Category Archives: 2008 Election

Taking Back Our Government

minute-man-2-litho2008 and 2009 will mark the most cataclysmic changes in American society since the revolution of 1776.  Our government will have been taken over in a bloodless coup.  Barack Obama will step into the White House on January 20th to take the helm of “The Socialist States of America”, the way having been prepared for him by President Bush, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke.

We will either take back the government over the next two to eight years or condemn another generation in the near future to the unpleasant choice of taking up arms against their own government or living in servitude.  Few of us can even imagine the dislocations in our lives and life styles that will take place over the next few years, as we make the transition from a free market, capitalist society to a socialist, centrally planned one.

Read rest of Article

The Obama Gamble


Was the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States a bridge too far for the socialist movement?  Since the beginning of our Republic, the political struggle has been between a liberal big government and a conservative limited government.  The early contests were between the federalists led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams and the republicans led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

The federalists won the first round by winning the Presidency and both houses of Congress in 1796.  Jefferson won the second round by battling them from his position as President of the Senate and then defeating them in the election of 1800, which he referred to as the revolution of 1800.  In a letter to Judge Roan dated September 6, 1819 he writes,

“I had read in the Enquirer, and with great approbation, the pieces signed Hampden, and have read them again with redoubled approbation in the copies you have been so kind as to send me. I subscribe to every tittle of them. They contain the true principles of the revolution of 1800, for that was as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in its form; not effected indeed by the sword, as that, but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people. The nation declared its will by dismissing functionaries of one principle (federalism), and electing those of another (republicanism), in the two branches, executive and legislative, submitted to their election.”

The principle of government Jefferson referred to was the principle of a federation of independent and sovereign states united under a federal government of limited size with enumerated powers versus a consolidated government with all power residing in a national capitol.

A quarter-century later, Jefferson, looking back on his years of public service, writing in a petition to the Virginia Legislature, described this episode in his career as “the most important in its consequences, of any transaction in any portion of my life;”   While the federalists ceased to exist as an organized party by 1824, their influence has continued down through history.  The Supreme Court more or less kept them in check until the influence of European socialism began to gain a foothold in America during the twentieth century.

Their ultimate goal and their political tactics have remained steady for over two hundred years. Their aim is to consolidate state government powers under the control of Washington. Since Roosevelt, their techniques for gaining power have changed little.  The method used is to exaggerate problems into crises and use them to expand the power of the federal government.  The Recession of 1930-31 that Roosevelt turned into the Great Depression and then used it to expand government power more than at any other time in history provided the template for all future expansions.

Economic cycles, crime, drugs, communism, wars, and other chronic problems of society have been used to diminish liberty and increase government power.  The two most recent examples are the changing weather patterns and the economy.  The slogan for democratic campaigns is consistently “the worst economy since the Great Depression”.  This theme is carried on year after year regardless of the economic facts.  Unrelenting pressure is kept on the institutions of our society combined with the unremitting propaganda from the left to gain one incremental step at a time.

Incrementalism has been the hallmark of the socialist movement for the past century.  As the American people become more accustomed to the small changes that occur over time, they pay less attention to their disappearing liberties.  The election of 2008 was perhaps the most monumental since the revolution of 1800.  The socialist movement abandoned its past practice of incremental advances and decided to go for “the whole enchilada” with the candidacy of Barack Obama.

I fear those who cling to the hope that Obama will govern from the center are in for a major disappointment.   He was elected to bring about radical socialistic changes in the American system and everything in his rhetoric prior to the election and everything in his life experiences indicate that he is likely to do so, his proposed appointments and modified positions since the election, not withstanding.

The best hope for America is that he will overreach to a degree that even a conditioned electorate cannot overlook.

As Thomas Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, “all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, that to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

If Barack Obama carries into practice all the policies he alluded to in his campaign he may very well cross a threshold of despotism the American people will not tolerate.  If so he could set in motion the same forces Adams set in motion in 1796 and the Democratic Party could follow the Federalist Party into the dustbin of history.  2010 and 2012 could be a repeat of the revolution of 1800.

A Litmus Test For Conservative Leadership

minute-man-2-lithoFor almost two years, conservatives have been torn between their principles and the pragmatic desire to elect a Republican President for the good of the country.  Now that the election is over and the Democratic Party has won, the political urgency for conservatives is no longer as intense.  We have a little time to rethink just what the conservative movement’s role is in American politics, including our relationship with the Republican Party.

This election in particular, makes it obvious that the Republican leadership does not look favorably on the conservative influence within the Party.   The problem for the party is that it cannot win elections without conservative support.  The problem for conservatives is that they cannot support most Republican candidates without compromising one or more of their principles.

Many conservatives are motivated by single issues like abortion or taxes.  There is also a tendency to group various types of conservatives as fiscal, social, defense, big government, or limited government conservatives.  There seems to be no basic principle around which the conservative movement can unite and present a consistent message to the electorate.

