A Party of Deception: Part 1

Politics in the United States today is as divided as it has been since the Federalists Party and the Democratic-Republican Party battled it out between 1787 and 1820. The issues today are the same as they were then, the power and scope of the federal government. However, in the two hundred years between 1808 and 2008 a lot of changes have taken place. Somewhere along the line, the positions of the two major political parties were reversed.

In the years following the establishment of our form of government in 1787, the Federalists Party founded by Alexander Hamilton advocated a big centralized government with far reaching powers and a flexible interpretation of the Constitution. The Democratic-Republican Party, founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, stood for a smaller government with limited enumerated powers and strong state governments. After the death of Alexander Hamilton in 1804, the Federalist Party lost its influence and was out of existence by the mid 1820‘s. The Democratic-Republican Party eventually dropped the Republican name and went on to become the Democratic Party of today.

Following the collapse of the Federalists, a number of political parties sprang up in opposition to the Democratic Party. Most were short lived. In the mid nineteenth century, a new party was formed taking the name Republican to reflect its adherence to the republican principles of the original Democratic-Republicans.

Today the Democratic Party holds to most of the principles of the old Federalist Party and the Republican Party supports the primary philosophy of the old Democratic-Republican Party which they now refer to as “federalism”. Is it any wonder the average American is somewhat confused as to which party stands for what?

As of 2004, there were 169 million registered voters in the United States. 72 million were Democrats and 55 million were Republicans, with another 42 million declaring “a pox on both your houses” and registering as Independents.

The biggest change in the two major parties over the past hundred years occurred in the Democratic Party. At the end of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth, it began to abandon its historic conservatism and move to the left. According to a Pew Research Center study conducted in 2005 roughly a third of the party members were described as conservatives (Blue Dog Democrats). 20% were described in the study as “underprivileged”, the remaining 46% as liberals. It should be noted that almost all the underprivileged group hold the same political views as the liberals, making the Democratic Party two-thirds liberal.

The division in the body politic today, however, is not based on party loyalty, but rather on political ideology. The real divide we see on Capital Hill and elsewhere is between the socialists on the left which make up the power base of the Democratic Party and the conservatives on the right which make up the power base of the Republican Party.

Not all Democrats are socialists and not all Republicans are conservatives. However, it is obvious that most if not all the decision makers in the Democratic Party adhere to a socialist agenda. To refer to them as socialist, however leaves one open to accusations of “name-calling”, “politics of personal destruction” and “fear mongering“ so, let me clarify what I mean when I label Democrats as socialists and Republicans as conservatives.

The term socialists carries a negative connotation in the minds of most Americans, therefore the left leaning members of the Democratic Party prefer to be called liberals or, more recently, progressives. However, there is an international socialist movement with a number of smaller political parties in America that unabashedly refer to themselves as “socialists”. These parties, both here and abroad, publish volumes of literature describing their political ideology. While the parties themselves are varied and have only loose affiliations with one another, the basic principles that make up their ideology are more or less identical.

Democrats or Republicans who believe in these principles and actively support an agenda based on them should rightly be labeled socialists. To refer to them as liberals or progressives is deceptive and misleading to the American people. The core principles underlying the socialist agenda in America are: Democratic control over means of production, gender equality and equality of sexual lifestyles, centralized democratic government, global citizenship, equitable redistribution of wealth, universal government paid healthcare, and an equitable distribution of income.

Based on these principles the socialist movement in America has established a plan to bring the American government in line with the international socialist agenda. To bring this vision to reality requires major changes in our form of government and culture. Some of these changes involve the destruction of free market capitalism, a new definition of the family unit, the indoctrination of the younger generation and subjugation of individual liberty to the will of the state.

Many have been taking place incrementally over the past two or three generations. We have now reached the point where the leadership of the socialist movement believes they can complete the transformation from a capitalistic, constitutional republic to a centrally controlled, socialistic society during the next one or two administrations. All the tactical components of their plan are in place and the public has been conditioned by eight years of intensive propaganda to accept the changes without too much opposition. In fact, large segments of the population are clamoring already for the government to step in and “fix” the problems that have been created by the partial implementation of socialist policies in the past.

To this end, American socialists have thrown their full support behind the candidacy of Barack Obama. His campaign has benefited from unprecedented funding and the most favorable treatment by the media of any candidate in history. In spite of the fact that Obama is the least qualified candidate ever to be nominated by a major party for the office of President, there is a real possibility their plan will succeed. Abraham Lincoln said “you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can never fool all the people all the time.” In this case, it is only necessary to deceive enough voters for the next three months to get Obama elected President.

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend

Since this subject is too involved to cover in one post, we will cover it in a two or three part series. Tomorrow, in Part II we will discuss in more detail the tactics and strategies for dismantling capitalism, fragmenting the culture, and the destruction of the family unit.


2 responses to “A Party of Deception: Part 1

  1. The real problem is that the images we see on television regarding terrorist bombings of innocent people in Iraq and other foreign countries do not regularly occur in Boston, New York and San Francisco. It is indeed a very good thing that such egregious events do not affect the daily lives of everyone, regardless of political persuasion. The downside is that there is segment of liberalism which does not include such possibilities as major import to their political ideology. But the fact remains, and history has shown us time and time again, that it has the been conservatives and centrists who are relied upon to effectively deal with real threats, while at the same time many liberals thought it best to negotiate with the people who are intractably set on destroying us. This election will be decided by those folks who hopefully will look beyond party boundaries and select the best person to get the job done. We need a wise person with broad experience and sound judgment if we are to survive as a free country. There simply is not enough time in the next 97 days for Barack Obama to acquire these requirements.

  2. hmm.. thank you very much. usefull information