Tag Archives: 2008 Election

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.


Advertisements

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, Newsmax.com,  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.

Newsmax.com 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.


Sarah Palin as President of the Senate

In Thursday night’s debate Sarah Palin exhibited why many conservatives believe she is the future of the Conservative movement and why she is likely to be the first woman President of the United States after the 2012 elections.  There were many noteworthy exchanges during the debate but to me, the most important one, since it relates to Palin’s function if she is elected Vice President, was the one concerning the duties of that office.

The moderator, Gwen Ifill asked,

“Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?”

The question itself shows both a partisan bias and a deficiency in knowledge of the Constitution.  It implies that Vice President Cheney engaged in extra-constitutional activities in his relationship with the Senate and questions whether Palin intends to do likewise.

Governor Palin: “Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation….”

Senator Biden’s response: “Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history. The idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.”

“And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.”

“The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress….”

The fact is; the office of Vice President was more closely associated with the Legislative Branch than the Executive Branch from 1788 until after the Second World War.  Harry Truman was forced to take on the duties of President in a time of war, due to the death of Franklin Roosevelt, with no experience and little knowledge of important decisions made during the war, including the existence of the Atom Bomb. Following that experience the office of Vice President became more involved in the workings of the Executive Branch.

The first Vice President to have an office in the White House was Walter Mondale, Vice President to Jimmy Carter.

Even though Joe Biden has, on at least six occasions, taken an oath to “defend and protect” the Constitution of the United States, it is apparent from his response that he has little knowledge of what it contains.  He should know that Article I deals with the duties of the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch.  Those are found in Article II.

Biden continues, “The idea he’s part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.”

It is this statement by Biden that is really bizarre.  The idea that the office of Vice President is a part of the Legislative Branch was invented by the framers of the Constitution, not Vice President Cheney. Article I assigns to the Vice President the legislative duty of presiding over the Senate.

“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

“The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.”  ~Article I, Section 3, U.S. Constitution

The question then becomes; what is meant by the term “President of the Senate?”  The meaning was so obvious to the Framers they did not bother to define it further.  However, the office of President of the Senate has been so neglected by its occupants and its meaning so changed by custom over the past two hundred years that its constitutional intent has been lost.  Today the office of Vice President is looked upon by its occupants mostly as a possible stepping-stone to the Presidency.  That was not the intent of the Framers.

The universal understanding of the term “President of the Senate” is further demonstrated in the fact that no elaboration on its meaning is found in the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers or in other popular writings of the founding era.  To understand the proper role of the Senate President we are forced to go to the Constitution itself and to how the role was understood by those who filled it in the early days of the Republic.

That the office was considered important by the Framers is shown in the fact that it is the only duty assigned to the Vice President by the Constitution.  Serving as President of the Senate is not just a ceremonial honor bestowed on the Vice President; it is his or her primary duty.  To understand what those duties entail, a good place to start is by looking at the duties of its counterpart in the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House. It is unreasonable to believe the Framers would stipulate an executive officer for the House and not designate a similar position for the Senate. “Majority Leader” is not a constitutional office.

The House has only one officer required by the Constitution.  That officer is the Speaker and is to be chosen by whatever manner the House deems fitting.  The House is given the authority to add other officers and to choose them, as they consider desirable.  The Senate has two officers mandated by the Constitution, the President and the President pro Tempore.  It is permitted to elect its President pro Tempore and any other officers it thinks necessary or desirable according to its own judgment.

The President of the Senate, however, is elected by the majority vote of all the electors of the fifty states and is the only nationally elected officer in the Legislative Branch, a further indication of its importance.  This is fitting since the Senate has “advice and consent” powers over treaties, Judges, Supreme Court Justices, Ambassadors and other officers appointed by the President.  Since all these Presidential actions are national in scope it is proper that the executive officer of the Senate be elected nationally.