The conservative movement occupies the same position in the Republican Party that the socialist movement occupies in the Democratic Party.  Both make up the primary voting blocks of their respective parties.  The difference is, the Democrats have been successful in mobilizing their base to win elections while in many cases, the Republicans have not.

There are a number of reasons why all the voting blocks of the Democratic Party come together on Election Day to support party candidates.  They have been successful in applying the socialist doctrines of “class warfare”, and “the end justifies the means”, however, the primary reason for the “solidarity” of the Democratic Party is that it is united around a single set of unifying principles.

Whether we look at the environmentalists, feminists, unionists, gay rights advocates, or any of the other groups that make up the Democratic coalition, they are all united in supporting the socialist/democratic agenda.   Not only do they support the agenda, they shun anyone within the party who does not support it.

That does not mean that every Democrat is a socialist.  However, if you look at the leadership of the various groups who make up the Democratic coalition, or at the group’s collective membership, it is difficult to overlook the fact that they all support the fundamental principles of the socialist movement: “big brother government,” opposition to free market capitalism, redistribution of income and the other elements in the Marxist version of “social justice”.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, does not seem to have an agenda that everyone can unite behind. There are many single-issue conservatives who stay home if a candidate does not emphasize the particular issue in which they are interested.   On the other hand, a number of conservatives will vote for a candidate who supports one or two conservative principles although they may outright reject others.  The 2008 Presidential campaigns provide excellent examples of this fact.

There is one principle that should be a “natural” for all Republicans and certainly for all conservatives.  That is the principle of constitutional government.  You may be saying, “that’s silly, all Americans support a constitutional government otherwise they would not be Americans”.  To which I reply, “Where is the evidence?”  How can anyone claim to believe in a constitutional government and then consistently vote for candidates who either ignore or consciously violate the Constitution for the sake of expediency?

Again referring to the news of the day, the economic bailouts over the past month were supported by a majority of Republicans in Congress, our President and our Presidential candidate.  There is nothing in the Constitution that gives to Congress the power to use money extracted from the labor of citizens to prop up private businesses, that for whatever reasons find themselves in financial difficulties.

The government excuse for intervening is that “something must be done”.  In a capitalist society, companies prosper under good management in a free society.  However, there are business cycles that must be weathered from time to time.  Companies that do not have the fiscal discipline to prepare for those cycles or the management skills to manage their companies profitably and consequently are unable to survive the down cycles go out of business.

Alternatively, if the products or services are of value to society, companies can file for bankruptcy protection and be restructured on a sounder basis.  The rationale for the new proposals to provide another twenty-five billion to the carmakers is that if the Automobile industry fails millions of jobs will be lost.  This is nothing more than “fear tactics” used to manipulate the American people.  The truth is that if they were allowed to go into bankruptcy and restructure, they would be better equipped to compete and prosper in our global economy.  Some may temporarily lose their jobs but in the end, the industry would be strengthened.

On what basis are decisions of this type made by government and supported by Republicans and conservatives?  Obviously, they are made for political or economic expediency, not on principle.  We need elected leaders who make decisions based on principles.  If the principles are right, the decision will also prove to be right in the end.  No principles of government, in the history of the world, have proven to be more successful than those underlying our Constitution.

History has shown that American voters support politicians who run on these principles even if they do not fully understand the connection.  If we are to rebuild the conservative movement it has to be structured around the Constitution, otherwise we have no core on which to build that differentiates us from the socialist/democrats on the other side.  That will involve reeducating the American people, especially the politicians, on the content and meaning of our founding documents.

The Democrats use the litmus test of abortion as the basis for choosing their leaders.  We should use the litmus test of the support and defense of the Constitution as the basis for choosing our leaders.  Most Americans support the Constitution.  The problem is, few have any knowledge of what it contains and the limitations it places on the power of the federal government.  That is a situation that must be changed if we are to reestablish the conservative movement as a force in government.

P. T. Barnum Would Be Proud

minute-man-2-lithoIn retrospect, one of the most amazing revelations of the election season was the admiration of the press and the politicos for the candidate who was able to fool the most people.  Consider the advice they offered to the candidates, “move to the right”, “move to the left”, “move to the center”, all based on the assumption that a candidate’s revelation of his or her true positions could cost them the election.

Further evidence of the value of deception in politics is shown by the analysis of speeches and interviews.   Invariably words and phrases are evaluated on how effective they are in misleading various segments of the voting public.  In order for the public to form an accurate picture of the candidate’s true position we are forced to parse words and phrases, read between the lines, interpret refusals to answer questions, and piece together bits and pieces of information from alternative sources.

Few Americans have the time or knowledge to sift through all the misinformation coming at them from their television, newspaper, and radio.  Consequently, we are forced to make decisions on snippets and sound bites that provided little in-depth information about candidates’ real positions on issues.   Voters get no help from the popular media who should have the responsibility of informing the public in an evenhanded way.  Instead, the media has made it their mission to cover up, hide or spin any revelations that could prove detrimental to their candidate, Barack Obama.

