an interview he gave to the New York Times on the occasion of the his memoir's publication.^[17] The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again" as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."^[10] Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations.

 

Where does Mayor Richard M. Daley play into all of this as John Kass's article suggests? Well, Ayers was tapped by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley to help found the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that city's now nationally-renowned school reform program. In fact, when the rumblings first began about an Obama-Ayers relationship, Daley issued a statement about Ayers and how the mayor knows him personally and that Obama should not be labled guilty simply for having known Ayers. That statement and Chicago Tribune editorial can be found here: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/daley_dont_tar_obama_for_ayers.html   And now, thanks to some shady Chicago political dealings, the true relationship between Obama and Ayers will not be known, at least until November 5th.

 

For anyone who has missed the news, and I am sure there are some who have due to the reluctance of the mainstream media reporting it, one of the leading Communist papers, The People's Weekly World, has come out in support of Barack Obama. Hmmm......imagine that! Doesn't this make anyone stop and wonder why a Communist paper would come out in support of Obama or any Democrat for that matter? The answer is quite simple. Obama and those on the left, typically referred to as democrats, are endorsed by Communist-Marxist-Socialistic publications because their politics are one in the same. I have said it a million times about the differences between socialism and today's democratic party and how the lines between the two have virtually disappeared. But no matter what Obama says and how many questionable endorsements he gets (Hamas, Louis Farakhan, Communists, etc..), his policies are never questioned or given any serious scrutiny in order to find out why such people and organizations have come out in support of the Illinois senator.This endorsement is completely in step with and part of the same reason Obama's campaign offices have Che Guevara posters hung on the walls by staffers. It is because they identify with both of them, Obama and Che. Obama, like Che Guevara,  is considered by many on the left a revolutionary and someone who can advance the left's agenda. That is why I have advocated learning about the left and its beginnings by posting links to videos and writing incessantly about socialism and the comparisons between today's democrat and socialism. Its not enough to make the point without proving the point. But in order to do that, the average American must educate themselves and learn about where we are headed with the policies of the left and how history has shown us the true face of communism and socialism.

 

The above quote means nothing without knowing the truth about the left's ideology and what "progressive" really means. But this is what the left thrives on, the public's antipathy for politics. An uneducated and apathetic electorate who does their bidding unknowingly, all under the banner of equality is what has kept them hanging around American politics for decades. The time has come to understand why Obama and those on the left continually recieve the support and endorsements from some of the worst humanity has to offer and why Obama and his supporters have so many anti-American views. A look at the policies of Barack Obama is the beginning and a great way to learn the goals of the left. Obama has preached to us about "change" and there is no doubt he intends to "change" America by introducing socialism into mainstream politics and more importantly, fool the American people into voting for it.

If anyone needs more proof that whatever government touches it destroys, look no further than the example of the socialized government healthcare plans currently in existence around the world. All of them are miserable failures proving once again there is nothing the government can do more economically or efficiently than the private sector. Just look at their record; Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, education, FEMA, are just a few examples.Yet there are those in this country who feel despite the failures of other nations programs and our own governmnets ability to screw up everything it touches, this is exactly what we need in this country.

 

Here are two articles from Great Britain about the so-called "benefits" of goverment sponsored healthcare. I would encourage one and all to give them a good look to see what we will have waiting for us if the liberals (socialists) have their way.

 

      1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/health/2512639/Kidney-patients-denied-too-expensive-life-extending-drugs.html

 

      2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2510740/Millions-of-dental-treatments-facing-delay.html

 

 

This is the final video in the "History of Political Correctness" series which totals just under 30 minutes. They are an invaluable tool in learning how liberal (socialist) ideology reached the shores of America and continues to be embraced by those on the left. As I have stated before, in order to confront the challenges we face as conservatives, we must understand the historical significance of the lefts ideology. These videos will help shed light on those issues. You will be shocked to see how so many of the ideas shared by the left today have been part of their doctrine for years.

 

                                                                           

This is the second vidoe in this half hour long video on the history of the left and political correctness in this country. As I have said, any understanding of the challenges we face as conservatives must be rooted in understanding the left and how their ideology became doctrine.

 

                                                                        

Without a true understanding of the liberal mind and all of its trappings, it is impossible to understand the challenges we as conservatives face in dealing with this ideology. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind todays democratic party platform is socialism dressed in drag. The Founder's envisioned a central government whose powers were very limited in scope while today's democrat, especially Reid, Obama, and Pelosi, favors a government that is large and powerful, continuing to expand all the time and encompasssing every facet of American life. We as conservatives understand that this growth of government is not conducive to freedom and as the size of government grows, those aforementioned freedoms grow smaller and smaller.

 

I have decided to post these videos on the "History of Political Correctness" in different parts in order to give background to todays democrats and liberals alike who continually support this ideology at the ballot box. They will be in 10 minute increments for a total of 30 minutes yet give no greater lesson in the history of the left in this country. As your watching the video, think of how many you know who subscribe to the same teachings and ideas of the left who have no idea what they are supporting.

 

                                                                        

One cannot discuss socialism or communism without briefly discussing the "father of Communism", Karl Marx. Marx is most famously known for The Communist Manifesto, written along with Freidrich Engels, in which he lays out his assessment on sociological and political theories. His approach is indicated by the opening line of the The Communist Manifesto (1848): “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”.  This line is very important as it sums up the lefts criticisms of capitalism and the American economy. In fact, one of the major precepts of defining struggle in the capitalist society by socialists (communists) is to always shape their argument from the view of the oppressed vs. the oppressor. No one uses this method more effectively or deliberately than todays Democratic party. You can see it every election cycle as they go out to the base of their party and proclaim..... You are being oppressed! Think about it.........If you're black, a woman, a homosexual, a Hispanic or any kind of ethnic minority, etc., chances are you're being oppressed and the usual culprit to the Democrats is conservative, white, Christian men, who run all the big corporations. Yes, this "party of the people" has used class struggle to keep them in positions of power for years, but I digress. The class struggle Marx refers to is  synonymous with class conflict and it is this conflict that Democrats use to stir emotion and shirk responsibility for the empty promises made at election time by blaming their failures on the "oppressors".

