Repairing the Foundations of a Nation Under Assault, Part 2

Previously I discussed the need to rebuild America's foundation at the most basic level in order to save this "last best hope."

A majority of Americans have forgotten our historic roots of freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. It's not enough anymore just to point out the need for a return to traditional Americanism; too many people don't understand what that means and lack the capacity for analytical thought. We must go back to the basics and explain why traditional Americanism is good and why the modern trend toward socialism is bad. People in our self-centered culture must be educated as to "what's in it for them" before they can move on to acting and voting in a manner based on "what's in it for society" or better still "what's right."

We will need to educate our fellow Americans because the institutions which have historically done so--the institutions of education and journalism--have demonstrated they are no longer willing to do so. Traditional Americans must therefore work in and within those institutions to foster change. We must also engage our fellow Americans on a personal level--at work, at church, across the back yard fence, and at the ball game.

But educating and providing facts is still not enough. Fundamental change is needed in the hearts of the American people. Since leaving our roots, we have spawned generations who have not cultivated a moral compass. We will not return America to societal greatness unless we cultivate a strong moral compass in the people.

PART 1

People also no longer understand the relationship between private morality and public behavior. Since the days of Bill Clinton we've been told that it doesn't matter if someone is a scoundrel and dirtbag in their personal life; what matters is whether they're a good leader.

But we saw with Bill Clinton that his "private morality" or lack thereof dragged the nation through the mud hole of his depraved infidelity. We also saw him lie to the American people--not only about his unzipped fly but about policy issues--almost every time his mouth opened. He lied about seeing black churches burning in Arkansas, reducing the size of government (he gutted the military while bloating the bureaucracy), lied about reining in the welfare state (congressional Republicans did this), and he lied about reducing spending (again, congressional Republicans did this). It was almost impossible to keep up with his lies and lack of faithfulness to the people he was elected to serve.

And in the same way he was derelict in his duty to be faithful to his wife, he was derelict in his duty to protect the United States...

READ MORE...

Repairing the Foundations of a Nation Under Assault, Part 1

Many conservatives are not afraid to speak their mind and even speak up in the public arena for their values. But almost none of us (myself included) are consistently doing what must be done to positively impact our decaying culture.

Many of us grew up having been taught the founding principles of our great nation. Often our parents told us of our country's noble ideals and the things that make America great. If we grew up several decades ago, we might even have been lucky enough to be taught some of this in public school.

People who recognize the great founding principles of the United States, understand the inestimable value of personal freedom and responsibility, and cherish our heritage of limited government are usually known as "conservatives."

Even if we weren't taught these things as children, some of us have learned somewhere along the way that the liberal policies proffered by the Democrats (really Marxist policies) are antithetical to the principles of Americanism. People who didn't know this to begin with but later came to realize it are usually described as "liberals who were mugged by reality."

Sadly, few are learning these lessons today, and few have for decades.

Our public education system has acquiesced to if not embraced liberalism and has foisted that ideology on our children even as it has attempted to erase the history of our Christian heritage and origins of limited government.

Our media establishment sold out lock, stock and barrel to liberalism decades ago. From the movies to television to music to journalism, there is only a constant stream of revisionist history, derision of traditional values and shameless promotion of liberalism as the ultimate and only reality. Moral ambiguity is the best we can hope for in almost all media fare.

This flood of propaganda has proven very effective in producing one or more generations that are almost entirely ignorant of their heritage, oblivious to world history, and lack even the basic analytical skills necessary to sift truth from lies.

This brainwashed culture is what we face in the arena of ideas to day, and it is what conservatives must deal with as we try to turn our culture around from its headlong plunge toward the abyss.

We don't have to like it, but we must acknowledge it, deal with it, compensate for it...and then overcome it.

READ MORE...

Post Election, Terrorist Ayers Admits Obama a 'Family Friend'

The "mainstream" media worked pretty hard to keep Barack Obama's association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers quiet during the election.