It is sobering to realize that we choose leaders who will have a profound affect on our lives, based on their political skills rather than their governing skills.  No sooner were the elections over than the press began to weave two new themes that are sure to leave the people disappointed.  One is that Obama will govern from the center.  The other is that we will see bipartisan action on the important issues facing the country.

Obama cannot govern from the center because he is a true believer, as are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid.  They believe in the fundamental principles of socialism and they will follow the blueprint of historical socialism to bring about the destruction of capitalism if they are able.  These are the conditions the socialist movement in America has been working toward for the past hundred years and they will not let it pass without doing every thing they can to bring their plans to fruition.

We make a mistake when we assume that the socialist/democrats actually want to right the economy.  Socialist literature is replete with the belief that progress can only come out of chaos.  In their worldview, social and economic equality can only be realized through the struggle between the classes until both the upper and lower classes have been homogenized into a society where everyone is existing only slightly above the subsistence level.  This idea is central to the writings of Karl Marx, Freidrich Engels, and Saul Alinsky whose techniques provide the model for Obama’s style of government.  As Hillary Clinton explained in her college thesis on the Alinsky model, “It’s All About the Struggle”.

As to the idea of bipartisan cooperation in remaking American society, this too is an impossibility for a number of reasons.  If we learned nothing else from the cold war, we should have learned there is no compromise with socialism.  If we did not learn from the cold war, we should have learned from the last two years of socialist/democratic control of Congress.  When socialist talk of compromise they are really talking about acquiescence to their point of view.  America still has tens of millions of patriots who are willing to defend the Constitution and who will never allow the American dream to be reduced to whatever style of living the state determines to be “our fair share”.  The next few years are going to be anything but peaceful in the political arena.

I hope I am wrong, but history, human nature and the relentless expansion of trends tells me I am not.

Ten Steps To Tyranny

For almost two years, Barack Obama has been traveling throughout the country shouting the mantra of “CHANGE”.  Using the skills he acquired as a “Community Organizer” and the techniques he borrowed from Saul Alinsky he has successfully convinced a major segment of our citizens of the need for change above all else.  In two days, we will discover if that segment is large enough to make him the next President of the United States.

“Change” has become the buzzword of the 2008 election campaigns.  Politicians of ever shade and persuasion have included a call for change in their “stump” speeches.  Few have bothered to explain just what type of changes they are asking the American people to accept.  I have listened to dozens of speeches and interviews by Obama over the past few months, and I have read the transcripts of dozens more.  I am convinced that the change Obama and the Democrat Party are proposing is not a change in direction but rather a change in speed.

The creeping socialism I have watched throughout my lifetime has suddenly become a speeding juggernaut.  There is nothing new to be found in the promises of Obama.  They were all expressed before, in different words, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the “Communist Manifesto over a century and a half ago. More recently, they have appeared in the literature of the Democratic Socialist of America and the Socialist Party USA.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx made the following prediction:

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.”

“In the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.”

He then listed ten steps necessary to bring about this “proletarian dictatorship”.

1.  Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

When Marx’s Communist Manifesto was edited in 1888 by Freidrich Engels the most common source of wealth was the ownership of land.  Today it is ownership of businesses or investment in corporations.  Although the means of wealth creation has increased and diversified, the aims of the socialist movement has not changed.  Its ultimate goal is the ownership or control of all means of production and the abolition of capitalism.

“Socialism will establish a new social and economic order in which workers and community members will take responsibility for and control of their interpersonal relationships, their neighborhoods, their local government, and the production and distribution of all goods and services.”

“For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources, for a guarantee to all of the right to participate in societal production, and to a fair share of society’s product, in accordance with individual needs.”
~Socialist Party USA

“In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.  The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions make private business more responsible.”
~Democratic Socialist of America

2.  A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Socialism could not exist in America without a progressive income tax.  It is the sole means for redistribution of income; therefore, it is strongly advocated by all socialist parties and their sympathizers.

“We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum.  We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes. We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale.”
~Democratic Socialist of America

The first progressive income tax was levied during the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln in 1862.  The lowest marginal rate was 3% for those earning between $600 and $10,000 per year. It was eliminated by Congress in 1872 and revived again in 1894.  In 1895, the Supreme Court declared the income tax unconstitutional because it was not apportioned between the states.  The 16th Amendment in 1913 repealed the apportionment clause in the Constitution and established the power of Congress to levy taxes on all income regardless of its source.

Opponents of the graduated income tax argue that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment that calls for “equal protection under the law” as well as the Fifth Amendment, and that it violates the God given, unalienable right to private property enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, “liberty and the pursuit of happiness (prosperity)”.

