THE JEWISH VOTE

In the old South and the KKK days, blacks in the North who began to vote, voted mostly Republican.  They didn’t vote much in the South because the Democrats imposed a “poll tax” that was too burdensome for blacks to pay.  It was the creation of dependency status that turned the black vote in favor of the Democratic Party.  It was FDR more than anyone else who was responsible for turning that vote.

The Jewish vote and funding has gone primarily to Democrats from the start.  Could it be that Obama will be responsible for changing that metric?  Again from today’s NYT  “the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, is starting a new effort in battleground states to win over Jewish voters.”  And has been noted many places, contributions from Jewish sources for Obama are falling far short of traditional levels.

Obama’s negative attitude toward Israel has not gone unnoticed.  Neither has his non-critical acceptance of the Muslim Brotherhood as the Egyptian winners in Egypt.  The Jewish community’s century-long nexus with the Democratic Party is dramatically eroding under this President.  There is no more Jewish populated voting district in America than the 9th District of New York.  In the 2010 election the district elected a Republican Congressman for the first time in 88 years.

It will be interesting to see if the voting follows the same path as the funding.  I believe it will.

YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

St. Paul, Minnesota:  Carlos Viveros-Colorado lost control of his car and killed 16 year old Clarisse Grime as she sat on a bench waiting for a bus.  Carlos is an illegal immigrant, a previously convicted drunk driver, a serial speeder, an unlicensed driver and now he is also a killer.

The St Louis Pioneer Press reports that Carlos had been “voluntarily deported” after a 2001 DWI conviction but he re-entered a second time illegally.

– July 19, 2011: St. Paul police cited him for speeding and driving without a license

– March 8, 2012: Newport, MN police cited him again for driving without a license

– April 19, 2012: Minnesota State Patrol cited him for speeding and driving without a license

The Police never asked Viveros-Colorado about his immigration status nor was the knowledge of his deportation and illegal re-entry available to officers when they ran a check on him.  St. Paul is a sanctuary city and prohibits the police from inquiring about immigration status.  Information was not available to the other officers because there was no outstanding warrant for his arrest.

Think about that for a moment.  With all of the money, people and technological resources at their disposal, the federal government, the State of Minnesota, Ramsey County and the City of St. Paul were unable or unwilling to determine that a previously deported illegal alien and convicted drunk driver, driving around town without a license was in their grasp.  So Clarisse died.

That’s your government at work keeping you safe.

The Minnesota Department of Education routinely hands out waivers to high school students who have not met the requirements for graduation.  In the Minneapolis school district more than a third of those receiving diplomas do not meet the requirement.  In St. Paul, there isn’t even an accurate figure because the district doesn’t track the number of waiver-dependent diplomas it issues.

Brenda Cassellius, Commissioner of Minnesota’s Department of Education defends giving diplomas to those unable to pass the test required by Minnesota law.  “When you have about half the kids not passing, you know you have to do something,” Cassellius said “you cannot just deny diplomas.”

Yes you can.  And when you don’t the final lesson you teach is that rules don’t count and laws don’t need to be obeyed.  As for the “you have to do something” how about fixing the schools so they will teach.

This is your government at work educating your children.

If Obama wins re-election, your government will be at work providing your healthcare as well.

Digested and edited from an excellent blog post by Tim Droogsma.

RADICAL-IN-CHIEF A Conference for Marx

This post continues the series of chapter summations of Radical-In-Chief by Stanley Kurtz.

The book takes the reader into the world of Barack Obama prior to his emergence as a national figure.  The Preface makes a bold opening statement.  The chapters that follow are evidential arguments that substantiate the statement.  The author’s documentation is exhaustive and the source attribution is impeccable.  The source notes alone number 1,119 and take up 63 pages.

*****

Chapter 2
A Conference for Marx

Here Kurtz delves further into the nature of community organizing and how Barack Obama came to embrace it.

It was just a few months after the Marx Bicentennial Memorial Conference when Obama sent out letters in search of a community organizing job. In Dreams from My Father” Obama speaks of his decision – “I’ll organize black folks. At the grass roots. For change.”

Given the influence the 1983 conference had on Obama’s life, it is important to understand the nature of the conference. It was a symposium where proponents of the purist form of socialism in the style of Marx and Lenin presented their various views in forums and break-out sessions.