But now that it's over, we see a candid admission in the Chicago Sun-Times from Ayers that, yes, they did work together and yes, they were friends and yes, he did help launch Obama's political career in his house.

A little more than the "guy in my neighborhood" that Obama said he was.

From the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday:

Ayers, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, adds few new details about his relationship with Obama in the afterword to Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War Activist. The book is being reissued this month.

“We had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign,” he writes.

Now Ayers is claiming he didn't really say what he said on 911:

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Really?

Sorry, Mr. Ayers, I know that Marxists like you love to revise history but you just don't get to in this case.

Here is a link to a New York Times article published September 11, 2001 in which Ayers is quoted by Dinitia Smith making this statement.

So, America: how does it feel having elected a president who is the "family friend" of an unrepentant domestic terrorist who helped launch the president-elects political career in his living room?

Rahm Emanuel on Obama's Nazi-esqe Civilian Security Force

This audio and video features Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Barack Obama's upcoming Chief of Staff, talking about Obama's plan to force Americans into involuntary servitude for his Nazi-eque "civilian national security force."

You libs were apoplectic over President Bush's use of the Patriot Act? You should be frothing at the mouth and barking at the moon over this dictatorial Marxist scheme.

I served 10 years in the military. I know what it is to give of service to your country. I know what it is to do "50 pushups" (and many more). I know what it is to wear a uniform every day. I did it voluntarily, and in defense of this nation.

This is complete totalitarian bunk, and it should have every American--Democrat, Republican or Independent--up in arms.

There is no need for it, and it is totally 100% antithetical to everything American.

Of course, that describes most of Obama's agenda. But this may just be the worst of the worst.

"There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint similar experience of civil ...what we call civil defense training or civil service...some sense of service to country in preparation, which will give people a sense of what it means to be an American."

America Headed for the Woodshed

By Marie Jon'

Being politically correct has its rewards. Nevertheless, I must speak my mind without regard to acceptance or reprisals. I feel the need to express my thoughts.

As the huge crowd gathered at Grant Park in Chicago for a historical celebration, others like myself wept. Deep inside my heart, I knew what was to come. I did not see the stature bestowed upon this man who was not worthy of America's trust.

While many good Americans were confused, I was not. For more than a year, political pundits had focused on Obama's past political history, his choice of friends, and his quasi-Christian faith. His choice of Afrocentric Black liberation theology reinforced Obama's disdain for America. He chose the theme of change and made it part of his ongoing mantra because it reflects his own political social agenda.

Happily, others will call Barack Obama their president. I cannot, because of who he is and what he stands for. Bluntly put, I have absolutely no respect for the Democrat Party or the man who will soon occupy the Oval Office. What little trust I had in the "opposition" has been destroyed. They knew who the real Obama was from the get-go, but still desperately desired him. Through Obama, all things are possible.

Is it any wonder that many Americans fear this man? Our worst days are yet to come. Obama is Saul Alinsky and Rev. Jeremiah Wright embodied into one confused human being. For the first time in America's history, our newly-elected president will attempt to punish our country for its past transgressions. America does not deserve that kind of humiliation.

Excerpts from The American Spectator: "Saul Alinsky Takes the White House":

"Conservatives may not realize just how difficult it might be to recover from this week's elections.

"The day after the big defeat, the conservative chatter everywhere was about how the "movement" and the Republican Party (two different things) could finally unshackle themselves from the bad old habits that brought them down, and about how the ability to draw a sharp contrast with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate would allow us to focus attention, rally the faithful, and re-storm the castle in 2010 and 2012.

"Fat chance.

"Too many conservatives think we've seen all this before — in 1964 and 1974 and 1992 — and that we know how to handle it. Fly, meet ointment: We're not dealing with the same sorts of opponents. These New Alinskyites who are taking over the White House, combined with the most leftist congressional leadership in memory, will not let us play by the same rules under which conservatives recovered from those earlier debacles. They will try to drastically tilt the playing field, seed our side of the field with land mines and, in short, rig the process to make it next to impossible for the political right, or Republicans, to recover. And they are likely to succeed in at least some of these designs.