In spite of the arguments against a graduated, progressive income tax, most Americans either accept or support it, including some 80% of the nation’s economists.  Since 1945, some two-thirds of the taxes raised through income taxes are used for income redistribution and social engineering to support the socialist agenda.

3.  Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4.  Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.  Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

“We call for all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks.  In the meantime, we call for re-regulation of the banking and insurance industries.”
~Socialist Party USA

This goal has been greatly advanced by Henry Paulson, Ben Bernacke, George Bush and Congress with the recent dedication of more than $1 trillion for corporate bailouts, stimulus packages, equity purchases in banking institutions, and mortgage loan guarantees.

6.  Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

“We support the breakup of large media companies so that no one company or individual owns more than one newspaper, radio or television station, or television channel.  We call for the re-regulation of the communications industry (in particular, the assertion of public ownership rights over radio and television frequencies).”

“We call for government ownership of satellite and cable companies with revenues generated by these operations allocated to a publicly controlled fund to finance innovative visual and audio programming (including movies), over the air radio and television, and cable and satellite programming. The fund would also greatly increase the money going to community cable programming.”

“We support public funding of newspapers and magazines.  Any non-profit organization that publishes a journal would receive public funding in proportion to its paid subscriber list.”

“We oppose private ownership of the Internet backbone.  We call for direct public ownership of at least 50% of the total bandwidth and for democratic ownership and control of the Internet domain naming system.”
~Socialist Party of America

7.  Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8.  Equal liability of all to labor.  Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

The key words in the above statement are “liability of all”.  Under the socialist ideal, everyone is employed.  Full employment can only be achieved with the use of “make-work” programs such as those instituted by FDR in the thirties—WPA and CCC, for example.  Barack Obama expressed the same idea in his July 2 speech in Denver.

“I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States…This will be the central cause of my presidency.  We will ask Americans to serve.  We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve.  And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges.”  ~Barack Obama

Additional insight into the thinking of socialists involving universal “forced” employment can be found on the website of the Democratic Socialist of America.

“We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism.”

9.  Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

Just a few short years ago, I would have considered these ambitious goals of the socialist movement to be impossible under our system of government.  However, considering the campaign promises of Obama and his Democratic running mates in the context of the history of the last seventy five years, they not only seem possible but probable.

Real change in America can come only from a return to the Constitution and a turning away from the path to socialism we have been on for the last century.  That would be real change.

See you at the polls Tuesday.

Please copy and e-mail the following link to a friend, or two , or three:

Obama and the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels frequently spoke of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” in their writings.  Most English literature dealing with socialism relies heavily on “jargon” peculiar to the early socialist and communists writers of Europe.  For that reason, many Americans who are not among the initiated have difficulty understanding what socialism is, how it differs from capitalism and why it makes a difference.

Prior to the industrial revolution, the word bourgeois was used to refer to the owners of land, the primary source of wealth.  With the progress of industry the word was expanded to the owners of factories or anyone who owned the means of production.  Proletarians were the peasants who rented land from, or worked for the landlord. Later the word came to be used mostly for those who worked for wages.

The bourgeois of today is anyone who owns or manages property or employs others in the creation and accumulation of wealth, including those with wealth from inheritances or investments.  The proletariats are those who work for wages and those who receive their income from government handouts.  The centerpiece of Marxist theory is the struggle between these two classes which he considered to be the true history of mankind. To refine the definitions even further in light of the corporate, capitalist society of America we could say the bourgeois are those who are exempt from the requirements of certain labor laws—owners, managers and other exempt employees.  Proletariats are the non-exempt employees and the unemployed.

The purpose of socialists is to foment enmity between the bourgeois (capitalist class) and the proletariats (working class) until the proletariats rise up and appropriates the means of production, or creation of wealth.  This revolution may be carried out by armed revolution as in Russia, Cuba, China, etc. or by a political revolution as in Venezuela.  Democracies like the United States are particularly susceptible to political revolutions.  In fact, we have been undergoing a socialist political revolution for the past hundred years.  That revolution may reach it culmination on November 4, with the election of Barack Obama and a socialist/democrat Congress.

According to Marx and Engels the transition from capitalism to communism passes through four stages: capitalism, revolution, socialism and finally communism.  Under capitalism the bourgeois are the ruling class, after the revolution the proletariat becomes the ruling class.  Under socialism, differences between the classes fade away until they no longer exist, ushering in the communist utopia.  At least, that’s the Marxist theory.

During the post-revolutionary period, according to Marx, the capitalist system would be replaced by a consolidation of power by the proletariat class which Marx referred to as the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.  The purpose of this dictatorship is to prevent a counter-revolution and suppress opposition.  Under revolutionary socialism such as the ones in Cuba, Russia, China etc. opposition to the new regime is eliminated by imprisonment and assassination.  That is not likely to happen in America, however, we can expect a concerted effort to stifle free speech and the character assassination of anyone opposing the new order of things.

