Sharron Angle New Video: Now it's Our Turn

Listening to the manic chants takes me back to a very unpleasant 2008, and election night when the sun set on the American dream.

Thanks to ConservativeValidity

 

Sharron Angle - Now It's our Turn

The Celebration of Class Warfare

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

On October 2, 2010 so-called Labor Leaders, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Code Pink, and other Moonbat Idiots Members of the far-left gathered at the Lincoln Memorial to condemn the United States, Glen Beck, The Tea Party, and the people who attended and supported the Restoring Honor event with the One Nation Rally.

I was not at either event but Robert Ringer was.  These are his observations on the October 2nd rally:

The weather was perfect — 72 degrees and sunny — for the "One Nation Working Together" rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Oct. 2. I was determined to go with an open mind because I wanted to try to understand what would motivate someone to attend an event sponsored by unions and self-proclaimed socialist and communist groups.

The first time I heard about the rally the thought crossed my mind how embarrassing it was that union bosses and their counterparts in a wide variety of extremist, left-wing organizations would put on an event to counter one sponsored by a television commentator, Glenn Beck. It was like a third-grader trying to one-up a popular rival on the playground.

Of course, the organizers would now deny they were responding to Beck’s 8/28 Restoring Honor event, but that in itself would be embarrassing given that they’ve been talking about it being their answer to his hugely successful rally since they first came up with the idea. On Saturday, I only heard bits and pieces of a few speeches, but at least one of the speakers shouted, "Somebody tell Glenn Beck there are more people here than at his event."

The rally started at noon and, as planned, I arrived in Washington just before 2:00 p.m. As I entered D.C. from the Virginia side, the first thing I noticed was that people were walking away from the rally site in droves. Not a good sign for an event that was scheduled to last until 4:00 p.m.

As I stopped at the first light after coming across the Teddy Roosevelt Bridge, I glanced to my left and was surprised to see a number of vacant parking spaces on 23rd Street — something unheard of in a city where you can drive around for an hour in search of a parking spot. I did a quick left onto 23rd and promptly backed into one of the available spaces.

My wife and I then started walking toward the Lincoln Memorial, an easy trek compared to the exhausting walk we had endured for the 8/28 Restoring Honor rally when the closest parking we could find was at the Willard Hotel on 14th Street. As we walked toward the Lincoln Memorial, people wearing T-shirts emblazoned with logos and wording in keeping with the theme of the rally continued streaming by us in the opposite direction.

On arriving at the site the first thing I did was try to estimate the crowd size, which I’ve become pretty adept at. This particular case, however, was unusually difficult because of the nonstop flow of people leaving the event early. At any given time, however, I estimated that the density of the crowd ranged from one-fifth to one-tenth that of the Restoring Honor gathering.

At the Beck rally it was strictly shoulder-to-shoulder, virtually impossible to walk in most places. That crowd was no less than 500,000 — and perhaps as high as 750,000. But one of the many differences with the 8/28 event was that virtually everyone stayed until the rally was officially over. They were there by choice.

To be as fair as possible, I generously factored in the large number of people who had departed two hours or more before I arrived at the One Nation rally and came up with a crowd estimate of between 75,000 to 150,000 — far more than the 30,000 to 50,000 I had guessed might show up. Clearly, I had underestimated the power of union bosses handing down mandates to their rank and file to attend.

But to me the crowd size didn’t really matter, because they were two totally different events. Beck is just one individual — a radio and television personality — who produced a rally (primarily using his own money) with a theme of restoring honor to America and to honor fallen U.S. soldiers. By contrast, the 10/2 event was a political rally sponsored by a wide array of well-funded, far-left organizations.

The big question is not who had the largest crowd; that wasn’t even close. The more important question is why rally organizers like Al Sharpton would be so focused on trying to show the public they could outdraw a media personality.

To the crowd’s credit, though the signs and rhetoric were brazenly anti-freedom and anti-free market, people were generally well behaved, though clearly lacking in enthusiasm. To their discredit, however, trash was everywhere, which I have found to be a trademark of those on the left — especially the environmental crowd.

Again, by contrast, it was hard to find any trash on the ground at Beck’s 8/28 event. There are many conjectures I could draw from this observation, but due to space limitations, I’ll leave that psychological endeavor up to you.

Tabloid-size "newspapers" were all over the place. One was called The Militant, which featured the headline: "Public education is a birth right, not a corporate profit."

Another one, Challenge: The Revolutionary Communist Newspaper of Progressive Labor Party, sported a logo that read "Fight for Communism." Mind you, this was a rally called "One Nation Working Together" — in the capital city of the United States of America!

Then there were the signs:

* "Wages that are rightfully ours."

* "We demand $$$ for jobs and education."

* "The American Dream promises a free education."

* "Black Is Back."

* "Capitalism is failing. Socialism is the answer."

At one of the many tables where books were being sold I wrote down such titles as Bolshevism, What Is Marxism, The Communist Manifesto, Four Marxist Classics and Black Liberation and Socialism. Quite an array of reading material for an event titled "One Nation Working Together."