 

No where is this more apparent than with the black turnout every election cycle for Democrats. It was estimated that 90% of all blacks who voted in the 2004 Presidential election, voted for John Kerry. And we see this trend continue to trickle down the lines to our local and municipal elections where in most large cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, there has been a heavy bureaucratic machine controlled by Democrats in place for generations. This idea of infusing race struggles with class struggles goes back to communist-Marxist ideology. In a letter to Friedrich Engels in 1882 Karl Marx wrote: "You know very well where we found our idea of class struggle; we found it in the work of the French historians who talked about the race struggle."  Perhaps I will let the Democratic Socialists of America make my point for me. The following are direct quotes taken from their website:

 

"The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.

"At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. We are activists committed not only to extending political democracy but to demanding democratic empowerment in the economy, in gender relations, and in culture. Democracy is not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives. We call this vision democratic socialism - a vision of a more free, democratic and humane society.

We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships."

There is so much imporatant information in the preceeding paragraphs that I will refer to them quite often as I make my points. If you have to read them again, do so. It is important to understand what they are saying. Essentially, when they say they will use democracy as a "means and an end", they are saying they will use democracy itself to bring it down and implement their "socialist utopia". They will use our democratic principles of  free press and expression and the right to assemble, among many others, to light the flame of "revolution". They know that in a true democracy, as long as the argument is put forth as a struggle, the means to destroy it lie within its freedoms. Also, notice how they continually refer to racial, gender and economic equality as struggles. Now think of how a government would go about implementing the changes necessary to promote so-called racial, gender, and economic equality. Perhaps they could support hiring quotas based on race and gender regardless of the qualifications of the applicant by continually lowering the standards of excellence. Perhaps they could redistribute wealth from the people who have, to the people who have not. Do these sound familiar? We already have them through "affirmative action" and a stifling tax policy that merely suffocates the free market principles that capitalism involves. It should be noted that I am all for equality. But how we achieve equality is through individual responsibility and the right to pursue a better life based on merit and achievement that the capitalist system thrives on. Success is always the reward for hard work. Democrats want to skip the hard work part and punish those who are successful by taking more of their money and giving it to their constiuents through "entitlement" programs. And the cycle of life continues for their people, the opressed,  represented by the "party of the people", the Democrats.

Let me once again go to the source for their positions. Here is another exerpt from the Democratic Socialists of America:

        "A democratic commitment to a vibrant pluralist life assumes the need for a democratic, responsive, and representative government to regulate the market, protect the environment, and ensure a basic level of equality and equity for each citizen. In the 21st century, such regulation will increasingly occur through international, multilateral action. But while a democratic state can protect individuals from domination by inordinately powerful, undemocratic transnational corporations, people develop the social bonds that render life meaningful only through cooperative, voluntary relationships. Promoting such bonds is the responsibility of socialists and the government alike."

It is amazing how wonderful the idea of equality sounds. But a closer look at the policies and the means to achieve this "utopia" begs a questioning of just how they hope to achieve their goals. And this is where an apathetic and un-informed electorate comes into play. The people of this nation are not interested in politics and ideologies. They see government interference into the marketplace to achieve equality as a constitutional mandate.  And so the march to socialism goes on.

Back in 1927, an American socialist named Norman Thomas, who ran for President on the Socialist Party ticket six (6) different times, stated, "The American people would never vote for socialism but under the name "liberalism" the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program."  And with this one statement, we see the link from todays Democratic party to the early leftist movements in this country. Its a pretty fascinating comment to say the least. Stop and think for a second how many friends or acquaintances you have or how many people you hear and see on television and radio, proudly proclaiming their liberalism and then read the above quote again. Liberalism, or being "progressive", is worn like a badge of honor today. But one has to wonder how many of them know the history of their ideology? Do they have any idea that the views they hold and the direction they are taking this country would make Marx or Stalin happy to know the "revolution" still moves forward even today? Nikita Kruschev, a premier of the former Soviet Union, once said "We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."  And with this quote, we see the ultimate goal of the left....Communism. Ask yourself again, how many of those people who proudly proclaim themselves as liberals realize what they are endorsing? My guess would be very few. We have to ask ourselves how we have come to the brink of adopting socialism and all its precepts into our political system without so much as batting an eye? Why can't they see the downfalls of such a system and lessons so horribly learned from history? Perhaps 19th century historian Alexis de Tocqueville said it best when he stated, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

 

In order to understand where we are going as a nation, we need to understand from where it is we came. I cannot stress the importance of understanding our founding documents and the intentions of our Founding Fathers. Without knowing what our system of government was designed to do and the roles of each of the branches of government, how can we know when this government has become to powerful and exceeded its constitutional authority? We need to understand capitalism, the free market, and basic economic principles, to understand what drives our nations prosperity, allowing its citizens the chance at the "pursuit of happiness"  mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. Having said all of that, I cannot make this blog a lesson in history as it would take up too much of my time without allowing me to discuss issues. However, there will be times I will cite history and ask the reader to do their own research to further understand the issue. Plus, it is a great check on the facts and ideas I will put forth and I encourage all questions.