As the confidence of socialists in the Obama campaign and in Congress increases we begin to see some indication of what life will be like in a proletarian dictatorship.  The most glaring example is the campaign’s reaction to “Joe the plumber”.  There have been other more subtle instances where the Obama Campaign has attempted to stifle opposition.  Just yesterday three reporters who have been traveling with Obama during his campaign were denied further access to his campaign plane during the final days of the campaign;  This after their newspaper editorial departments endorsed McCain-Palin.  These newspapers are not conservative but centralist.  They are the Dallas Morning News, the Washington Times and the New York Post.

TV interviewers have been “blackballed” because they asked questions that placed Obama in a bad light.  Radio talk show phones have been “jammed” by Obama supporters when guests critical to Obama were on the air.   Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and others have openly expressed their desire to bring back the fairness doctrine to get rid of talk radio opposition like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin.  During this election cycle the mainstream media has clearly shown its eagerness to usher in socialism with its coverage of the ‘08 elections.

A post-Obama America will be quite different than the America we live in today, in spite of the socialist policies we have come to accept and live with already.   Before you go to the polls on Tuesday, take a few minutes and go to a few liberal websites, like the Huffington Post, Move On.Org, or the Daily Koz.  Forget the posts, read the comments following the post.  Are these the people you want to be setting the policies for your country?  If not, be sure to vote for every Republican on the ticket.  We can sort them out later.

Barack Obama, Karl Marx and You

The debate over whether or not Barack Obama is a socialist is beginning to gain some traction with the frequent references by Sarah Palin and John McCain to Obama’s desire to “spread the wealth around”.   The media consensus is that attempting to brand Obama as a socialist is counter productive because the American people do not consider it important and the Democratic Party is able to relate it to “name calling” and “dirty politics”.  The problem is that most Americans do not recognize socialism when they are confronted with it.

Karl Marx identified socialism as the stage between capitalism and communism that follows a revolution by the proletariat.  In classic socialism, the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers.  As an economic theory, socialism is over two hundred years old.  During that time, hundreds of variations have developed around the world.  Today very few, if any, economies meet perfectly the classic definition.  Most economies are a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

In spite of the fact that there are hundreds of different varieties of socialism, all of them rest on a relatively few basic principles.  In the modern world we live in today, there are two principles that identify the socialist philosophy: the distribution of wealth and state control of private property.  It is the exact opposite of capitalism which rests on the principles of wealth accumulation and owner control of private property.

Socialism operates as a parasite on the body politic.  It takes the earned wealth of the productive members of society and redistributes it to the less productive members until all the accumulated wealth is dissipated.  If unchecked, the process continues until all members of society, with the exception of the ruling elite, are living in deprivation and poverty.  Average citizens are eventually reduced to a state of servitude to the state.

The lifespan of socialist systems vary according to the amount of wealth to be redistributed.  On average, a system dominated by socialism seems to last about fifty years before it collapses in economic disaster.  Mixed economies such as those in Western Europe and North America last a little longer because the capitalist parts of the economy keeps producing wealth even as existing wealth is being dissipated by the socialist segment.  The rise of socialism in America can be dated from about 1930 which means we are living on borrowed time.

The primary vehicle by which socialism has advanced in America is the system of progressive taxation.  Taxes are used by Congress to accomplish three goals.  First is the constitutional purpose of raising monies to pay for the legitimate functions of government.  However, taxes are also used for two purposes that are definitely not authorized in the Constitution.  One is for social engineering where tax incentives are used to encourage behavior desired by Congress and tax increases on behaviors Congress wishes to discourage.  The other is the purely socialist function of redistributing income and wealth.

The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8 empowers Congress to levy taxes for the purposes of carrying out the enumerated powers of government and requires that they be evenly apportioned among the several states.  The Sixteenth Amendment allowed for the collection of taxes on income and repealed the requirement that they be evenly apportioned among the states, but it did not authorize the use of those taxes for purposes other than those enumerated in Article 1.  While it is true that socialism cannot survive without progressive taxation, it is equally true that socialism in America cannot exist when the U.S. Constitution is followed.

Americans have become so accustomed to progressive taxation they no longer consider whether it is constitutional, and they never consider the fact that it provides the only foundation for socialism in our system.  In fact, between forty and fifty percent of Americans seem to embrace socialism as the best economic system.  No other explanation can be given for Barack Obama’s current poll numbers.

An Obama presidency could very well represent the interim stage between Capitalism and Communism foreseen by Karl Marx.  A vote for Obama is a vote to ultimately live under a Communist Government.  Consider this as you cast your vote on November 4th.

Obama’s Campaign of Corruption

Barack Obama and the Democrats are running one of the most corrupt campaigns in history.  They are getting away with it through the complicity of the media and the hesitation of public figures to speak candidly concerning this election.  Many of us have been writing for years about socialism in the Democratic Party.  However, few nationally known personalities, political or otherwise, have been willing to risk the criticism from the media that follows.  Accusations of “McCarthyism”, “racism”, “gutter politics” and “the politics of personal destruction” are just a few of the terms used to silence those who would speak out.