Then there were the pamphlets, with such patriotic verbiage as:

* "Fight for a Two-Year National Moratorium to Halt All Foreclosures and Evictions."

* "Jobs for All! Public-Works Program Now!"

* "Make the bosses pay for their crisis!"

I could fill a book with what I saw at the rally, but to me the bottom line is this: The Oct. 2 "One Nation Working Together" event was simply a celebration of that age-old disease, class warfare. Unwittingly, the hate peddlers who promoted it provided a public-service by letting us know they are still out there, alive and well. And they are poised and ready to bring down the American way of life — especially freedom and the free-market system.

As I walked back up 23rd Street after my short stay at the rally, the little security guard inside my brain whispered to me, "This was a reminder that America is irrevocably split into those who want to put a stop to the government’s policy of redistributing wealth and those who demand that the government use force to give them even more of other people’s wealth.

The latter group (which I estimate at nearly one-third of the current U.S. population) is fully prepared to sell their souls to a totalitarian regime in exchange for the "stuff" they think they deserve. I’m not sure how they define deserve, but it matters not. What does matter, sadly, is that they are nothing more than pawns in a power game that has existed probably since the Neolithic Age.

These pawns have long been referred to — by everyone from George Orwell to Alvin Toffler to Saul Alinsky — as the Have-Nots. This is what the "One Nation Working Together" rally was all about, nothing more and nothing less. It’s an old theme that will continue to be with us until the last breath of humankind has been extinguished.

And the truth that many people do not want to believe is that there is no solution to the problem. The only hope is containment. Right now, a majority of Americans are poised to push back and try to contain the radical left from bringing down the curtain on capitalism and individual sovereignty. But no matter what happens on Nov. 2, no one should be deluded into believing the war is over. The war will never be over.

Start preparing your mind now for what’s coming after Nov. 2, and teach your children what Ronald Reagan said back in 1964:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

After what I saw and heard in D.C. on Oct. 2, I can vouch for the Dutchman’s words.

Although many news agencies and networks claim that the picture below is of the 10/2 rally, in reality it is of the 8/28 rally.  The left is losing on all fronts and can only produce lies to feed the people.

On November 2nd the people will tell the leftist elites a loud message.

Steve King: America's in the Abyss of Socialism: Republicans Pledge to Check Bills Against Constitution

This is such, such encouraging news. Rep. Steve King (R-IW) says Republicans will check legislation against its constitutionality. It's in the Pledge with America, he said it was not his idea, but he is excited about it. He won't be the only one, hopefully, and I believe we can count on the Tea Partiers to take names and kick butts (so to speak). King speaks frankly and says we are "in the abyss of Socialism." You know it. I know it. It's already here. It  is a new day dawning in America. See the video below.

Steve King

If we have wondered if anyone in Congress feels as intensely emotional about the state of our Nation, as we do, King says he has seen grown men with tears rolling down their cheeks at what is happening to our country. Okay, maybe those men were not members of Congress. Maybe they were Tea Partiers. I don't know, but you can tell he has been affected by the Tea Party movement, and he greatly respects it. Yes, it is a new day, longtime coming, in the United States of America. This video courtesy of Human Events. Adam Tragone, the Managing Editor is the interviewer.



Rep. Steve King on the Abyss of Socialism - we're in it! (video)
Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

The Socialist Video

The Socialist video, courtesy of The Ben Howe blog, via Hot Air.

Over the subsequent two years the nation moved inexorably – though rarely without battle – toward European-style socialism. Through the warring perspectives of a few powerful, deluded men and women who claim to know what’s best for you, we reached a national drama rife with both bureaucracy-creation and wealth destruction.

The Socialist moved from the halls of academia to the offices of ACORN to a pew in Chicago, and eventually all the way to the oval office, all the while spurred on by the heady early days of a culture-changing phenomenon in the making. In the midst of the chaos and mounting disasters, average American citizens began to object, eventually adding up to more than the sum of their parts in what has become a multi-front, 21st century clash of worldviews.

The Socialist

Directed by Ben Howe. Post-Producution by Caleb Howe.

Based on a script written by Karl Marx. Screenplay conceived by The Sixties.

Edited by History. Starring Barack Obama as The Socialist.

The Socialist Video

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Obama and the Gang - Top 20 Socialist Sound Bites

I think I've posted most of these, but it's nice to have them all in one place. Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, Howard Dean, Van Jones, Max Baucus, and more! Hey America - these are the folks you elected to lead us on the path to communism. Please pay attention next time. Unless you want to live as a slave. Then by all means, keep voting for these people.



Cross posted at The Lonely Conservative

Howard Dean Wants Global Social Justice - Global New Deal

This video is a collage of Howard Dean advocating for Social Justice through a Global 'New Deal.'  One way to create Social Justice is through environmental changes (like Cap and Trade).  Hear him congratulate a "stronger European Socialism." America, this is today's Democrat Party. See the video below.

