The links from this provide some very interesting research on Obama’s dangerous far-left ideology:
Part Five of a series: "What did Barack Obama teach ACORN?" • Read the entire series: here
Ace community organizer Barack Obama has created a cadre to wrest power from The Establishment.
What does it take to be a good community organizer? When Barack Obama trained community organizers for an ACORN subsidiary, Project Vote, he taught from the 1971 book 'Rules for Radicals', by the late socialist Saul Alinsky.
Obama calls his Alinskyite experience "the best education I ever had." In the photo above-left, Obama is teaching Alinsky's principles of "Power Analysis" and "Relationships built on self-interest" as seen written upon the blackboard [click photo to enlarge.] This post contains another selection from Alinsky's "playbook of the Left."
In certain unscripted moments, Barack Obama has given us a glimpse of his socialist inclinations, but I wonder what percentage would vote for him if they truly understood the extent of his radicalism.
Yet the financial crisis has created a climate of fear and uncertainty and unleashed an unprecedented tolerance for large-scale government intervention, which is playing perfectly into Obama's hands. People are blaming this largely Democratic-spawned mess on Republicans because Bush is still president.
Maybe I'm being too much of an alarmist, but I'm worried for the first time in my life that the election of a presidential candidate could lead to a fundamental change in our system of government. Just listen to the comments of post-debate focus group members expressing a knowing willingness to accept Obama's socialism, such is their angst at the sub-prime mortgage mess.
Already some 38 percent of Americans do not pay income taxes, and Barack Obama wants to increase that percentage dramatically. How ironic that he and other Democrats pretend to be targeting their message to "working-class" people when many of their constituents aren't working. But such is class warfare that the upper-middle class and wealthy are demonized as not earning an honest living.
Do you suppose it has registered with class warfare-receptive Obama voters that Obama is deliberately turning the American dream on its head? Could it be any clearer that his message to the middle class is: Don't aspire to achievement, success and wealth because a) it is immoral to have more than others, b) the government will take your wealth away from you and give it to others, and c) why bother to bust your rear end to make more when you can vote yourselves money from the public trough?
Obama let slip his socialist proclivities to Joe the plumber when he denied he wanted to punish wealth and insisted he just wanted to spread the wealth around. Joe was justifiably repulsed by Obama's cavalier attitude toward the American dream.
The recent hubbub that helped sink a congressional earmark for a Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy at South Dakota State University intrigued the director of a Mitchell facility named for George McGovern, which benefited from nearly $3 million in federal money.
Dakota Wesleyan University’s George and Eleanor McGovern Library and Center for Leadership and Public Service was dedicated last year with the help of luminaries including former president Bill Clinton. Before the $8.5 million facility opened, it received three federal appropriations of just less than $1 million each.
At the time the McGovern funding was announced, it was not controversial. But this year, when $1 million for the Daschle center was inserted into a congressional spending bill, it sparked a brouhaha. Republicans in particular criticized the Daschle earmark as an abuse of the congressional funding process.
Don Simmons, director of the McGovern Center, said there was more to the Daschle controversy than a dispute about rules and abuses of the system.
Since earmarks were used by the Democrats in 2006 to argue that the Republicans were corrupt, I find this statement my Simmons more than a little phony:
Simmons said the economic value of places like the McGovern Library may be one reason they’re typically not criticized as wasteful places to spend government money.
"Earmarks are good for South Dakota," Simmons said. "Look at the economic impact of the McGovern Library, with the number of visitors it attracts and the new employees that the university hired, and multiply that over 30 or 40 years."
People in South Dakota recognize the value of such a facility, Simmons said, adding that the controversy over the Daschle earmark appeared to be driven by out-of-state politicians.
"My thought would be that this is some partisan ill feelings coming from out of state."
I can’t think of anything more partisan than those who say; if Republicans do it, it is wrong, if Democrats do it, it is OK.
My position is that earmarks are a violation of the traditional American principle of a limited government. Both sides are wrong by using the earmark process. And both sides are wrong when they promote the idea of "economic development" via government funding. The taxes used as the source of the funding is "economic undevelopment" to the taxpayers. Instead of those hard-working Americans spending their hard-erned money, the government takes it through taxes and spends it for us. And the government as gotten so big that the taxpayers don’t know how their money is being spent.