Only within the past few days has John McCain and Sarah Palin tentatively raised the issue of socialism in their campaign rallies.  Even then it is used only to describe Obama’s plans to “spread the wealth around”.  As democrats like Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others become more open about their socialist philosophies, the obvious facts are becoming harder to overlook or deny.  Barack Obama is a socialist in the mold of Saul Alinsky.  He has been tutored and groomed since childhood for the position he now enjoys.

Evidence of these facts is becoming more available daily.  Internet publications such as World Net Daily,,  CNS News, Right Bias.Com, and Discover the Networks.Org are all well respected sources that publish articles almost daily on the subject.  In my last post, “Getting the Government We Deserve”, I pointed out the fact that corruption is always a basic ingredient in socialism.  In this election it is showing up particularly in fund raising and voter fraud.  In both instances it seems to be either denied, overlooked, or glossed over, even by those who ordinarily are thought of as conservative opinion makers and leaders in the conservative movement.

Voter Fraud

For years socialists have been advocating innovations in voting rules to make it easier for those who have the least inclination and the least understanding of the issues to vote.  It has been universally accepted that the more people who vote, regardless of their level of understanding, the better it is for our democracy.  Millions are spent by campaigns and community organizations to “get out the vote”.  Innovations such as “motor voter registration”, absentee ballots, same day registration and early voting have become commonplace.  Any attempts to establish voting standards to insure that voters are legally qualified to vote are met with accusations of racism or charges of “suppressing the vote”.

The most threatening innovations in voting are “same day registration” and “early voting“.  These almost beg to be abused.  Invariably, these lax voting rules are instigated by the Democratic Party.  They sound so reasonable that they are accepted by most people with little thought.  We are beginning to see the results now, as more reports of fraudulent registrations and fraudulent voting begin to surface.

Spearheading the Democrat’s voter registration drives is the socialist front group, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).  ACORN is partially funded with millions of taxpayer dollars from earmarks and amendments added to legislation by Democrats in Congress.  During the last several voting cycles the group has come under scrutiny by state and federal prosecutors for election fraud.  They are now under investigation in twelve states, mostly the so-called battleground states.

Barack Obama is no stranger to ACORN.  During the summer of 1992 he was director of Illinois’ Project Vote.  Working in cooperation with ACORN, Project Vote registered 150,000 voters on Chicago’s South Side for the ‘92 election.  His prior relationship with ACORN was from 1985 to 1988 when he worked as director of Developing Communities Project, an affiliate of ACORN.  As Director of DCP he also served as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, an organization that trains Community Organizers.  As a lawyer he represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the State of Illinois to force it to implement “motor voter” registration.

Obama’s experience as a Community Organizer and in voter registration drives has served him well in his presidential campaign.  He has patterned his campaign after the tactics advocated by Saul Alinsky in his book “Rules for Radicals” published in 1972.   Alinsky is known as the father of Community Organizing and his book has become the “Bible” for Community Organizers.  Most of the affiliates that make up the organization of ACORN use the same handbook as the Obama campaign.

Fund Raising

The Obama campaign has raised more than $600 million in donations for the 2008 election, breaking all previous records.   His unprecedented ability to raise funds is regarded with awe by the main stream media as well as many Republicans and conservatives.  The reasons behind his phenomenal success as a fund raiser are mostly overlooked.

Obama represents the best opportunity in the past hundred years for the socialist movement to realize its long sough goal of taking over the government of the United States.  As a result, socialists from all over the world are tempted to contribute to his candidacy.  The Internet not only makes this possible but also makes it easy to hide illegal foreign donations as well as “over the limit” donations from within the United States. has published two very informative articles on the subject.  One article deals with foreign contributions and the other with credit card fraud.  While they do not offer conclusive proof, it is hard to come up with alternative explanations for the unorthodox examples they give.  According to Newsmax some 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.

One of the clues they give is the number of donations for odd amounts, like $876.09, $388.67, etc.  Donors making contributions to a political campaign invariably make those donations in even amounts: $400, $1,000, or $10 for example.  However if they are making the donations by credit card from a country with currency different than our own, those contributions would show up in the recipients account in odd amounts like the ones above, after being converted to U.S. dollars.

Another gimmick documented by Newsmax for getting around the requirement to report all donations over $200 is the use of “gift cards”.  Gift cards are not linked to any specific name and Obama’s web site is not set up to weed out suspicious donors.  Therefore, a donor wishing to make a $1,000 donation anonymously would only need to purchase ten gift cards for a hundred dollars each and then use those cards to make contributions under the name of Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse or any other name.  Since the campaign does not have to report the name of the donor for donations less than $200 there is no way to trace them back to their origin.  Nice gimmick, huh?