Howard Dean is physician, a 2004 Democrat presidential nominee and former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a former Governor of the state of Vermont (the only state represented by a self-identified Socialist).

After viewing the video, do you think Obama disagrees with any statement made by Dean?


Howard Dean on Social Justice (video)
H/T to Glenn Beck's TheBlaze.com

DOJ New Website Banner: Janet Reno Eric Holder Both Fond of New Quote

Old Glory has been removed from the Department of Justice (DOJ) website banner and replaced with a black background and white print. A new motto now resides on the webpage - a quote of which its origins are not completely certain, but were greatly admired by former Attorney General Janet Reno in January 2001, something she and Eric Holder apparently have in common. The quote is usually attributed to C. Wilfred Jenks, a Director-General of the U.N.'s International Labor Organization which busies itself with "the promotion of social justice."

Old DOJ Banner

New DOJ Banner

The common law is the will of Mankind issuing from the Life of the People

C. Wilfred Jenks, a Brit and a former Director-General of the International Labour Organization from 1970 to 1973, died in 1973. Anonymous DOJ "career lawyers" have differing opinions of the quotations author. C. Wilfred Jenks is known by conservatives for facilitating "a greater role for socialists and communists at the U.N.," and the global "workers rights movement, but no one is completely confident of the author. Some suggest the quote may have been placed on the building under the authority of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Some believe it was adapted from the writings of Sir William Blackstone. The American Spectator has the story:

Most telling: Jenks, as director of the ILO is credited with putting in place the first Soviet senior member of the UN organization, and also with creating an environment that allowed the ILO to give "observer status" to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and to issue anti-Israeli statements, which precipitated efforts by the U.S. Congress to withdraw U.S. membership from the ILO. The U.S. actually did withdraw in the mid-1970s due to the organization's leftist leanings.

"It was Jenks's efforts that helped make the ILO a tool of the socialist and communist movement," says one of the DOJ lawyers. "We used to joke about how fitting it was that this was Janet Reno's favorite quote to use in speeches, and now the Obama folks think it encapsulates out department's mission."

The quote that now resides on the website is etched into the wall "of the 9th Street gate," of the DOJ, according to Janet Reno:

There is, on the wall of the 9th Street gate, a saying that I have come to rely on again and again. It says, "The common law derives from the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people, framed by mutual confidence, and sanctioned by the light of reason."

Unless the law issues from all of the people, some of the people will feel left out. They will come to feel alienated. They will be angry. And this will not be a cohesive democracy. If you don't care about that, they will feel left out, alienated, and they will not have the opportunities that others have to skills, to jobs, to opportunity. That will only hurt America.

About Jenks from the International Labour Organization:

He held honorary degrees from many universities throughout the world. He lectured at the British Academy and the Universities of Georgia and Yale and was five times visiting professor at the Hague Academy of International Law. He was one of the international advisers to the American Law Institute on the drafting of its Statement of Essential Human Rights, one of the texts which served as a basis for drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

C. Wilfred Jenks was the author of numerous books with titles that champion globalism. Here are a few:

Law, Freedom and Welfare

International Law in a Changing Word, Orthodoxy and Innovation in the Law of Nations

The World beyond the Charter in Historical Perspective: A Tentative Synthesis of Four States of World Organization

A New World of Law: A Study of the Creative Imagination in International Law

I mentioned that Janet Reno is fond of the quotation, and it happens that Eric Holder introduced Reno on January 15, 2001 - the day she made the comment about the quote on the 9th Street Wall of the DOJ. Additional Source.

Thank you Larwyn! for the email and the link.

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Socialists in Congress: 70 Socialists in U.S. Congress

WHO ARE THE SOCIALIST IN ELECTED OFFICE TODAY:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is apparently considered a part of the Democrat Socialists of America (DSA). The Jeremiah Project says the group:

"has gone underground in respect to their connection to the Democratic Socialists of America. Their roster is no longer published on the DSA website and they no longer publicly acknowledge their loyalty to the socialist organization.

That being said, the following Scribd document is dated 10/1/09 and is identified as the American Socialist Voter  - Dem Soc of America. So are socialists inside Capitol Hill out of the closet and joining Bernie Sanders?


 Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA [Democrat Socialists of America]?

 A: Seventy

 Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee

 A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?

A See the listing below

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raul M. Grijalava (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane atson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sanchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. Jose Serrano (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Fair use notice cited from Congressional Progressive Caucus and Tysk News

H/T Gateway Pundit via Ace of Spades

Iowa Billboard Controversy: Conservatives Flogging Conservatives

The North Iowa Tea Party is now the albatross of the Tea Party movement.  Conservatives and Republicans need something to feel guilty about. This week it's the Hitler-Obama-Lenin billboard. You can feel the angst about this wayward group - we are not racist, that billboard should not have gone up! I ask why not?