Webster’s dictionary defines the word “president” as the “chief executive officer of the United States or the chief executive officer of an organization or corporation.”  The word, whether used in a political sense or a non-political sense, always carries with it the connotation of executive authority.  To attempt to separate executive authority from the term President of the Senate is an unwarranted manipulation of the English language.

This being the case, how then did the office of Vice President become relegated to such an unimportant role in our government as it has today?  To understand this we have to look at the early history of our nation.

John Adams was a prominent revolutionary in the years leading up to the revolution.  He was a strong advocate of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the committee assigned by the Continental Congress to draft it, although the language was primarily written by Thomas Jefferson.  After the revolution he was assigned to a number of diplomatic positions under the Federation and worked closely with Jefferson as envoys to a number of European Countries.

When the new government was formed under the Constitution he ran against George Washington for the office of President and was soundly defeated.  Under the original Constitution, having received the second highest number of votes, he became Vice President.

Adams was a super patriot and a competent Ambassador.  However, as Vice President and later as President, flaws in his temperament prevented him from becoming great in those positions.  He took seriously his duties as President of the Senate and became known for his lectures to the Senate on policy and procedural matters.  While he did not have a vote except as a “tie breaker” he did attempt to influence legislation.

His overbearing and tyrannical manner as President of the Senate brought on a threatened revolt by the Senators near the end of his first term.  Hoping to become President after George Washington left office he moderated his interactions with the Senate during his second term in order not to further alienate his political supporters.

In spite of his leadership role in the revolution, he was an admirer of the English style of government and its customs of nobility.  During his first term as Vice President he became embroiled in a month long controversy over what the proper address should be for the President when he visited the Senate.  He preferred the titles of “His Majesty the President” or “His High Mightiness”.  The more simple title of “President of the United States” eventually won out.

Further evidence of his elitist nature, tyrannical personality and intolerance of opposing opinions came up during his term as President when he signed into law the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writings” against the government or its officials. The Act expired at the end of his term in 1801 and Thomas Jefferson, his successor, granted a full pardon to those convicted under this unconstitutional law.

The idea of “factions” or political parties was anathema to the founding fathers.  Their failure to foresee the inevitable rise of political parties as the most practical way of selecting candidates for President and making constitutional provisions for their functions became one of the few weaknesses of the Constitution.  The twelfth Amendment corrected the problem of having the President and Vice President from opposing parties, as was the case with Adams and his Vice President, Thomas Jefferson.  Otherwise, the proper role of political parties was left undefined.

The animosity between Adams, a Federalist, and Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican was so great that Jefferson spent the four years of his term as Adam’s V.P. at home in Monticello writing a handbook on Senate procedures rather than performing his duties as President of the Senate.  Since then the role of President of the Senate has been more or less left up to the individual Vice President with the willing acquiescence of the Senate.  John C. Calhoun, elected Vice President to John Quincy Adams in 1824 and re-elected as Vice President to Andrew Jackson in 1828, was the only other V.P. to take his duties as Senate President seriously.

If Sarah Palin is elected to the office of Vice President and wishes to take on the task of Senate President she should have the support of every patriotic American.  The current role of “Majority Leader” is clearly unconstitutional and is a usurpation of the constitutional powers of the President of the Senate as intended by the Founding Fathers.

The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader have acquired powers over time that equal or exceeds the powers of the Executive Branch.  Both have assumed dictatorial authority over legislation to be considered by either house of Congress.  Neither position is accountable to the voters other than those in their respective districts or states although their actions affect the lives and well-being of every American.  Any reforms a Vice President Palin can bring to this unhealthy situation would be welcome.

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend:  Sarah Palin as President of the Senate


addthis_pub = ‘jerrymcdaniel’;

McCain-Palin Falters on Reform

When John McCain and Sarah Palin take office next January they are going to be expected to follow through on their promises to reform Washington.  The possibility of McCain’s election is based on two factors, his choice of Sarah as his running mate and his campaign pitch as a reformer.  The new McCain campaign is less than a month old and already there are signs emerging that he may not be able to maintain his new image until Election Day.

