Tag Archives: democrat party

Looking Back at Our Future

For most of us, our concept of history begins with our own generation. Consequently, we believe that the problems we face were invented by us and it is up to us to find new solutions for them. That is not the case, however. Many generations have faced the problems we are dealing with today. The reason we are having such a difficult time in solving them is twofold.  First is the idea that it is up to our political leadership, and particularly those in our national government to come up with the solutions. Second is our tendency to view every problem as a separate issue, each with its own unique solution.

Although, on the surface, the problems we face today all seem to be separate issues, they are not. Out of control spending, the looming specter of confiscatory taxes, a burgeoning national debt, health care, energy, the global warming farce, declining quality of education and all the other issues we worry about daily are merely symptoms of our one fundamental problem, a lawless, out of control government.  That, in itself, is not new by any means. It dates back to the beginning of our republic and to some of our Founding Fathers.

President Obama brought nothing new to the table.  His administration is merely the culmination of the hundred year assault on our Constitution that began in the late eighteen hundreds during the Progressive (American socialist) era. Even that was not the first attempt by our elected leaders to circumvent the Constitution. Many of the Delegates who participated in the Philadelphia Convention were in favor of an all-powerful federal government with the state governments subordinate to its will.  That is why it proved so difficult to get a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution after it was ratified by the states.

The lust for power was as strong in the breasts of our Founders as in any of the politicians we send to Washington today. John Adams, for example, one of the leading patriots during the Revolution, and who later became our first Vice-President and then our second President, was a great admirer of the British system of government, as was his close friend Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson relates an incident concerning Hamilton and Adams and their admiration of the British Constitution in a letter to Benjamin Rush, January 16, 1811.

“I invited them to dine with me, and after dinner, sitting at our wine, having settled our question, other conversation came on, in which a collision of opinion arose between Mr. Adams and Colonel Hamilton, on the merits of the British Constitution, Mr. Adams giving it as his opinion, that, if some of its defects and abuses were corrected, it would be the most perfect constitution of government ever devised by man. Hamilton, on the contrary, asserted, that with its existing vices, it was the most perfect model of government that could be formed; and that the correction of its vices would render it an impracticable government. And this you may be assured was the real line of difference between the political principles of these two gentlemen.”

As we pointed out in a previous post, the British constitution is the model for the progressives concept of a “living Constitution”. Jefferson also made the following observation concerning Adams’ Presidency in a 1793 letter to James Madison.

“…If Mr. Adams could be induced to administer the government on its true principles, quitting his bias for an English constitution, it would be worthy consideration whether it would not be for the public good,”…

Today, Adams is esteemed as one of our greatest Presidents, and in many ways, he was.  However, he seemed to possess two of the character flaws that are common among those who aspire to government. First was the belief that only a member of an aristocracy is suited to the role of government, and second was his inability to deal well with opposition. These characteristics coupled with his disregard for the American Constitution caused him to overstep his authority as President and eventually destroyed his Presidency and the Federalist Party he and Hamilton founded.  Jefferson also referred to this aspect of the Presidency of Adams in his “Thoughts On Lotteries” included in a petition to the Virginia Legislature around 1825.

“…[D]uring the administration of Mr. Adams, [t]heir usurpations and violations of the constitution at that period, and their majority in both Houses of Congress, were so great, so decided, and so daring, that after combating their aggressions, inch by inch, without being able in the least to check their career, the republican leaders thought it would be best for them to give up their useless efforts there, go home, get into their respective legislatures, embody whatever of resistance they could be formed into, and if ineffectual, to perish there as in the last ditch…..”

The Federalist Party’s and Adams’ disregard for the constraints of the Constitution, more than anything else resulted in his defeat at the polls in 1800 and the eventual demise of the Party some twenty years later. The electorate could very well deliver the same verdict on the Obama Presidency and the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2012. That, in fact, represents the best and possibly only hope for the survival of our Republic.

Should the present follow the same course as history, displaced Democrats will flock to the Republican Party over the next few decades, transforming it into a progressive party. That would be the proper time for the emergence of a “Constitution based” Conservative Party to preserve the Republic. The current attempts by the media and the progressives to encourage the formation of a third party based on the tea party resistance, is premature and self-defeating.  Its only result would be the continuance of the country in the grip of progressivism, leading to the final destruction of the Constitution.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend


Email

Advertisements

How Strong is the Conservative Influence in Illinois?

The Nomination of Mark Kirk as the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate creates some serious problems for Illinois conservative patriots.  Should he win in November it will send a message that the Republican Party need not worry about the patriot uprising that has been taking place across the state for the past year.  However, Kirk cannot win the general election without the vote of conservatives who will find it difficult to cast their vote for a pro-abortion, liberal candidate that voted for both TARP and Cap and Trade legislation, betraying both his Party and his constituents.