And who among Democrats cared that Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MI) compared President G. W. Bush to Hitler and said the White House was involved in the 9/11 attacks? There are so many examples of Democrat rallies comparing Bush to Hitler that I'll just refer you to this blog which has many documented photos, links to others and says he/she had a front row seat to these rallies 2003-2008. This particular blog was written in August 2009 and isn't addressing the billboard, but other outcries from Liberals including Nancy Pelosi almost a year ago.

The argument is, just because the Left does it, doesn't make it right for the Right to do it. I agree, but that is not what this billboard did. I see it this way:

The billboard is not racist. It does not compare Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler or Vladimir Lenin, although it would be reasonable to do so now that we've seen the Obama agenda. It highlights three types of socialism and socialists, including Barack Obama, and points out the three are radicals and prey[ed] on the "fearful and naive."

Like, suing Arizonans who are fearful, but no longer naive about their government's failure to protect them from theft, murder, rape, kidnapping and human trafficking, and dirty needles on landowner's property.

Like Philadelphia voters who were threatened at the polls, some not voting because of it - and then slammed by Obama and Holder protecting the New Black Panthers rather than the voter - that protection ranging to simply not prosecuting Blacks who commit voter intimidation and/or fraud because they are Black. It makes me fearful. I fear for my country. It was reported yesterday that the NAACP was working with the DOJ on the dismissal of the Black Panthers case...and they call TEA parties racist!

Like New Yorkers strongly against holding the trial of one of highest-profile Islamic terrorists in the War on Terror in downtown New York. Holder and Obama were determined to do it. Now, the KSM trial just looms. No one knows where it will be. No one wants it in the U.S. If you live in the area of a trial of this magnitude, most might feel some intimidation. Who knows what kind of riff-raff that trial will bring to the neighborhood? Who knows who will prey on the people?

Like forcing all of America to purchased mandated health insurance, except for Congress and Unions, and Obama's new czar over medicaid and medicare, Donald Berwick. He worked his own deal with his own non-profit charity, paid himself $2.3 million, and then bestowed lifetime health care for him and his wife. He's the guy that believes rationing healthcare is "romantic," and he has assured us we will have rationing. But he scams a charity which obviously has significant tax benefits (at least until Obama's tax hikes arrive). I believe many Americans feel intimidated and anxious about their unwanted ObamaCare. I feel fearful about the Court's decision when the constitutionality of the law hits the bench. How could I not?

Just as Hitler and Lenin murdered, Obama is using taxpayer money to fund abortions. One of his first acts as a president was to overturn the Mexico City policy which denied U.S. taxpayer dollars for abortion outside our borders. Instantly you and I were funding abortion. When I think about it...that my money is used for taking the life of the unborn, it chills me. Yesterday we learned that the health care legislation will indeed allow taxpayers to fund abortions inside the U.S. In fact, $160 million is already designated for a Pennsylvania program to put an insurance program in place for abortions. I'm paying for murder.

I feel preyed upon by this predatory president.

We cannot grow our businesses because we know taxes and regulations will be leveled with a brutal hand. We cannot improve our properties, buy a nice car, take that wedding anniversary trip, buy a second home...until we know whats coming next. We think we know a VAT tax is descending. We do know that tax cuts are disappearing. Nothing looks good for our financial futures at this time.

I feel preyed upon by this predatory president.

We believe we are going to be forced to bailout dying liberal rags all over the country. A $10 billion bailout for teachers unions was hidden in a military funding bill, and the administration wants even more for "the teachers union." Today a gigantic financial "reform" bill was passed. The bill will be signed next week, but reform for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the root of the housing meltdown, were nowhere to be found. Jacob Lew, the new czar of Financial Reform said just last year that if the rest of the world didn't adhere to the same reforms, American business' would flee the country. It will be too expensive to stay here, and small business' and small banks will be the hardest hit. The Wall Street Journals says this bill "will hit small business' hard."

Don't you feel preyed upon by this predatory president?

James Carville Poll Nails Obama a Socialist and Too Liberal

Uber-Liberal James Carville and Stan Greenberg's Democracy Corp poll has 33% of likely voters saying "a socialist" describes Barack Obama "very well." Another 22% say "a socialist" describes Obama "well." If two plus two is four, then 55% of likely voters believe our president is a socialist. Fifty-six percent say he is too liberal.

Carville Poll - Obama a Socialist

From The Campaign Spot:

On “too liberal,” 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 21 percent say “well,” 21 percent say “not too well,” and 17 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal.

When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.” 

In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.

In less than a year-and-a-half Obama has gone from Messiah to Socialist, or maybe it's a Socialist Messiah?

We can take this poll seriously because Carville's partner Stan Greenberg is considered:

”...the De Niro of all political consultants,” and ”an unrivaled international ‘guru’.” Esquire Magazine named him one of the most important people of the 21st century. The New York Times writes that Greenberg "acts as a sort of people's truth squad," while The New Republic describes Stan Greenberg’s list of clients as a "who's who in center-left world leaders."

Republican pollster Frank Luntz says "Stan Greenberg scares the hell out of me. He doesn't just have a finger on the people's pulse; he's got an IV injected into it. He's the best." 