"It will begin with their efforts to secure a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators (including the two independents). Right now the libs (and yes, all the Democratic senators, with the possible exception of Nebraska's Ben Nelson, are libs) have 56, with three Republican moderates and one conservative leading their races but awaiting recounts or runoffs. Watch for the Alinskyites to try stealing all four, and to succeed in at least two. We've seen this game before. They did it in Indiana's 'Bloody Eighth' congressional district in 1984. They almost succeeded in 2000 in Florida. They did succeed, outrageously so, in the Washington State governor's race in 2004. Those are just the most obvious of many similar examples. And now they are even more ruthless, more lawyered-up, and in a more powerful position to pull it off than they were in any of those instances. " Full Article

Obama used his winsome charm, and the whole world wondered after him, as if he were an angel of light. This cult-like figure filled people's minds by using repetitive chants of "Hope" and "Yes We Can" to bedazzle his willing, but duped, followers. The media paved the path to allow Obama to seize the White House by not reporting everything they knew about the man.

As it stands, President Obama will lead America to hell and back using bullying, intrusive tactics. Just ask Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, a private citizen who asked a question. The entire world knows more about Joe the plumber than President Obama.

Joe's privacy was invaded by a Democrat state official in Ohio. "Big Brother" will be watching and listening. Be careful. Every bit of Mr. Wurzelbacher's personal information was revealed for the media to peruse. They tried to diminish and assassinate the man's character in his own community. Is this what we have to look forward to in this Obama administration?

While many in our country feel jubilant, my knowledge of Obama prevents me from taking him to heart.

The most beloved civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, said it all for me and most other Americans who find themselves in a very uncomfortable and awkward position:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." — Martin Luther King, Jr.

While I am pleased to see how far racial relations have evolved for the betterment of our country, it was no surprise to me that a black American would become president. I have always felt proud of America's willingness to correct her wrongs. However, it is devastating when I see that the wrong people are given great power and political sway over others who are made to feel unworthy to help themselves through education and hard work. The Democrat Party has victimized a part of its constituency by encouraging them to look towards big government for their every need.

Their brand of politics also hurts me. I am a Christian with a heart to love all peoples. Many patriotic Americans are fed up with the Rev. Wrights of the world and the drive-by media who imply that all conservatives are closet bigots.

During Obama's run for the presidency, he continually injected race into the campaign. Dr. King died to suppress that kind of politics. He was victorious. However, Obama will change the way we see one another if we're not cautious.

America will be sent to the woodshed for a thrashing by a bitter president. When speaking to a group of elitists in San Francisco, Obama said: "And it's not surprising then they (Pennsylvanians) get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them." However, he had nothing but praise for the good citizens of Pennsylvania when he stood before them to ask for their votes. Little did they know of his intentions to bankrupt the coal mining industry.

When I look at Obama, I see a man who Americans will not be able to count on. Sadly, he will continually divide our country and hasten the demise of America as we know it today.

Obama's policies will bring grief, not only to America but to many other countries who continuously count on us to bring stability to the free world.

Americans will eventually regret giving the reigns over to a radicalized party that sees nothing worthy of preserving in our great country. I am sad to inform you that what has taken place might never be reversed. Once socialism takes root, it buries itself very deeply. We won't see America for a very long time, if ever.

Related Readings:
The Change You'll Get
The American electorate: Gullible's Travels

Marie Jon' is a political/religious-based writer and founder of www.DrawingClose.org and www.PeoplePoliticallyRight.com — sister websites to RenewAmerica. Marie extends her hand of welcome; visit DrawingClose and receive your free gift of salvation by taking an online Bible study.

Marie's writings have appeared on many sites, including The New Media Journal, ChronWatch, and ABCNews, to name a few. Marie brings a refreshing and spirited point of view that is reflected in her writings. Marie is a nurse, a lay student of the Bible, and a patriot. She is an advocate for American troops serving abroad, as well as the Blue and Gold Star Mothers of America and their families. Marie enjoys Townhall.com radio, Rush Limbaugh, Bruce Elliott Saturdays 5AM-9AM EST and her friend Larry Elder.