His first big test is his response to the meltdown of Fannie, Freddie and AIG.  In my opinion, both McCain and Palin have fumbled the ball.  I am prone to give Sarah the benefit of the doubt because I understand that she has a duty to express views consistent with those of McCain, at least, during the campaign.

Many conservatives including myself see her as the future of the conservative movement and hopefully, the Republican Party.  Consequently, I may be more critical of her statements and actions than I otherwise might be.  I watched the two-part interview on Fox with Sean Hannity and a couple of times I was disappointed in her performance.

I also was disappointed with Sean’s conducting of the interview.  At times it seemed as though he was auditioning for Larry King’s replacement on CNN.  Sean asked all the right questions, but in such a softball manner that it appeared he was more intent on not damaging the image Sarah has built up among conservatives and independents than in getting an accurate picture of her position on the issues.

On one occasion he broached the accusation made by Democrats that she was “for the bridge to nowhere, before she was against it”.  She replied with a good exposition of her position following cancellation of the bridge project and a good explanation of the reasons.  However, she did not answer the question asked, which was more about her initial support or non-support for the bridge before the project became politically unpopular nationally.

I already knew that she supported building the bridge when she was running for Governor, and that she had changed her mind after being elected.  Since the price tag for the project had gone from $200 million to $400 million and Congress, because of the unfavorable publicity, had withdrawn its support, I understood her change of position and thought it was the right thing to do.  What bothered me was her reluctance to answer the question in a straightforward manner.  Sean did not follow-up on the question.

Another answer that bothered me was in response to a question on her position concerning the collapse of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG.  For a minute, it appeared as though she had forgotten which ticket she was running on.  Her answer could easily have been from the Obama camp except that she did not blame Bush.  Instead she blamed Wall Street, Lobbyists, corporate greed and stockholders.  She did not mention Congresses’ involvement at all.  Again, Sean did not follow up.

On Thursday, McCain repeated the same list of culprits and for good measure threw SEC Chairman Chris Cox into the mix, stating that if he was President he would fire him.  McCain should know that the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission does not serve at the pleasure of the President.  He is appointed for a specific term and cannot be fired without proof of misconduct or malfeasance.  He should also know that the failures of Fannie and Freddie were not regulatory failures, but rather management failures, and the SEC does not manage the companies it oversees.

There were many causes for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac including mismanagement, corruption, poor judgment and a host of others.  The “first cause” however was its efforts to carry out the mandate of Congress to maximize mortgages to low income applicants in order that more minorities and the working poor could participate in the “American dream”.  Mortgage brokers under pressure to issue more loans to high-risk buyers flooded the market with sub-prime, adjustable rate mortgages, with no money down and no income verification.  The results were foreseeable, except for the socialists in Congress who thought they were witnessing nirvana.

There is more than enough blame to go around, from the local corrupt Real Estate Agent to the corner offices and penthouses of Wall Street.  To target all the fish in the food chain while ignoring the sharks in Congress is not reform.  It is only “business as usual” with slightly different scapegoats.  McCain is focusing on the money Obama collected from Fannie and Freddie while studiously avoiding any mention of Dodd, Franks, and others on Capitol Hill feeding at the trough.

This is his big chance to demonstrate he will bring true change to Washington.  If he shows a willingness to take on his cronies in Congress his trip to the White House will be a “cake walk”.  Otherwise he is likely to loose his momentum to Obama while, at the same time, lending credence to Democratic desires to strengthen their grip on the economy.

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend: McCain-Palin Falters on Reform


Jesus, Obama and Community Organizing

Obama has made his experience as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side the centerpiece of his campaign for President. Backers of his campaign expressed offense in response to Sarah Palin’s remark in her speech at the Republican Convention, “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.”

The morning after Palin’s speech, Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe sent out a fund-raising e-mail.  In it he said, “They insulted the very idea that ordinary people have a role to play in our political process.  Let’s clarify something for them right now. Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies.”