Debate centered around two schools of thought about the best way to implement socialism in the United States, either by open advocacy of socialist beliefs culminating in a militant forced change or by the slower but more pragmatic method of working within the democratic process.

Michael Harrington was the leading proponent for the pragmatists. The principle voice for militant change was Stanley Aronowitz.  Aronowitz wanted to infiltrate the banks with employees loyal to the socialist cause, and then on a pre-planned day, literally burn the banks by setting fires within their confines. Harrington’s strategy was to engineer a non-violent form of redistribution using the banks as a conduit through which money could be controlled to flow to the cause.

In the end, Aronowitz won the argument. Harrington capitulated to the anxious Aronowitz who wanted to burn the banks with the simple statement “OK, if you think it will work.” Kurtz cites this as evidence that “even the greatest modern proponent of democratic socialism saw democracy more as a tactic than a principle – merely the most practical route to socialism in the United States.” Of course Aronowitz never followed through on his plan to burn the banks.

Peter Dreier led another panel entitled Socialist Movements.  Most likely this was the best attended panel at the 1983 conference. Dreier was a DSA National Executive Committee member and the “key strategist in ACORN’s campaign to pressure banks into funding high-risk mortgages to low-credit customers.”

Dreier proposed a twofold plan. First to implement legislative change democratically as “reforms” within the capitalist system. The “reforms” however, would be “so incompatible with capitalism that they gradually precipitate the system’s collapse.” He argued for “injecting unmanageable strains into the capitalist system, strains that precipitate an economic and/or political crisis,” to “gradually expand government spending until the country nears fiscal collapse.” And then, capitalism having failed, organizers would turn the people toward socialism as the solution.

Simultaneously, grass roots organizations like ACORN should be built to influence public policy through advocacy and by winning seats on corporate boards, municipal boards and various commissions. In addition to helping enable the legislation Dreier sought, this cadre-in-waiting would help to minimize the violence expected with the collapse of capitalism.

THE MUSIC OF THE NIGHT

The phantom of the Opera is the longest running musical in the history of Broadway proclaims the marquee on the Majestic Theatre in New York City.  Michael Crawford was sensational in the lead.

A COUPLE OF WHOPPERS

“At some point, I think you have earned enough money.”

To that I say poppycock!  But how about this ?  “At some point I think the government has taken enough of peoples own money away from them?”

“If you got a business, you didn’t build that; somebody else made that happen”—

To that I say poppycock!  But how about this.  “If one becomes President, it’s not because he has any capability; the Democratic process allows fools to elect anyone.”

100 FUND RAISERS BUT NOT A SINGLE MEETING WITH HIS JOBS COUNCIL

In the last six months the President has traveled to over 100 fund raisers but not once has he convened an official meeting of his jobs council.  That’s Barack Obama.

Two possibilities for reasons immediately come to mind.  First, raising money is such an all out priority that spending an hour or two improving the jobs picture is a sacrifice he doesn’t want to make; or second, he knows what the Council will advise him to do and he knows he won’t do it.  Both are likely to be correct.

Obama’s animosity toward the business world is very clear.  There is the statement in Dreams from My Father where he said his one and only job in a business firm was “like working behind enemy lines”.  Then there is his promise to put the coal industry out of business and his assurances to ACORN organizers and labor unions that in healthcare ”single payer is the goal”  That of course means there would be no more insurance companies.  And as we watch Air Force One jet from fund raiser to fund raiser at our expense, let us not forget how he railed against the captains of industry who came to his beck and call on smaller jets paid for, not by us but by their own stockholders.  Obama is not about follow the recommendations of advisors who tell him the way to create jobs is to create a favorable climate for private industry.

His record of job recovery coming out of a recession is the worst since the days of FDR in the 1930s.  The only accomplishments he has going for him with independent voters are 1) the Navy Seals got Bin Laden on his watch and 2) the passage of Obamacare.  The first had little to do with Obama’s planning and the second is unpopular and it’s a job killer.  He can’t run on his record so he has chosen a combination of the Alinsky model of demolishing your opponent and the ACORN tactic of gaming the election process as his strategy for winning re-election.  These are unsavory tactics but, unfortunately, the community organizer in Barack Obama excels at both.

THE CASE FOR INCIVILITY

When you are in a war fighting for the survival of your country and the enemy is aiming a gun at you it’s not the time to tip your had and say “pleased to meet you” before you shoot.  Morgan Taylor at American Thinker makes an excellent case for incivility.