Clearly, economic development via the government is too much like socialism. And the idea that "Earmarks are good for South Dakota" is patently false. That mindset sets the tone that we cannot take care of ourselves. That defeatist mindset is "not" good for South Dakota. If government dependency is George McGovern’s legacy for South Dakota, then I am embarrassed.
A distinction not covered by the report is that the Daschle earmark was going to a public and secular University (SDSU). DWU is a private Methodist University. Can you imagine the outrage from the left if a Christian conservative was so honored with $3 million dollars going to a private religious organization. The out of state separation of church and state radicals would be crying foul, and perhaps be issuing a court challenge. Simmons needs to understand that partisan politics cuts both ways and is as much in state as it is out of state.
Socialized medicine is a popular buzz word lately, but ever heard of socialized socialism. Check out yesterday’s Argus Leader:
As lung cancer prods LeRoy Colledge toward his final days, he and his wife find some comfort in the help of a social worker.
Colledge, 76, was diagnosed with the disease in February and, in March, social worker Katie Bloom started visiting the couple. Colledge knows his wife, Marlene, will need to negotiate a perplexing trail of hospital bills and insurance paperwork when he's gone, and Bloom has helped answer questions and ease fears.
"We wouldn't know how to do it if it weren't for Katie," Colledge says. "She got it settled so Marlene can apply for my Social Security and insurance."
So it takes more government dependence to be a government dependent. Here is more:
Social workers such as Bloom cover a vast territory - from helping terminally ill patients to counseling married couples to dealing with troubled youths.
Hmmm…marriage and trouble youth. Sounds like family issues, And can’t family assist members that are terminally ill? I have experience dealing with government sponsored social workers in regard to troubled youth. They use the humanist psychological methods such as operate condition and reject those of use who rather use the guidance of the Bible. And since I was under the thumb of court ordered government problem, I was silenced with the "separation of church and state".
So now comes what happens when the humanists’ government dependency creates problems:
But South Dakota, a state already short on such professionals, faces a looming crisis. With more than 40 percent of the state's social workers older than 55 - among the highest rates in the country, according to the National Association of Social Workers - the state will need hundreds of new social workers during the next decade. At least dozens more are needed to meet current needs.
But South Dakota is the only state in the nation without a graduate degree program in social work, making it uniquely difficult for the profession to develop and keep home-grown talent.
The answer to government created problems…more government. And note that Governor Rounds has already increased funding to South Dakota Universities by over 50%.
Now here is some anti-family Cultural Marxism:
South Dakota commonly gets social workers by default. "Typically, the people who come to South Dakota come because their spouse has gotten a job here - it's the captive spouse syndrome," McMillin says.
Oh, the dreaded "captive spouse syndrome". After that anti-family statement comes this:
The dearth of trained people means that employees with little professional training are providing services in the most complex areas - on impoverished Native American reservations, in child welfare and at nursing homes, she says.
Medicare patients feel the brunt of the squeeze.
"Nationally, MSW's provide the bulk of mental health services, but that isn't true in South Dakota; there just aren't the numbers. Even when we try to recruit, we don't get any candidates," says Steve Lindquist, executive director of behavioral health services at Avera McKennan Hospital.
"I have 17 in the outpatient side. Of the 17, I have two" with master's degrees, he says. That's a problem for the hospital because Medicare - the federal health plan for seniors - only pays for mental health care if provided by staff with advanced degrees. Social workers with bachelor's degrees don't qualify. That hurts revenue and, by extension, limits services for patients.
Note "on impoverished Native American reservations, in child welfare and at nursing homes" are government dependents created by socialism. And due to Medicare rules, obtaining federal funds now will require more state funding of universities that will create masters programs that promote humanist indoctrination. Not only does that represents a double-edged sword that slices up taxpayers, it also promotes the idea that there is nothing wrong with this socialized socialism.
Comments are open for a discussion of solutions to this mess. May I start by promoting a boycott of the Argus Leader who ran this BS on their front-page Sunday edition.
Is private property the foundation of prosperity? America's founders were convinced that it is. For more than a century, the vast majority of Americans and their elected representatives were convinced that it is. In the last half-century, the majority of Americans and their elected representatives have lost sight of this fundamental principle of freedom, and have allowed governments at every level to take, or to take control of, the foundation of prosperity for all Americans.