Communists Celebrate Obama Victory

You aren't surprised, are you?

Joe the Plumber Cant Get Through to Marxist CNN Newsman

The Marxist arrogance of this "newsman" is incredible!

The "newsman" can't grasp why Joe Wurzelbacher aka Joe the Plumber would have a problem with taxing people making over $250,000 (or something less) when Joe himself doesn't make that much.

This "reporter" aka "DNC operative" can't seem to get it through his socialist skull that it is a matter of principle for Joe the Plumber that one person should not have their property taken from them and given to another person against their will.

"I'm not ridin' on anybody elses back. I'm doing it on my own," Joe said.

Incredulously, the reporter asks it yet again.

The concept of not sticking it to the rich just seems to bounce of this Marxist "newsmans" head. It won't go in.

Maybe that's it: socialists like this "reporter" have no principles, so they're baffled when they encounter someone who has them. They just don't get it. They operate by "What's in it for me" and nothing more. That someone might give a rip about the rights of another person is alien to them.

I noticed that when Joe the Plumber educated this "newsman" on Barack Obama's Marxist philosophy, he shifted to the "Well, McCain is no sweetheart, either" strategy. True, but McCain isn't even in the same league of wealth redistribution promotion as Obama.

The only thing I would add to Joe's statement is that all the things government should do and does do like roads, emergency services, national defense, etc. are not the issue. I don't think anyone has a problem paying taxes for necessary services.

What galls me is to have the fruits of my labor taken and given to someone else for their direct benefit. In other words, the roughly 50% of our federal budget that goes to social programs--that are NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and a million other welfare programs.

And now Dems want to expand socialism even further by getting rid of 401(k) tax breaks and forcing you to pour still more money into a government retirement system. They can't tolerate the thought of the private sector doing 401k retirement funds, but can't wait to seize more of your money...so they can spend it on everything else as they squander the Social Security trust fund.

We have a $3 trillion budget, and half or more of it is spent illegally on programs that government has no authority for and should not be doing--individuals and the private sector should be doing them (and used to before the socialist FDR turned our Constitution on it's ear).

There is not a single, solitary shred of constitutional authority for these programs, yet money is taken out of one American's pocket and put in another American's pocket when the second American has done nothing to earn that money--and the first American was not consulted for his "charity."

Consider what the founders said on this:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money." — Congressman Davy Crockett

For an individual to help another person, to give of their possessions charitably, is a wonderful and blessed thing. (In fact, conservatives are better at it than liberals--Obama and Biden are pathetic at personal charity).

But for government to force one person to surrender their property so it can be given to another person is not only theft, it robs the giver of any blessing for having given freely. It also robs the receiver of the genuine compassion and relationship with the giver. And in far too many cases, there is no genuine need...which erodes human dignity, the work ethic and personal responsibility.

I know the Marxists have had near-total control of our universities and public schools for decades, but you'd think that some reality would seep into people's brains after they get their education behind them.

This "newsman" is sad proof that this isn't happening.

Conservatives have some serious educating to do if we're going to salvage our country and return it to its historic great ideals.

The Simplistic Notion of Property Rights

We're in trouble, folks.

The libs aren't even bothering to hide their Marxist ideology at all anymore.

A couple of weeks ago we heard Barack Obama tell Joe the Plumber in broad daylight that he wanted to take Joe's property and "spread the wealth."

Now the Weekly Standard reveals Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) talking about the "simplistic notion" that people have property rights.

The American worker has produced more per person at any time, but it hasn’t been shared, and that’s the problem because we have been guided by a republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards the means of redistributing wealth.

"This simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it."

"This simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it."

Do you have any simplistic notions that you are entitled to keep your TV set if I want it?

Do you have any simplistic notions that if I like your car better than mine, I can come over and drive it away? If you have two vehicles, certainly I'm entitled to one of them. You don't need two.