The slash and burn Saul Alinsky tactics, that all knew were coming from the Obama campaign, have arrived with a vengeance.

Why then was the Romney campaign not better prepared, and ready with a withering counter-attack against someone with not only a woeful record in office but one with innumerable skeletons in his past that have only come to light in the past three years?  A personal biography of fabrications, radical beliefs and rank immaturity.

Perhaps the reason lies in the modern day Republican character flaw: civility.

Morgan’s argument is an old one, desperate times justify desperate means.  I agree, but I wouldn’t say Obama’s incivility requires incivility in return.  All that’s required in Obama’s case is no-holds-barred exclamation of the truth.  There is nothing uncivil about that.  But like the soldier fighting for his life on the battlefield there is no room for compassion.  Compassion can come later, after you have won the battle.

Former Governor John Sununu of New Hampshire says Romney is holding fire until he sees the whites of their eyes.  Voters are still watching ball games and feasting at family barbeques.  They have heard enough of the barbs and are turned off by all the political telephone calls.  When the Conventions start they will turn to politics.  That’s when the Romney campaign will get tough.  So says Sununu; I hope he is right.

WHAT I WOULD DO IF I WERE ELECTED DICTATOR

One thing that annoyed my father to no end was people who dumped spoonfuls of sugar into their tea and never stirred it because that would make it too sweet. It’s something my uncle Eddy did all the time. Uncle Eddy is a story by himself but that will have to wait for another day. It will suffice for now that you to know Uncle Eddy was not my father’s brother. He was my mother’s brother, got it?

The sugar in tea thing was my father’s pet peeve. I am an apple that fell far enough from the tree to have peeves of my own. If I tell you all my peeves it will destroy my marriage. But I will share one — telephone poles.

In my acceptance speech I will vow to fight for enactment of a moratorium on telephone poles. What am I saying! If I were dictator I would have Obamapower, no need to ‘fight for’, I could just proclaim. Good. No new telephone poles; all new wiring goes underground. I am beginning to get giddy from the power already.
Unlike my predecessor, I am not very interested in changing the tides. Let them ebb and flow like they always have and keep the clams happy. Who am I to go up against Mother Nature, aka God?

Next up, the federal department of education. It’s gone. Gone back to the states. The federal government has no business dictating what they want taught to my kids. The teachers unions will not be happy because if a teacher doesn’t teach the teacher will be gone. Tenure — gone. Discipline will be back! I will put the teachers back in charge of the classroom. There is no higher calling than “teacher” and a teacher needs to have the authority that goes with the calling.

On to healthcare. Obamacare is gone. Not back to the states, just gone! The quality of healthcare in America is superb but the delivery system is horrible. I will fix the system without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (Dictators can use as many clichés as they wish).

Tort law has to change. I considered Shakespeare’s advice in Henry VI — “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Too harsh I thought, just a little bit too harsh. We do need to keep a few because there really is such a thing as medical malpractice. But I will change tort law and set doctors free to practice patient medicine, not legal defensive medicine.

Commercials for prescription drugs will not be allowed. If I need a drug my doctor will prescribe it. Who am I to become my own physician by studying an advertisement?

Everyone will have to make a co-pay. Nothing creates greater demand and more waste than the words “It’s free.” I will establish clinics, good clinics, for the truly indigent and uninsured. Emergency rooms will be for emergencies when I am dictator.
I will close the southern border with modern technology, not wire and bricks. Penalties for crossing will be severe. Illegal immigrants who commit felonies will be sent back post- haste. But what’s done is done and cannot be undone. There are many good people here who took advantage of our laxities to make a better home for themselves in a better land. I will offer them a citizenship status where the only threat of deportation will be a criminal conviction. They can start working “on the books” and those who hire them will become law abiding citizens once again.

And when I become dictator you will still be able to buy those curly bulbs, but only if you want to.

OBAMA IS RIGHT ABOUT THAT!

At a campaign stop in Cincinnati Obama paused in the lobby of the Music Hall to say a few words to the waiting crowd. He told them “This is going to be an even more important election than 2008 because we’re going to be talking about two fundamentally different visions for the country.” He could not be more correct.

However, he doesn’t spell out exactly what his vision is. In 2008 the mantra was Hope and Change. Hope for what? Change to from what to what? Barack Obama was speaking to two audiences with the same words. One audience heard more openness in government, better education, tax reform, more accomplishment and less politicking in Washington. These were people who believe in America, wanted to improve it and voted for him.