Wayne Hage, who fought the federal government's confiscation of his property from 1978 until his death in 2006, said: "Either you have a right to own property, or you are property." There can be no question that land and its resources were intended to belong to the individuals who possessed it. The federal government was deliberately and expressly prohibited from owning land beyond the "10 miles square" capital and the land purchased, with the approval of state legislatures, for "... Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-yards and other needful Buildings. ..."
Even as the federal government acquired new lands, by purchase, treaty or conquest, the attitude of government was to get that land into the hands of private owners as quickly as possible, through laws such as the Homestead Act and other incentives.
But no more. Now, the government – at every level – seeks to acquire as much land as possible and, by regulation, to control all the land it has not yet acquired. Every square inch of land taken out of the private domain and every new government regulation over land use diminish the potential prosperity and destroy a measure of freedom for every American.
Were every congressman asked the question: "Is private property the foundation of prosperity?" only the out-of-the-closet socialists would disagree. But while the majority pays lip service to this principle of freedom, they continue to vote for legislation that takes private property from individuals and gives it to the government, or they vote for legislation that simply gives government control over private property.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 designated "navigable waters of the United States" to be under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers. "Navigable" was once defined to be water in which a canoe would float. But lawsuits brought by environmental organizations resulted in the courts redefining "navigable" to include virtually any land that is moist within 12-inches of the surface for seven consecutive days during the growing season. This so-called "wetlands" policy put more than 200 million acres of private property under the control of the federal government.
But that's not enough. Dozens of congressmen, most of whom would swear that private property is the foundation of prosperity, are co-sponsoring the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R.2421), which removes the word "navigable" from all references to the water under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This bill amends existing law:
by striking "navigable waters of the United States" each place it appears and inserting "waters of the United States";
The term "waters of the United States" means all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution.
This means that if rain falls on your land, the federal government can control the use of that land.
What's sad is the realization that the congressmen who are supporting this bill, and many, if not most, of their constituents, think that government control of land use is more important than the rights of the private owners whose land is being controlled. One might expect this attitude from people who were educated in a socialist school system. Perhaps, then, this attitude should come as no surprise.
Therefore, I think it's time to ask the Democrat presidential candidates some a key question: "Back in 1972, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. George McGovern proposed a $6,500 guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. Since then, Democrats have pushed up the minimum wage, but never again addressed this issue of a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. Thirty-six years later, what are your views of such a proposal? Is America ready for a guaranteed minimum income provided by the federal government?"
I don't want to put ideas in their wacky heads, but it's time to smoke out the socialists – get them to admit what they are and where they really want to take America.
They might deny such a plan. They might obfuscate. They might spin.
But it's worth a try.
McGovern's plan contributed to the biggest electoral defeat in American history. He lost even his home state of South Dakota, carrying only Massachusetts.
Star Parker explains that the leadership of today’s Democrats are moving to the ultra far-left:
A popular term of left wing spin-meisters these days is "progressive."
Liberalism did not fall from favor like an out of vogue restaurant or some fad. It lost its glow because facts show it doesn't work.
I am talking about the liberal idea that government is the answer to our problems. Tax here and spend there, take from this one and redistribute to that one, and you can solve any social or economic problem.
Ironically, globally, as China, India and Africa see the light of day by shedding government controls and planning, this is where our Democrats want to take us.
There has been ink about the Democratic candidates snubbing the annual meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, which represents the moderate wing of the party, while they plan to attend a bloggers convention sponsored by the ultra-left website DailyKos.
And here is why I call them the lying left:
You can argue as several have that in the general election the Democratic nominee will scurry back toward the center. But today, every Democratic candidate is entrenched unapologetically in the far left.
So the con job by these far-left extremists in the general election will be that they are "moderates" and that those damn Republicans are a bunch of extremists. The truth is that these so-called "progressives" are actually secular humanists. And what they call extremists are those of us who want to restore America’s traditional American principles of a limited government and self-government with rights that come from God. Star Parker explains it this way:
Someone recently e-mailed me the following wonderful quote from Rabbi Daniel Lapin, head of an organization called Toward Tradition:
"Politics is nothing more than the practical application of our most deeply held beliefs."
The deeply held belief of the left, that government can solve the problems of the poor, destroyed black families and black communities.
The deeply held beliefs of conservatives – faith, traditional values, work and personal responsibility – is restoring these families and communities.