There is a good chance that not only will the election be stolen but the government as well.  Unfortunately, if that happens there is very little recourse, since the foxes will be in charge of the entire chicken coop.

Getting the Goverment We Deserve

America has been moving toward socialism for many years.  The irony is that the final steps were taken by a Republican administration and a Republican candidate for President.  Even if McCain wins the election—and I still believe he will—, the damage inflicted on the Constitution and our capitalist economy will take years to repair.  That is assuming there is a will to repair it.

Tuesday, President Bush is scheduled to announce a plan to use some $250 billion of the bailout money to purchase equity in nine of the nation’s largest and most influential banks.  The accurate term for such a purchase is “socialism”.  The President and his advisors spent the weekend huddled with the financial leaders of other socialist economies from all over the world, particularly those from the Democratic Socialist nations of Europe.

Any reservations he may have had about the wisdom of taking such drastic measures evidently were overcome by the support he got from other socialist nations during the course of the meetings.  The selling point to the American people is that the government is only buying limited equity in these companies and not actually nationalizing them.  The prospect is held out that when these ailing companies recover, “taxpayers” will realize a return on their equity investments.

Some super-optimists even believe that in the end, taxpayers will come out with a profit.  The use of the term “taxpayers” is simply to make it more palatable to the public.  Based on the experience with the “peace dividend” at the end of the cold war and other historical examples the only thing taxpayers can reasonably expect to get from their investment is a bigger government and more taxes to support its growth.

Socialism is not a new theory of government.  It has been around for over a hundred years and there is plenty of history in our own, and other countries from which to judge its effectiveness.  Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China, France, Great Britain, and Germany, just to name a few.  The failures in these economies are in direct proportion to the degree of socialists policies utilized by their governments, as are the failures in our own.  By now, one would think we had learned that socialism simply does not work, but there is always the belief that it will work if only the right people are in charge.

Socialism and capitalism cannot co-exist for any extended period of time.  With the demise of capitalism in America, there will be nothing to stop the gradual change to an international “globalism” of the type envisioned by George Soros and his Global Enterprise Institute.  That change would be greatly accelerated by the election of Barack Obama.   At least on that point we cannot say he has attempted to deceive us.  He has made his intentions to push an international socialist agenda well known.

The problem is that most Americans do not fully understand the difference between socialism and capitalism and do not see the harm that socialism brings to the very fabric of our society.  In theory socialism promises social justice, equality and prosperity for all. In practice, it delivers a scarcity of basic needs, soft tyranny, and economic hardship to all except the favored few with proper connections.  All one has to do to verify this is to look at the experiences of other nations where socialism has been in practice for a few generations.

Capitalism promises liberty and opportunity.  What it delivers is up to the individual.  Anyone with intelligence, initiative, and ambition can achieve according to their own efforts, talents, and abilities.  Capitalism offers the opportunity for unlimited success but it also carries the risk of failure when wrong decisions are made.  Socialism has low risk and low to moderate returns.  Capitalism has a relatively high risk with returns limited only by the individual himself or herself.

Another undeniable characteristic of socialism evident from experience, is that it provides a breeding ground for corruption.  That is because it has no moral foundation on which to build a stable society.  The first principle of socialism is wealth redistribution.  That in itself is an immoral principle since it takes, by the force of government, the fruits of labor from those in society who produce and redistributes it to the slothful, lazy and ineffective non-producers.  It is not by accident that the decay of moral standards in our own country parallels the infiltration of socialist principles into our government and society.  The practice of fortifying our homes and cars with hi-tech locks and alarms, and the reluctance to wander out at night in certain neighborhoods is a relatively new phenomenon.

I grew up in homes where the doors were seldom locked and friends and neighbors often did not bother to knock when they came calling.  As late as the 1950s entire families would routinely take blankets to Lincoln Park, on Chicago’s lakefront and sleep out overnight, unmolested, to enjoy the cooling effects of the lake breeze.  That, of course, was before the widespread use of air conditioning, but it was also before the rise in crime and immorality.

We had crime, violence, vices and all the other negative things that accompany the human condition, but they were rare in the lives of most Americans.  It was not until the principles of socialism and communism began to be introduced into our institutions wholesale, that our culture began to change dramatically for the worse.  Anyone whose lifespan of awareness covers the period from 1950 until today will recognize the truthfulness of this observation.

We cannot roll back the influence of socialism on our country in this election, but we can take a stand to stop its spread and hopefully start a reversal of its effects in future elections.  The choice between socialism and capitalism is in the hands of the voters more so than ever before.  If we elect Barack Obama and the socialist entourage that will follow him to Washington, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.  We will have gotten the government we deserve.

John McCain and the Bi-Partisan Myth

The most often stated qualification of John McCain as a Presidential candidate is his ability to reach across the aisle and solve problems in a bi-partisan manner.  This supposedly has great appeal to independent and moderate voters.  The evidence given for this is usually campaign finance reform and energy legislation co-sponsored by McCain and Democrats Russ Feingold and Joseph Lieberman.  Many if not most voters, weary of the Congressional wars of the past few years, seem to welcome this as a definite positive.