The very same slogan of Hope and Change spoke to the other audience as a promise for total transformation of America as we know it. This message is the one heard by people like Michelle who can find nothing in America’s past or present to proud of, but who see only a country that enriched itself on slavery and continues to be an oppressor to this day. The free market system that Marx called capitalism is the problem; socialism is the answer; total transformation from one to the other is the promise of hope and change.

The latter is Obama’s true message but only a small group knew it in 2008. People like Saul Alinsky’s son, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and the denizens of community organizing were aware of the goal. Four years later Barack Obama still remains an enigma to many. He defines his vision for America simply as “Forward”. Forward to where? Forward to what? He doesn’t say. Progressives know. Do you?

You should, because you will be voting for one of two fundamentally different visions for the country.

RADICAL-IN-CHIEF Chapter 1

This post begins a series of chapter summations of Radical-In-Chief by Stanley Kurtz.

The book takes the reader into the world of Barack Obama prior to his emergence as a national figure.  The Preface makes a bold opening statement.  The chapters that follow are evidential arguments that substantiate the statement.  The author’s documentation is exhaustive and the source attribution is impeccable.  The source notes alone number 1,119 and take up 63 pages.

*****

Preface
The author begins the Preface by asking the question “What on earth is a Community Organizer?”
He then proposes to answer it with the assertion that community organizing is a profession.  Socialism is the goal.  Stealth is the strategy.

Chapter 1
The Socialism Puzzle

“Late in the afternoon of April 1, 1983, a twenty-one year old Barack Obama made his way into the historic Great Hall of Manhattan’s Cooper Union to attend a “Socialists’ Scholars Conference.  Within twenty-four hours, his life had been transformed.  There at that conference Obama discovered his vocation as a community organizer, as well as a political program to guide him throughout his adult life.”  So begins the book.

The Socialists Scholars Conference (SSC) of 1983 was a convention organized by prominent socialist scholars and activists as a bicentennial memorial in honor of Karl Marx who died in 1783. The largest gathering of socialists in American history was held three weeks earlier in the same Hall. It was also a tribute to Marx and attended by 6,000 people with another 5,000 turned away.

The conferences took place in 1983, ‘84 and ‘85 during Obama’s years at Columbia University. The New York Times referred to this period of seclusion and personal reflection as “the lost chapter” of the President’s life. There is not a lot that can be documented about this interlude, but we can be certain he attended at least the 1983 Marx memorial conference and that his Columbia associations and activities were consistent with socialist beliefs. Obama wrote an article for the campus paper Sundial calling for total nuclear disarmament as necessary to defeat the “military-industrial interests” and their “billion dollar erector sets.”

Frances Piven, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America Executive Committee and a woman with deep ties to ACORN opened the convention with a speech declaring “We must stand within the intellectual and political tradition Marx bequeathed us [ as a] living tradition – the thinking of active people” – to shape history as inspired by the ideas of Karl Marx.

Another convention speaker was Cuban journalist Jose Marti. In his remarks to the gathering he praised Marx as an “ardent transformer, uniter of men of different peoples, and tireless, powerful organizer.”.

James Cone, an eminent black liberation theologian and mentor to the Rev Jeremiah Wright spoke at the 1984 SSC convention.  Kurtz speculates that this may have been Obama’s first introduction to Wright and the Trinity Church.

Karl Marx recognized the need to be pragmatic in the course of implementing socialist control. Whereas force and coercion may yield faster results in some countries, patience and subtlety would be required in others, notably those nations profoundly committed to individual freedoms and personal property rights. Socialists remain divided to this day between advancing their goals with open advocacy of their beliefs or settling for the slower advance that would come from a stealth and incremental approach which is a strategy of gradual implementation culminating with an ambush from within. As a socialist, Obama would fall into the latter more pragmatic stealth school.

Kurtz quotes John Drew, a man who was a Marxist radical in his youth and knew Obama when they both were students at Occidental College.

[Barack] was a “pure Marxist socialist at the time and hewed to the ”Marxist-Leninist” view that a violent socialist revolution was likely within his lifetime. The job of a proper radical, Obama believed, was to prepare for that event.

Radical philosophical beliefs are often passing fantasies of idealistic youth. But observing Obama over the ensuing years yields a picture of a true believer, a man of conviction, sincerity and dedication to ideals similar to those he held as a youth.