So friends we can believe the good news in this poll.

Jeremiah Wright Praises Socialism, Marxism

Jeremiah Wright is speaking (or reading) to the New York Society for Ethical Culture in 2009 - and is speaking of their publications. He praises them for filling an invaluable purpose, specifically the socialist perspective. He says they fill an incredible void in critical thinking, and loves their idea of "no nonsense marxism." He speaks of Martin Luther King, and recently said King was wrong to advocate for non-violence.  Wright appears to hate everything about this country, and the only thing a White can do to please him, is leave the U.S. So has he called for black on white violence - a battle cry maybe, by invoking MLK? Are we moving into the return of the Black Power era and has Wright embraced it?

Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright

In this video, Wright speaks of Martin Luther King and the victims of King's "famous menage a trois: militarism, capitalism, and racism." Wright is an advocate of Black Liberation Theology, which is a part of Black Power movements, and many believers seem to have embraced Islam, including members of the New Black Panthers. Does Jeremiah Wright and the huge congregation he pastored, stand with the New Black Panthers?

Listen as he says "after all we are a Christian country," and listen to the chatter in the audience. Visit the New York Society for Ethical Culture here. See links to background on Jeremiah Wright below the video.

A reader, Sara, brought up a salient point that I first misunderstood Wright's comments about the "menange a trois." After more research, I accept that. It seems I succumbed to the belief that MLK was really more conservative in his thinking, that he explored what capitalism meant, but did not damn it, and I believed that while he suffered for the treatment of Blacks, he did not hate Whites or the U.S. As I dig deeper, I'm ready to concede that none of that may be true. We can't know whom MLK would have stood with today. Maybe he would have embraced Black Liberation Theology and Jeremiah Wright. I'll note once more though - Wright recently said MLK was wrong to advocate non-violence. 







Jeremiah Wright Praises Socialism, Marxism and Zings MLK (video)

Related and background:Jeremiah Wright on Martin Luther King's call for Non-Violence - Not Wright's Cup of Tea
Jeremiah Wright Accepts ONLY a God of White Destruction
Jeremiah Wright Publishes CAIR Founder's Manifesto
Linked byThe Lonely ConservativeSultan Knish by Daniel Greenfield

Obama: At a certain point you've made enough money! Video

Straight from Obama's Marxist, fire-breathing, racist mouth, he strays off-teleprompter, and we hear it from him - he who made $5.5 million in 2009, there comes a time when we've made enough money. See video below.

From the video:

[OBAMA] We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

"The core responsibilities" - like sharing our wealth? Like he told Joe the Plumber, to help "the guy behind us?" Americans do not have a responsibility to grow the economy. When we take care of our business, the economy grows. The responsibility to ourselves and our families, our church and the other private and charitable outreaches we choose to make - those are our responsibilities.

Obama is so steeped in collectivism, that he doesn't have a clue how this country works, or the fight he will face as we take this country back from him.

Hear great commentary from The Great One, Mark Levin in the video below.



Obama: You've made enough money! (video)

Linked by The Camp of the Saints - Thank you!
Linked by Storm'n Norm'n - Thanks Norm!

Others talking:

  Hot Air

The Lonely Conservative

John Dingell: ObamaKare Will Control the People

According to Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), only a little time is needed before ObamaKare can "control the people."

Rep. John Dingell admits ObamaKare will Control the People (video)

Ronald Reagan on Socialism and Democrats 100-Year Quest for Health Care

Democrats say the health care legislation they just passed has been in the works for 100 years. In this video or in the transcript below, Ronald Reagan, at a time much like today was battling against socialized medicine. He gives us some of this 100 years of history. See a video below.

I was struck by Reagan's urgings to write to our Congress..."demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system." He said "you and I can do this." The fact is, that day is over for America. You and I tried. Congress faced over 100,000 phones calls an hour, for day. We tried and we could not do it.

Ronald Reagan (artist J. Lawrence Lind)

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it...

And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine. In Washington day, 40,000 letters, less than a hundred per congressman, are evidence of a trend in public thinking. ~ Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan - Socialism - Coffee Cup Operation

Transcript - thank you to New Reagan Revolution:

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

 But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this. 

 So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the progam after that.” Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.

They say: “Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicince. Capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now, Congressman Ferrand is no longer a congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill, by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade a hundred and twenty seven million of our citicizens in just ten years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

 Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say “What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one’s has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried, to see if it works, they have introduced this King Bill which is really the Ferrand Bill.

What is the Kerr-Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it is provided from the federal government money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says “we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone; regardless of whether they’re worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.” I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-Congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time – socialized medicine. 

 James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations. ”  They want to attach this bill to Social Security. And they say here is a great insurance program now instituted, now working. Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of saving that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end Social Security was adopted. But it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

 But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. 

I know how I’d feel, if you my fellow citizens decided that to be an actor, I had to become a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband, all of us can see what happens – once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school, where he will go or what they will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell them where he will go to work and what he will do. In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of the men, the founding fathers - for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.