The left may talk today about courting values voters. But big-government values voters is an oxymoron.
The country now is at a real crossroads, and we're going to have to wake up if we care about our children.
The failures of the welfare state and social engineering go beyond poor black women.
Now I point back to my previous point about Senator John Thune’s vote to prevent further big government socialism.
I found this John Hawkins column that I would like to use as the foundation to a discussion on socialized medicine. Here is the introduction:
It takes a lot more integrity, character, and courage to be a conservative than it does to be a liberal. That's because at its most basic level, liberalism is nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.
Going to war is mean, so we shouldn't do it. That person is poor and it would be nice to give him money, so the government should do it. Somebody wants to have an abortion, have a gay marriage, or wants to come into the U.S. illegally and it would be mean to say, "no," so we should let them. I am nice because I care about global warming! Those people want to kill us? But, don't they know we're nice? If they did, they would like us! Bill has more toys, money than Harry, so take half of Bill's money and give it to Harry.
The only exception to this rule is for people who aren't liberals. They're racists, bigots, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, etc., etc., etc. They might as well just say that conservatives have "cooties" for disagreeing with them, because there really isn't any more thought or reasoning that goes into it than that.
Now, that's not to say that conservatives never make emotion based arguments or that emotion based arguments are always wrong. But, when you try to deal with complex, real world issues, using little more than simplistic emotionalism that's primarily designed to make the people advocating it feel good rather than to deal with problems, it can, and often has had disastrous consequences. Liberals never seem to learn from this.
The column goes on to relate this to the Iraq War issue. It is worth reading. But instead I would like to take this to the universal health care issue. Bob Ellis has been discussing this on his Dakota Voice blog. This not to be confused with his Dakota Voice web site, which I have as one of my "Links". He has a link to his blog there. I have also added a link to his blog in my blog roll. Go there often, he has been doing some great posts, such as his recent posts on health care.
On February 13, the Rapid City Journal ran Bob’s column on South Dakota’s interest in the "Zaniya Project":
There are rumblings from within the Legislature of major changes in health care for South Dakota.
While the exact nature of what is being planned has been kept under wraps so far, more of that picture may have been revealed by the time this is published. SB131, a shell of a bill that is empty of specifics, was scheduled for a committee hearing Monday.
The bill does state that it would "require that all state residents obtain health insurance, to provide assistance to those who cannot afford health insurance, and to provide penalties for those who can afford health insurance but do not have health insurance."
I don’t know about you, but that language makes me very concerned. Did I mention that I was very concerned?
Several health care experts testified before the House and Senate Health and Human Services Committees on Jan. 24 regarding what is being called the "Zaniya Project."
When considering our options, we should remember the examples of countries such as Canada and England where nationalized health care has proven to be a disaster.
Canadian wait times for treatment can be double or more what we see in the U.S. In 2003, the average wait time was 17.7 weeks.
Having lived under the military model of health care and a nationalized health system in England, I’ve seen first hand the gross inefficiency of such systems.
Once, when I had food poisoning, I sat in the waiting room for hours before seeing a British doctor. I’ve also seen people waste hours going to the doctor just to get free cough syrup that could have been bought in a few minutes for a handful of dollars over the counter.
Government involvement is the kiss of death to efficiency. And when you make something "free," or reduce the cost so as to make it financially painless to use, it will quickly become over-used. Insurance has already made this a problem, and has undermined the close scrutiny that once fought waste and over-billing.
The legislators and people of South Dakota need to be very wary when monkeying with our health care system.
The current model is a mess, but with the seductive idea of "free" health care, and the current societal tendency to throw fuel on the fire with more socialism, there is always the threat that things could go from bad to worse.
Ellis posts a letter to the editor that responded to his column. Here is an excerpt:
Can't these right-wing Republicans be honest (just once) about where they're really at? They believe it's a dog-eat-dog world and as long as they get theirs, to hell with everyone else. Instead, they cloak their selfishness in flowery phrases about the 'free market,' while attacking the poor and working poor as too stupid to take care of themselves.
This is the typical far-left emotional crap that the Hawkins column addressed at the top of this post. Ellis exposes the hypocrisy of the lying left with this response:
Oh, and it's socialists who think people are too stupid to take care of themselves. People doing for themselves, rather than relying on government to do it for them, is exactly what I advocated in my column. This lady can't even manage to stay consistent in her hatred for the free market.