During the campaign, McCain has been preserving his ability to work in a bi-partisan way by studiously avoiding any specific criticism of Congress.  In attempting to identify the root causes of the financial crisis, for example, he blames “Wall Street” and “Washington”.  These broad terms are not sufficient, and only add to the animosity felt by many people against “the rich” and “government”.  Obviously, not everyone connected to Wall Street and not everyone in Washington is Corrupt.

Wall Street is simply a “label” used to designate our financial markets.  Only certain members of those markets are responsible for the current crisis, those who deal in sub-prime mortgages.  Among those, the most culpable are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Both of these institutions are government sponsored and operate subject to the guidance of Congress.  Both have been run primarily by members of one party for years, the Democrats.  This is a well documented historical fact that cannot be denied by anyone other than blatant partisans.

During the campaign, McCain often uses the politically safe, “Washington is broken” cliché to reinforce his “reformer” image.  At times he may even go so far as to implicate “Congress”.  However until this past Thursday, he has avoided mentioning any Congressional wrongdoers by name.  It could be that he is simply following the advice of Jesus to “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitation”. (Luke 16:9)  In case he loses the election he, no doubt, wishes to return to the Senate and resume his role as the “maverick” with the ability to “reach across the aisle”.

This bi-partisan image may serve his needs in the Senate, but it is costing him the election.  If he wins it will be due to voters rejecting Barack Obama and not because of a strong desire for the leadership of John McCain and certainly not because of his bi-partisan image.  Throughout its history America has always had a fiercely partisan government.  That’s the way the Founders set it up, either intentionally or unintentionally.  It may be unpleasant to many, but it is necessary for our government to function as intended.

In studying the literature of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries there is no doubt the Founding Fathers would have preferred a non-partisan government.  They often warned against the dangers of “factions” or partisanship.  However they established a government that requires a partisan political system.

The system of checks and balances required by our Constitution is perhaps the single most important factor in our becoming the strongest, and one of the most enduring governments in history.  In the arena of elective politics it is our two party system that preserves the system of checks and balances that keeps the government functioning for all the people.  The partisanship of each party prevents, or at least, lessens the excesses of the other.  Our unique method of electing the Chief Executive through the Electoral College rather than a straight majority vote of the electorate preserves the two party system.

More than two strong political parties would transform our government into a de facto parliamentary system rather than a republican system.  Since the election of a President and Vice President requires the majority vote of the Electoral College a multi-party system would more often than not throw the election of the President into the House of Representatives, resulting in a Chief Executive elected by the Legislature rather than the people.

In America the balance of power has always been between government tyranny and individual liberty.  For the first hundred years individual liberty held sway.  During the twentieth century the pendulum of power moved decidedly to the side of government tyranny thanks to the socialist policies introduced during the reign of Franklin Roosevelt.  Pure democracies always lean toward tyranny, either through the tyranny of the majority, or more likely through a ruling class of aristocratic elites, which is why we were setup as a republic.

In our own history, the Democratic Party has always been the party of government tyranny, grounded in its ideological beginnings in the Federalist Party of Adams and Hamilton.  For a hundred and seventy years it was the party of slavery and segregation.  Although the organizational history of the Democratic Party is generally traced to the one founded by Jefferson, there is no doubt it is the ideological descendent of the Federalist Party founded by Alexander Hamilton.

Just as the Democratic Party of today shares the big government philosophy of the early Federalists, the Republican Party, particularly the conservative wing, shares the love of liberty and the Constitution, espoused by Jefferson’s republicanism.  You can think of the political life of America as a continuum with republicanism, liberty and constitutional government on one end and democracy, socialism and tyranny on the other.  We are today somewhere between the center and the socialist side of that continuum.  If America elects Obama in November, we will move dramatically closer to the socialist side, based on his campaign promises.

If by chance we elect the McCain-Palin ticket, we may have a chance to slow down the advancement of socialism.  The last thing we need however is a President working in a bi-partisan way with the socialist wing of the Democratic Party.  The contest between Democrats and Republicans is a contest of ideology and principles.  Bi-partisanship is based on compromise, and principles can never be compromised and survive.  In the instances where McCain has attempted to work with Democrats in the past, the result has always been a net loss for the American people and the Constitution.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have made it clear over the past two years they are never willing to compromise until they have been soundly defeated, and then they merely withdraw in order to regroup and try again.  It would be good if we did have a non-partisan government that always put the good of the country above the welfare of the party.  Until someone invents a new kind of politician however, that is not going to happen.  Until then we need a President and Republican Senators and Congressmen willing to stand on the side of republican principles, the people and the Constitution; and not be taken in by the myth of bi-partisanship.