This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities. What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.  In Washington today, 40,000 letters, less than a hundred per congressman, are evidence of a trend in public thinking.

Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.” So write, and if your this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

End Reagan Transcript

Devin Nunes Health Care: The Ghost of Communism - A Socialist Utopia

You must listen to these words from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) from the floor of the House today. This is a short video and Nunes had a powerful comment. Here is one snippet:

Today Democrats in this House finally lay the corner stone of their socialist utopia on the backs of the American People

Follow Live Blogging all the way through the final vote here.


Rep. Devin Nunes The Ghost of Communism - a Socialist Utopia (video)

Linked by The Lonely Conservative - Thank You!

Bill O'Reilly Obama Bashing and Socialism: Rush Limbaugh on O'Reillys Pandering

Bill O'Reilly discussed Obama Bashing and Socialism this week, and compared the Bush Bashing of the last administration, to that of what speakers at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) are doing this week in Washington, D.C. Rush Limbaugh worked this latest O'Reilly fetish into his program today. See two videos below.

Bill O'Reilly interviews Barack Obama

Does Obama Bashing accomplish anything, O'Reilly asked. One of his examples of bashing at CPAC, was Mitt Romney announcing that Lindsay Vonn lost her Olympic Gold Medal because Obama is going downhill faster than her. There were more pithy quips, but you get the idea.

O'Reilly is dead-on perfect when he talks about children, the crimes against children, the punishment of those who abuse children, and the judges who enable the abusers...there is nobody better than O'Reilly, but when he wants an interview with an important personage, he is tolerant of mammoth indecencies, and he desperately wants another interview with Barack Obama.

O'Reilly fails to grasp the urgency most of us feel about this President. He doesn't see the edge of the precipice that you and I see looming. He doesn't see Obama standing there, signing executives orders or worse, with Nancy and Harry, none-too-gently dragging us to the extremity of the world we know, where the President will plant his well-heeled size 12 Allen Edmonds on our posteriors, and tip us over into the spirit-stifling cosmos of socialism, where statist omnipotence cannot be escaped.

When O'Reilly speaks of Socialism, he characterizes it correctly, as you'll see in the second video below, but he is far too mild about the dangers we face. He spends a lot of time talking about out-of-control government spending, but fails to tie it to the agenda of a committed Socialist, or worst. The two are not separate. Socialism depends on mammoth spending.

So here is where Rush Limbaugh comes in. Today a caller said she and her husband began listening to Limbaugh about one year ago when Barack Obama advised the country to stop listening to people like "Rush."  You know how O'Reilly states his position, and then asks his guest where he is going wrong? Rush tries that with the caller, Sharon. She doesn't play along well, but that isn't important. Here is where Rush went with conversation:

RUSH [pretending to be O'Reilly]: Well, we just don't like all this Obama bashing here at The Factor, that's for these extreme right-wingers, this Obama bashing, it's not productive, the Bush-bashing wasn't productive.  We're going to give socialism and the destruction of the country a fair examination, and if we determine that Obama's destroying the country, we'll report it fairly.

 Look, all I'm telling you is that we've gotta give socialism a fair shake for the folks, I'm not going to sit here and condemn it like these right-wingers are.  We've gotta give socialism a fair shake, and we here at The Factor are going to give socialism, even communism, a fair shake.  We'll do an in-depth investigation, and we'll report back because we're not knee-jerking, and we are looking out for you, the folks.

So, I'm not the only one that loathes O'Reilly's faux pandering, in the name of enlightened wisdom. He simply sounds foolish these days.

The first video below is O'Reilly on Obama Bashing and the second on Socialism, sans alarm bells.

Also of interest are O'Reilly's views on gun confiscation and the Second Amendment:

Bill O'Reilly was too busy writing lousy sexual tales to learn the Constitution at Bungalow Bill's Conservative Wisdom

O'Reilly on Gun Confiscation at Instapundit

Bill O'Reilly Supports Gun Confiscation During Hurricane Katrina

Bill O'Reilly - Obama Bashing
Bill O'Reilly - Socialism

Michelle Obama Stocks White House Library with Books on Socialism

Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog took a tour of the White House before attending CPAC, and visited the White House Library. A tour guide told the group that the Obama White House Library was stocked with books chosen by Michelle Obama. Rob took this pic. See an update below 2-20-10 from the L.A. Times.

 

Michelle Obama stocks White House Library

Socialism throughout the years of our long political history has been unable to bring down capitalism. Is that the message MO is sending? Nah, I don't think so either. Visit SayAnythingBlog for the original reporting, which reminds us of Chairman Mao's representation on the White House Christmas Tree this year.