Yes, Bob Ellis knows how to respond by not playing defense, but to instead point out the truth. In this case, it is the socialists who are attacking the poor with the thought that they are incapable of taking care of themselves.
Later Bob posts an email he received from Todd Epp regarding the issue. Epp actually provided this reasoned and rational response:
I think that national health care will invigorate capitalism not harm it. If every person is covered, either by a national plan or private insurance, then we will be a healthier nation. There will be cost savings because people won't wait to go to the doctor or the E.R. until they are in a very bad way, when it is most expensive to treat them.
Nice try Todd, but Bob explains why you are wrong:
Todd's scenario on a NHS might work in a perfect world (the one socialists want), but then socialist ideals always work well in their minds, but never do in the real world.
The reason it won't work is because of the very thing Todd said: "...people won't wait to go to the doctor or the E.R. until they are in a very bad way..." No, they'll go anytime they feel the slightest sniffle or headache, just like they do in countries that have a NHS (England, Canada, etc). That will make costs go into orbit, not to mention the time you have to wait for treatment.
These statements I make aren't just based on a guess about human nature and how socialism "might work." There are all the examples we need in the two countries I mentioned above. Statistics show it, and I've seen it first hand. Bloated, bureaucratic systems that suck money light a black hole and inefficiencies that frustrate people and leave some to die waiting for treatment.
Todd Epp did a post on this exchange, but instead of offering a meaningful response as a rebuttal or instead admit that his socialist idea is wrong, her refers to Bob as his "favorite dark side lower companion" because:
Unlike some Rightwing bloggers, after Bob calls me a socialist, he smiles.
So Epp’s response is exactly what Hawkins said about the emotional left. They can’t accept that fact that their socialist ideas are wrong. Instead Epp resorts to the childlike argument that the name calling hurts feelings and is not civil. So go tell mommy Todd. (FYI: I smiled when I wrote that.)
RUSH: I love this next story. Headline says it all, but there's some great quotes in here. "European Socialists Eager to Work With US Democrats." American Democrats are not smart enough to understand that this doesn't make them look good. They don't get it. In fact, John Kerry's presidential campaign pretty much said these are the people we must run our global tests by before we defend ourselves.
The story is from Oporto, Portugal. "European Socialists promised on Thursday to work to rebuild Europe's strategic alliance with the United States now that the Democrats control Congress after last month's elections. Socialist leaders attending a meeting of the European Socialist Party pledged that with the Democrats on the rise, strong ties could be renewed with the United States after years of cool relations with Republican President George W. Bush. Howard Dean, chairman of the national committee of the U.S. Democratic Party, is attending the two-day conference together with the leaders of leftist governments of several countries and party leaders from across Europe. 'We are not anti-American, we want the real America, your America,' former Danish Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, president of the European Socialist Party, said in remarks directed at Dean. (Laughing.)
"'Europe needs an America that is back on track,' said Portuguese Socialist Prime Minister Jose Socrates, whose country is hosting the meeting. 'We need, today more than ever, to reinforce and renew the strategic alliance between the United States and Europe,' Socrates said. 'We know that a stronger Democratic Party is key for this to happen.' Socialists, or centre-left governments, currently hold or share power in just over half of Europe. ... Socrates said Dean's Democrats 'should know that they can count on European Socialists' for support."
Now, I know it's funny in its own right, but let's put it in perspective and in some context. The Democrats are doing everything they can here to fight their leftist image. To win the House they had to nominate a bunch of conservative Democrats to go out and talk about, "I love Jesus! Jesus is my man and I love God and I am pro-life, and I also love my guns, bang, bang." These guys go out there and get elected as conservative Democrats, all for the purpose of securing leadership positions for these far leftists that run the House on the Democrat side.
So the Democrats are trying to fight their leftish image by claiming to be church going, troop supporting, economic conservatives and their party chairman flies off to Europe to attend a socialist convention, where the socialists are happy. "Finally we can work with America again. We're eager to work with the real America." Socialist America, via US Democrats. Sort of a mixed message, isn't it? I mean, when you put these blue dogs, the conservative Democrats up to run for office as conservative Democrats and then after you secure them, run off and have tea or maybe read a little Karl Marx with western European socialists.