Another difficulty facing Kirk in November is indicated by the breakdown of primary votes for the Senate seat in February.  Democratic primary voters for the Senate seat outnumbered Republican voters by over 150,000. The Democrat machine turned out 901,000 voters while only 740,000 Republicans showed up at the polls.

Conservatives have three choices facing them in November. They can simply stay home, in which case we are likely to loose some of the gains we would otherwise make in the Congressional delegation. They can vote but leave the Senate spot blank, insuring another Democratic Senator representing Illinois.  On the other hand, they can vote for Kirk believing that any Republican would be more conservative than the Democrat would. If they take the third choice and Kirk wins, the tea party and patriot movements will lose their credibility for the 2012 elections.  The same thing happens if they vote for Kirk and Giannoulias wins anyway.  Either way the effectiveness of the conservatives in Illinois politics is diminished.

If Illinois conservatives are to have any impact on the 2012 elections they must find some way of delivering a visible message in 2010 that cannot be denied by either the media or the Republican Party establishment.  Patriot protests across the country have shown their effectiveness in influencing legislative policy and the outcomes of special elections.  2010 and 2012 well be the first tests they have faced in general elections.

Join Today
Illinois Conservative Action Network
Make a difference

Obama’s Four Year Plan

minute-man-2-lithoThe actions of President Obama during his first two months in office do not to make any sense politically.  Now, as incompetent as Obama appears to be, no one has ever said that he has no sense, so, he must have a plan.   I know, he tells us his plans several times every day even if it means he has to spread the carbon footprints of Air Force One all over the continent in order to do so.  The problem is he tells us his “plans” but never his “plan.”  It always helps in understanding what’s going on if we take a look at the big picture.

We can start by looking at his worldview.  We know from his biography and life experiences that his worldview is socialistic.  Throughout his life, his mentors and close associates have always been adherents of radical socialism.  His childhood mentor and family friend, communist poet Frank Davis, his political patrons, William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn, and his pastor and mentor for twenty years, Jeremiah Wright all contributed to his worldview.

Throughout his lifetime, he was trained and groomed to someday lead the socialist movement in America.  With the help of that movement, he became the President of the United States.  Unlike his icon, Franklin Roosevelt who had twelve years to carry out his socialist plans, and would have had sixteen had not death intervened, Obama has at most, eight.  In fact, it is highly likely that he will be limited to only four years in office.  That explains his frantic efforts to get everything done “yesterday.”

It has become obvious, even to his moderate and independent supporters that his long-term goal is to transform the U.S. into an Americanized version of the socialist nations of Western Europe.  He has only four years to accomplish that goal or, at least, to push it beyond the point of no return.  The critical parts of his plan has to be accomplished within the first two years of his administration while he still has a socialist/Democrat Congress to push his plan through. That is the reason he has been forced to abandon the socialist tactic of “incrementalism” that has served the socialist movement so well in the past.

Although details of his plan puts him at odds with two of the three major socialist parties, the Democratic Socialist of America and the Socialist Party USA, his four-year plan supports the basic principles of both parties and is in lockstep with the Democratic Party, the largest and most powerful socialist party in America, .  Even though not all the socialist parties agree with Obama on every point a look at their platforms shows they are not widely separated in principle.

The four pillars of DSA’s Economic Justice Agenda:

1.  Restoring progressive taxation to the levels in effect before the Reagan administration, and enacting massive cuts in wasteful defense spending;

2.  Ensuring government resumes its appropriate roles through:

  • Providing single-payer universal health insurance, and expanding public initiatives in childcare, elder care, pension security, as well as primary, secondary and higher education;
  • Regulating finance and investment (as was done with the Glass-Steagall Act), controlling interest rates (forbidding usury), providing election protection, ending pollution, strengthening oversight of workplace health and safety, guaranteeing net neutrality, breaking up the concentration of media ownership;
  • Investment in green jobs, clean and sustainable energy, clean water, public transportation infrastructure, publicly financed election campaigns;

3.  Enacting the Employee Free Choice Act – which would restore the right of workers to organize unions and to bargain collectively –as part of a broader effort to rebuild a powerful labor movement capable of achieving equity in the labor market

4.  Implementing a U.S. foreign and trade policy that promotes global institutions that advance labor, environmental, and human rights, regulate transnational corporations, and allow small farmers worldwide to earn a living in their own homelands.

By coincidence, these also happen to be four of the main elements in the Obama Agenda.  That is, if you believe in coincidences.  In order to accomplish these goals it will be necessary to Destroy free-market capitalism and replace it with a planned economy and establish tighter controls over the American population. The basic principle of socialism, redistribution of wealth, is not specifically mentioned in the above list, but is the principle underlying all four.

For a closer look at this part of the plan, we go to the Economic Platform of the Socialist Party USA.

“…2. We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic plan.