 

Mao ornament on Obama's White House Christmas Tree

If the titles are not clear in your browser, they are, left to right:

Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, Vols. I and II by M. Ostrogorski (UK politics)

U.S. Senators and Their World by Donald R. Matthews

The Populist Moment by Lawrence Goodwyn

The Populist Revolt by Donald Hicks

The Socialist Party of America, by John McBrewster, F.P. Miller and Agnes F. Vandome

The American Socialist Movement 1897-1912 by Ira Kipnis

The Social Basis of American Government by Nathan Glazer

The Invention of the American Political Parties by Roy F. Nichols

More on the White House Christmas Tree in the Time of Obama: View Obama on Mt. Rushmore, along with the Transvestite Community.

Update 2-10-10:
Big Dog's Weblog received a comment saying that the LA Times via the Washington Post reported that the books mentioned above were placed in the White House while Jackie Kennedy was First Lady, not MO, and Kennedy hired a Yale librarian, James T. Babb, to stock the Library. Kennedy's library became an instant library with 1,70 volumes placed on the shelves.

Babb said the works "represent the history and culture of the U.S....essential for an understanding of our national experience," and he knew the selections would be controversial:

Babb told The New York Times in 1963 that there was "bound to be criticism" of the choices. "There will still be people telling us what should be in this library, but we'll just have to be adamant," he said.

Linked by The Snooper Report

Others talking about the White House Library and Michelle Obama:
The Lonely Conservative
Gateway Pundit

Socialism Chavez Style: Devalue the Currency Cripple the People Steal the Farms

Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, announced the devaluation of the country's currency, the bolivar, by half, and just as bad news from the Obama administration is announced on weekends or late on Friday, Chavez delivered the startling proclamation during an important Friday night baseball game. Here is a good example of Socialism once it is on a roll:

The socialist Chavez believes the state should have a weighty role in managing the economy. During his 11 years in office he has nationalized most heavy industry, and business and finance are tightly regulated.

The devaluation is politically risky but means every dollar of oil revenue puts more bolivars in government coffers. That allows Chavez to lavish cash on social projects and fund salary increases ahead of parliamentary elections in September.

Opponents were quick to criticize the socialist, who a year ago promised the global financial crisis would not touch "a hair" of Venezuela's economy. He announced the devaluation on Friday night during an important baseball game.

"By establishing the exchange rate at 4.3 bolivars per dollar, the quality of life for Venezuelans is automatically devalued since we now have half the money we had before," said Caracas Mayor Antonio Ledezma, a Chavez opponent.

Government workers and those on the government dole will be the benefactors, thus increasing the loyalty vote for Chavez...which gives him a few more years to increase his chance of being elected dictator-for-life.

The Wall Street Journal calls this a humilitating turn:

...for a currency renamed the "strong bolivar" two years ago when Mr. Chavez chopped three zeros off the old currency and declared the beginning of an era of monetary fortitude.

With inflation in 2009 between 25% and 30%, Venezuela is home to one of the top ten oil reserves in the world. This is a wealthy country, but these are bleak times for the people.

In February, "the people" lifted term-limit restriction on the presidency. About 54% of voters approved the ban. How does that happen? How do the people vote to end their democracy, and why? Javier Corrales, a contributor to HuffingtonPost says "the systems of checks and balances has become inoperative."

Government negotiations with opposition forces are nonexistent; the judiciary rarely restrains government actions; state employees are forced to act as campaign props and vote for the government; electoral authorities disregard the law; and the ruling party is allowed to make use of state resources that are systematically denied to the opposition.

And Corrales says "Chavismo" has gone beyond the normal "garden-variety electoral autocracy," by "enabling" "the promotion of disorder" and "chaos.

Then, after the referendum:

Opposition leaders who won regional elections in December have been denied funding to run their governments or pushed into self-exile-to avoid arrest under selectively applied corruption laws. Other leaders have been jailed. The government has begun to ban books from libraries. With the help of the military, it has also accelerated the arbitrary nationalization of private assets. Chávez has repressed independent student groups, and is attempting to shut down Globovisión, the most critical television news channel left in the country.

Long before the ban on term limits, Chavez began seizing farm land  - "forced land redistribution" - and once seized, the plan was to be "utopian farming villages for squatters. Army commandos stood by and watched as squatters did the devil's work back in 2007, and after, and threatened farm owners with machetes, rifles and their lives.

The redistribution of wealth did not work, of course. This report from May 2009:

The 32,000-acre (12,950-hectare) El Charcote Ranch in central Venezuela was meant as a showcase for President Hugo Chavez's agrarian revolution, turning a country with food shortages and runaway inflation into one that could feed itself. But since troops and peasants seized the land from a British agribusiness company four years ago, beef production has dropped from 2.6 million pounds (1.2 million kilograms) annually to zero.

The ranch and many like it across the country raise the concern that the dream of a Venezuela living off its own land is just one more socialist promise heavy on rhetoric and light on results. The Chavez government says it has taken over more than 5.4 million acres (2.2 million hectares) of farmland from private owners. Yet food imports have tripled since 2004, the year before Chavez began his aggressive reform program.

The reality of a government-promised utopia:

This vast ranch used to be filled with grazing herds of cattle, but the green pastures are now overgrown with weeds and dotted with patches where poor farmers grow corn and beans. The cows have vanished.