That may be effective campaign rhetoric but it sheds little light on the activities or goals of the professional “community organizer”.  In fact, it is somewhat misleading.  When a citizen gets fed up with conditions in his or her community, whether caused by the local school board or neighborhood gangs, or when they get enough of the neglect by their local governments and decide to join with their neighbors in demanding action on the problems from their elected officials, that is legitimate “community organizing”.  This type of organizing is American to the core and is protected by our Constitution.

However, that is not the type of community organizing Barack Obama was engaged in.  The professional community organizer is not so concerned with problem solving as with the act of organizing.  In fact, many times the organizer has no prior connection to the community being organized and has no idea what the problems are that need solving before canvassing the neighborhood to see what they can stir up.  So it was with the organizing career of Obama.

Community organizing as a profession originated from the settlement houses made popular in the early part of the twentieth century to aid immigrants in their acclimation to the American culture.  Jane Addams, (1860-1935) is credited with being the founder of the settlement house movement.  Counselors for these centers came to be known as “social workers” and provided a recognized and valuable service to their communities.

Community organizing is an offshoot of the original profession of social worker.  From the beginning, it has been closely associated with the socialist movement in America. The Democratic Socialists of America lists community organizing, along with feminism, environmentalists and the Congressional Progressive Caucus as being among the groups making up the socialist coalition.

Saul Alinsky of Chicago is credited with being the originator of the term “community organizer”.  His 1971 handbook, “Rules for Radicals” has become the “bible” for organizers who apply his methods to their work.  Most professional organizers today are part of a national network of groups carrying out various “community organizing” activities.  Some of the best-known groups making up this network are the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Direct Action and Research Training Center (DART) and the Industrial Areas Foundation.

Obama worked for a group affiliated with the Industrial Areas Foundation, a direct outgrowth of Saul Alinsky’s Chicago efforts.  After graduating from Columbia, Obama set his sights on becoming a community organizer.  He was eventually hired by Jerry Kellman of the Developing Communities Group in Chicago.  When Kellman left the group a year later, Obama became the director.

After two years as director, Obama decided that the most effective means for reaching his goals was through politics and law.  Consequently, he enrolled in Harvard Law School.  After earning his degree, he returned to Chicago and entered politics through a “get out the vote” drive while working for a law firm representing community organizing groups.

You will notice that whenever mentioning Obama’s work as a community organizer he is said to have worked for a “church based group”.  This is common with community organizers.  Among the first task a community organizer undertakes is to organize the local churches and business establishments as a part of their efforts.  In Obama’s case, the church organizational structure already existed from the efforts of Saul Alinsky and those who came after him.

The association between churches and community organizers serve two purposes.  It opens up doors to the community at large and provides a spiritual element to their work. Often organizers who may or may not be religious in their own lives will join a leading church in the community to add legitimacy to their efforts.  That is what brought Obama to be a member of Trinity Church.

It is common for left wing groups to use Christian jargon to promote their agenda, while at the same time, condemning any expression of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the public square.  They routinely appeal to Christian principles for promoting their socialist programs, implying that to oppose them is non-Christian.  In the past couple of weeks a new mantra has gained currency among Obama supporters; “Jesus was a community organizer”.

I do not presume to know the mind of Jesus although I have been a Christian since the age of twenty, fifty-four years ago.  However, based on the biographies written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the early history of the Christian Church written by Luke in the Book of Acts, and the epistles of Paul, Mark, Peter, John and Jude, I can safely say without fear of contradiction, Jesus was no socialist and certainly was no community organizer.

There is no record of Jesus or any of the Apostles ever asking anything from government. Great crowds followed Jesus wherever he went, but he never encouraged them to petition Caesar to solve their problems.  The ministry of Jesus was directed toward turning men and women to God and the acceptance of himself as personal savior and messiah.

He did teach the Christian duty of helping those less fortunate, giving to the poor and coming to the aid of those in need.  However, this was taught as the personal duty of Christians as individuals, or collectively of the Church.  Never did he suggest taking from “rich” non-believers and distributing to the poor, or taking from Christians and distributing to non-believers.  The concept of “wealth redistribution” is a socialist concept not Christian.