3. We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.

4. We call for a full employment policy. We support the provision of a livable guaranteed annual income.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale…” (CPUSA economic platform)

Notice the income spread between plank 3 and plank 6; an annual minimum income of $31,200 for everyone and a maximum of $312,000 for CEOs and other high-earners.  The current tactics of the Democratic Party to demonize corporations and their high-paid executives and the attempt to cap executive pay and bonuses for segments of the economy receiving money from the government, in particularly the automotive and financial industries, may act as a model for future attempts to widen the effort to other parts of the economy.

The same rationale can easily be used for spreading government control of wages from companies receiving bailout money, to companies doing business with the government, to businesses engaged in international commerce and eventually to business in general.

Other parts of the socialist’s platforms that tie neatly into Obama’s plan for a new America include:

“1. We call for public ownership and democratic control of all our natural resources in order to conserve resources, preserve our wilderness areas, and restore environmental quality.

2. “The U.S. must immediately return to participation in international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, limiting carbon emissions, and accept a major role in worldwide efforts to control global warming…” (CPUSA platform on the environment)

1. “We call for the development of alternative energy sources including solar, geothermal, wind, hydropower, and biomass to end dependence on fossil fuels.” (ibid. energy)

3. “We call for an end to the U.S. occupation of the province of Guantanamo, Cuba.

4. We call for an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank-East Jerusalem and Gaza, and an end to all U.S. aid to Israel, as a precondition for peace.

5. We support an immediate cutoff of all U.S. military aid to Colombia, and all other recipients.

6. We call for the abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and all other institutions of covert warfare.

7. We stand for unconditional disarmament by the United States…” (ibid. international affairs)

It is clear that unless the American people intervene, Obama will implement the most important parts of the socialist agenda, and that he has only four years to accomplish it.  We have less time than that to stop it.  So, put down the mouse and pick up the phone.  Call your Congressman and Senators and tell them you have had enough.

Obama and the "Alinsky Model"

The career accomplishment by Barack Obama of which he is most proud seems to be his three-year stint as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. It is mentioned in his speeches and interviews more than his lectureship at the University of Chicago or his service in the Illinois Senate. For most Americans that part of his career is of little significance. To the audience he is attempting to reach it is highly important, however.

Most of us have little knowledge of community organizing other than watching clips of their protests in TV news reports. Political protests have been going on for as long as there have been governments to protest. However, structured community organizing did not start in America until the end of the nineteenth century. The emphasis in early community organizing was to provide community support for new immigrants arriving from Europe.

Its function was primarily social work carried on around community centers such as the Jane Addams center or Hull House. In the early twentieth century, community organizing began to lose its “social work” emphasis and took on a more activist revolutionary aspect heavily influenced by European immigrants from countries caught up in that continent’s various Marxist movements.

During the first half of the twentieth century organizing mostly centered around union activity and improving the lives of workers as a counter measure to the excesses of the rapidly expanding manufacturing and mining industries. Community organizing took on its modern form under the leadership of Saul Alinsky (1909 – 1972) in Chicago. He is by far, the best-known and most influential community organizer in American history.

Alinsky began his work in the Chicago neighborhood surrounding the stockyards, known as the “back of the yards”. From the early thirties until his death in 1972 Chicago was his home and base of operations. In 1971, the more famous of his two books was published. Titled “Rules for Radicals”, the book outlined his views on organizing and became the handbook for a generation of 1960s radicals.

During his career, he also took on the task of training other organizers. His Industrial Areas Foundation Training Institute has turned out hundreds of professional organizers over the years, and thousands of leaders from labor unions and communities across America have attended workshops at the Institute. The “Alinsky Method” has become the model for most community organizing groups in the United States and in other countries as well.

Two of these groups were the Developing Communities Project where Barack Obama served as director during his organizing career, and the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute, where he served as an instructor and consultant.

Alinsky’s influence extends, not only to community organizing, but to the Democratic Party as well. Hillary Clinton’s College thesis was written on the organizing work of Saul Alinsky and the political tactics of the Democratic Party over the past decade could have been taken directly from his book “Rules for Radicals”. You can also see the influence of the Alinsky method in the campaign rhetoric of Barack Obama. In “Rules for Radicals” Alinsky gives this advice for working inside the political system.

“There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”

It is this “attitude toward change” that Obama and the Democratic Party is attempting to bring about through their constant trashing of George W. Bush, the Republican Party, our economy, foreign policy, conduct of the War on Terror, Homeland Security, and every other action of the Bush administration.

The community organizing movement is not a monolithic group. It is made up of a number of independent groups tied loosely together by common ideals and goals. Among the best known are Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Direct Action and Research Training Center (DART).

What almost all community organizations have in common is their adherence to socialist principles and their promotion of victimhood. In laying the groundwork for a new community organization, organizers are trained to canvass the community to identify its most prevalent problems. After identifying the problems, they then hold community meetings where they convince attendees the root cause of their problems are in some way connected to the inherent unfairness of capitalism.