The Chavez plan went astray as oil prices plummeted and funding for his bloated social programs, and vote purchasing, was not sustainable...without devaluing the monetary holding of the people. What a sad story...and a word of warning to America. Oh, and a reminder to America too: President Obama and Hillary Clinton congratulated Chavez on his un-term-limited future, along with the Castro brothers. Do ya think there's an agenda here?

Bart Stupak's Strong Message to House Leadership and White House (Video)

A incredible statement coming from Michigan Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak, who says he is being pressured by the Democrat leadership in the House and the White House, to keep quiet about the "abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill. See video below.

Bart Stupak

“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”

The Congressman objects to taxpayer abortion funding now included in the Senate bill's language. He offered his own House amendment to forbid such funding, which was quickly shredded in the Senate. You and I will fund abortions whether we like it or not. We will fund them even as our lying House and Senate tell us we will not. According to Stupak:

“A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage,” he said.

The twist in the legislation is that the feds will "subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage," which the criminals in the 111th insists does not provide taxpayer funding of murdering babies.

Stupak says when it gets down to the actual vote, and current law prohibiting the funding of abortion is not upheld:

"There’s 10 or 12 of us, and they only passed the bill by 3 votes, so they’re going to be short  8 to 9, maybe 6 to 8 votes. So they [Democrats] do not have the votes to pass it in the House.”

If Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont, could weasel $10 billion out of the criminal 111th, then the sky is the limit for Stupak, a Senator from the blighted state of Michigan.









Bart Stupak (video)

Howard Dean Socialism Capitalism: Margaret Thatcher Socialism Explained

Howard Dean, do you remember him at all...found an audience to share his new-found "public" fondness for socialism. Note, in the first video below, he says our capitalist tendencies arise from our "human nature," but our desire for socialism comes from our communitarianism. What? To Democrats today, capitalism is apparently a lone endeavor. Nevermind that capitalism actually employs people and pay wages from profits. If that isn't a "community" endeavor, I don't know what is. See two videos below - don't miss Margaret Thatcher comparing socialism and capitalism in the second.

Howard Dean

 

Margaret Thatcher

Howard Dean is a former Vermont governor, a former chair of the DNC, a physician who hasn't had to keep office hours lately, and the founder of Democracy for America.

Many organizations in this country have the word "Democracy" in the title. It's time to drop that like a hot potato. "Democracy" is used as a crutch by those not understanding that we are a Republic, that there is a vast difference between the two, and we lean on the moniker "democracy" at our peril.

We are not governed by a majority, and so it is ironic that Dean says we've decided to settle on a little socialism and a little capitalism. Is Howard Dean the decider? Will Democrats accomplish a little socialism, and then some more, because they are the majority - and as Pelosi and Obama have said - we won? Here's an example of how this works. On Dean's Democracy for America, he has an open letter for reader's to sign advocating the will of the majority over reason or a clear representation of constitutents:

Democratic Caucus Accountability
If ANY member of the Democratic Caucus joins a Republican filibuster of healthcare reform with a public option, the Caucus must immediately strip that Senator of all Committee chairmanships.

Can you venture a guess at how a Congressman or Congresswoman might weight their choice: take a chance that voters will forget your vote, as they often do, by the time the election rolls around, or lose a coveted and powerful chairmanship. They'll choose the power of the committee room without a backward glance.

The Founding Fathers, with infinite wisdom obtained from life experience with kingdoms and parliaments, intended for as much power as possible be granted to, and retained by, each individual. There is no socialism to be found in this intent.

Howard Dean understands completely, however, and he and his cronies intend to use socialism, veiled as democracy, as a club against our republic.

Walter Williams, writing for Capitalism Magazine, reminds of us our Founder's views of democracy:

James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said that in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

And...Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

From Walter Williams:

Our founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.

As effortlessly as Howard Dean threw out the idea that America has decided to share capitalism with socialism, just as effortlessly are Liberals gaining momentum in stealing individual power.

From Bookworm, speaking about Germans in the 1920's, and writing for American Thinker:

They just thought that, after the utter chaos of the 1920s (especially the economic chaos), the socialists would calm the economy (which they did), and simply remove from people the painful obligation of having to make their way in the world.  It was only incrementally that the average German bought into the ever-more-extreme demands of the state - and those who didn't buy in were coerced because of the state's unfettered willingness to use its vast, brute power to subordinate individuals to its demand....

Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal.  Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism.  Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment.  Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's:  Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.

British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards.  As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed. 

The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good.  In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech.  (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)

 Read more from Bookworm at Bookworm Room.

Just two years ago, this snippet from Howard Dean would have quickly followed him from Paris to a YouTube debut, but considering "socialism" as a reality, and maybe a better way forward, is a thought shared by many who really do believe that Obama has some stash to share with them.


Howard Dean Socialism and Capitalism (video)  Margaret Thatcher Compares Socialism and Capitalism

Thanks to LeftCoastRebel