Christians in the early church did practice a form of wealth sharing for a short time.  In Acts 2:44 Luke records “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”  Again in Acts 4:32 we read, “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed were his own; but they had all things common.”

This arrangement, however, due to the fallen nature of man, did not work out too well and had to be eventually abandoned.  There were too many who took advantage of the largess and instead of working depended on others for their sustenance.

By the time Paul penned his second epistle to the Thessalonians the practice had been abandoned and Paul wrote to the Church, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.”  ~II Thess. 3:10-12.

In addition to not being a Christian principle, socialism and “community organizing” as practiced by the professional organizers is not sanctioned by the Hebrew Bible either.  It is a direct violation of the Tenth Commandment:  “Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”  ~ Deuteronomy 5:21

Socialism and community organizing depends on the envy and resentment of the success of others in order to succeed.  The primary goal of the community organizer is to agitate this resentment to the point where members of the target community are ready to take action.  In the words of Saul Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals, the objective is to “rub raw the sores of discontent”.  By the way, Alinsky dedicated his book to “Lucifer, the First Radical”.


Sarah Palin on the Bush Doctrine

One significant side effect of the McCain-Palin ticket is that the response to it spotlights the media bias in a way that can only be denied by the most adamant cool aid drinkers and party hacks.  Examples are too numerous to cover adequately in this space.  However, a good example is the media response to Charlie Gibson’s ABC interview with Governor Palin on Thursday Night.

The part of the interview that seemed to get the most attention on Friday was the part dealing with the Bush Doctrine.

GIBSON: “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”

GOVERNOR PALIN:  “In what respect, Charlie?”

GIBSON:  “Well, what do you interpret it to be?”

PALIN:  “His world view?”

GIBSON:  “No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq war“.

PALIN: “I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.”

GIBSON:  “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?”

PALIN: “Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.”

This exchange was used by commentators, pundits, bloggers, and even many news accounts to be proof that Palin did not have the foreign policy experience to qualify her for the position of Vice President.  James Fallows writing in the Atlantic Online began his article this way.

“It is embarrassing to have to spell this out, but for the record let me explain why Gov. Palin’s answer to the “Bush Doctrine” question — the only part of the recent interview I have yet seen over here in China — implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job.”

The Associated Press had this to say;

“….[Governor Palin]  Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine — essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.”

You will notice there are substantial differences between Gibson’s understanding of the Bush Doctrine and the AP’s.  On Friday’s Hannity and Colmes TV show, Alan Colmes also used this exchange between Gibson and Palin as proof of Palin’s lack of experience in foreign policy.

I have e-mailed both Gibson and Colmes and requested they send me a copy of the Bush Doctrine so I could properly understand just what the flap is about.

When I type, for example, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or The Declaration of Independence into a search engine I get a number of links to specific documents with those titles.  However, when I type “Bush Doctrine” into a search engine, I get pages of links to news articles, opinion pieces, and blogs related to the Bush Doctrine, but no links to a copy of it.

The reason no search engine can link to a copy of the Bush Doctrine is because none exists.  The term is a media expression used to refer to any one of a number of Bush policies regarding the war on terror.  Had I been asked about the Bush Doctrine, I would have immediately thought of the policy stated by Bush that State sponsors of terrorism would be held accountable in the same manner as the terrorists themselves.

My version, Gibson’s version and the AP version all refer to different Bush policies that have at various times been labeled the “Bush Doctrine”.  All total, there are about five such policies that are given that label.  Governor Palin’s question quoted above, “his world view?” is a pretty good summary of just what the Bush Doctrine is.

The fact that so many news outlets and commentators jumped on this exchange to undermine Sarah Palin”s qualifications to assume the role of Commander In Chief, if need be, is just one more example of the panic in the Democratic Party and their left wing media propaganda arm caused by McCain’s choice of her as his Vice Presidential running mate.

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend:  https://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/sarah-palin-on-the-bush-doctrine/