Whatever the problem, it is always caused by someone or some group other than the group experiencing the difficulty. Slums, drugs, poverty, crime and so forth are all caused by unscrupulous financial institutions, uncaring property owners, local politicians, or greedy corporate profiteers. The final steps in the process is to convince participants it is the responsibility of someone else to fix the problem—usually government—and then organize demonstrations, strikes, protests, boycotts, etc. to coerce businesses, governments and/or individuals to comply with their demands.

Community organizing is often credited with teaching communities how to do for themselves. Sometimes they do, but more often than not, they actually teach them how to coerce society to do it for them. When Obama speaks of his community organizing experiences, he is appealing to the tendencies of his audience to cheer when “Robin Hood” takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Somehow, I cannot see how this experience particularly qualifies him to be President. Perhaps, there is something I am missing?


Obama and the “Alinsky Model”

The career accomplishment by Barack Obama of which he is most proud seems to be his three-year stint as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. It is mentioned in his speeches and interviews more than his lectureship at the University of Chicago or his service in the Illinois Senate. For most Americans that part of his career is of little significance. To the audience he is attempting to reach it is highly important, however.

Most of us have little knowledge of community organizing other than watching clips of their protests in TV news reports. Political protests have been going on for as long as there have been governments to protest. However, structured community organizing did not start in America until the end of the nineteenth century. The emphasis in early community organizing was to provide community support for new immigrants arriving from Europe.

Its function was primarily social work carried on around community centers such as the Jane Addams center or Hull House. In the early twentieth century, community organizing began to lose its “social work” emphasis and took on a more activist revolutionary aspect heavily influenced by European immigrants from countries caught up in that continent’s various Marxist movements.

During the first half of the twentieth century organizing mostly centered around union activity and improving the lives of workers as a counter measure to the excesses of the rapidly expanding manufacturing and mining industries. Community organizing took on its modern form under the leadership of Saul Alinsky (1909 – 1972) in Chicago. He is by far, the best-known and most influential community organizer in American history.

Alinsky began his work in the Chicago neighborhood surrounding the stockyards, known as the “back of the yards”. From the early thirties until his death in 1972 Chicago was his home and base of operations. In 1971, the more famous of his two books was published. Titled “Rules for Radicals”, the book outlined his views on organizing and became the handbook for a generation of 1960s radicals.

During his career, he also took on the task of training other organizers. His Industrial Areas Foundation Training Institute has turned out hundreds of professional organizers over the years, and thousands of leaders from labor unions and communities across America have attended workshops at the Institute. The “Alinsky Method” has become the model for most community organizing groups in the United States and in other countries as well.

Two of these groups were the Developing Communities Project where Barack Obama served as director during his organizing career, and the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute, where he served as an instructor and consultant.

Alinsky’s influence extends, not only to community organizing, but to the Democratic Party as well. Hillary Clinton’s College thesis was written on the organizing work of Saul Alinsky and the political tactics of the Democratic Party over the past decade could have been taken directly from his book “Rules for Radicals”. You can also see the influence of the Alinsky method in the campaign rhetoric of Barack Obama. In “Rules for Radicals” Alinsky gives this advice for working inside the political system.

“There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”

It is this “attitude toward change” that Obama and the Democratic Party is attempting to bring about through their constant trashing of George W. Bush, the Republican Party, our economy, foreign policy, conduct of the War on Terror, Homeland Security, and every other action of the Bush administration.

The community organizing movement is not a monolithic group. It is made up of a number of independent groups tied loosely together by common ideals and goals. Among the best known are Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Direct Action and Research Training Center (DART).

What almost all community organizations have in common is their adherence to socialist principles and their promotion of victimhood. In laying the groundwork for a new community organization, organizers are trained to canvass the community to identify its most prevalent problems. After identifying the problems, they then hold community meetings where they convince attendees the root cause of their problems are in some way connected to the inherent unfairness of capitalism.

Whatever the problem, it is always caused by someone or some group other than the group experiencing the difficulty. Slums, drugs, poverty, crime and so forth are all caused by unscrupulous financial institutions, uncaring property owners, local politicians, or greedy corporate profiteers. The final steps in the process is to convince participants it is the responsibility of someone else to fix the problem—usually government—and then organize demonstrations, strikes, protests, boycotts, etc. to coerce businesses, governments and/or individuals to comply with their demands.

Community organizing is often credited with teaching communities how to do for themselves. Sometimes they do, but more often than not, they actually teach them how to coerce society to do it for them. When Obama speaks of his community organizing experiences, he is appealing to the tendencies of his audience to cheer when “Robin Hood” takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Somehow, I cannot see how this experience particularly qualifies him to be President. Perhaps, there is something I am missing?