Do you have any simplistic notions that you're entitled to a big-screen LCD TV when I don't have one?

The Founders would be aghast that such an idiotic and alien notion could come from an elected official in America.

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence” - John Adams

Indeed!

Have we really sunk so far from Americanism that liberals feel free to be this open about their Marxist views and intentions?

Have we become so morally bankrupt that we have widely embraced the politics of greed, class envy and coveting other people's property...and consider envy, covetousness and theft a political virtue?

If we get a Democrat White House from the election today, we know God isn't doing us any special favors anymore. We'll know we're getting exactly what our dark hearts deserve.

The Marxist Shuffle: Obama's Incredible Shrinking Tax Cut

Don'tcha just love the Marxist Shuffle? Isn't it a cool dance? As the thresh hold of "evil rich" drops, your taxes go up.

How low do you think the thresh hold will be if Obama gets to be president? $75,000? $50,000? $30,000?

Oh heck, let's just raise everyone's taxes so everyone can be patriotic, spread the wealth, be unselfish, and help build a glorious People's Republic of Obama.

Obama Tax Cut Cutoff Drops Like Marxist Currency Value

Looks like Barack Obama's tax cut thresh hold is dropping like a Marxist citizen's hopes of ever being free.

WorldNetDaily points out that the magic $250,000 figure recently touted by Obama to be worthy of a tax cut has dropped.

It hit $200,000, and is now reported to have dropped to $150,000.

This sounds a lot like Obama's excuses about his association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. First, Ayers was just "a guy in the neighborhood." Then Obama "didn't know" about Ayers' bombing of the U.S Capitol, the Pentagon and several other locations. Then he thought Ayers had been "rehabilitated."

I'd suggest he go pull my other leg now, but I ran out of legs a long time ago.

You Obama voters out there had better hope next week's election comes quick. By election day, that tax cut thresh hold could have dropped to $10,000 before you know it.

You, too, could wake up as one of the "evil rich" in Obama's Marxist wealth-spreading sights.

Obama Embrace of Marxism Goes Back to Youth

Bill Sammon has a piece at Fox News which clearly points to Barack Obama's Marxist leanings going back to his college days.

Despite Joe Biden's feeble attempt to laugh off Obama's Marxism, the color red continues to deepen over the Obama trail.

We know about Obama's Marxist, racist, America-hating pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

We know about his association with avowed Marxist and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. And we know the avowed-Marxist Ayers helped launch Obama's political career with a meet-and-greet in Ayers' own living room.

We know about Obama's intent to take the fruits of hard-working Americans' labor and "spread the wealth around."

We also know Obama would rather government do the charitable giving than leave that to private individuals, as has historically been the case in America.

So Obama's Marxist thugocracy philosophy is no surprise to the informed.

But Sammon brings Obama's un-American ideas into even clearer focus:

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

If people want to live according to Marxist philosophy, there are several countries around the world where that can already be done: Cuba, China, North Korea. There are even countries where the milder form known as socialism can be experienced: the UK, France, Canada.

But America was founded on freedom, private property rights, and personal responsibility. America was founded on limited government. America was founded a free nation where private individuals and private organizations help people in need--on a voluntary basis.

The principles of Marxism are incompatible with the principles of Americanism. If Obama wants to embrace or promote Marxist ideals, he--and all who agree with him--should move to a country where that philosophy is already at work.

And leave us Americans who continue to believe in and embrace freedom, property rights and limited government in peace to enjoy the blessings of the greatest nation on earth.

The Founders on Socialism

If you're a faithful Dakota Voice reader, you already know how the Founders viewed Marxism (even before it had this name), wealth redistribution, and public charity.

If so, you know, then--whether you accept it or not--that until the last 50 years or so, America's history is one of private and voluntary charity, not government-mandated charity.

You also know--whether you accept it or not--that what we currently do in America with about 50% of our federal budget spent on social programs is un-Constitutional, illegal, and government-sanctioned theft of private property.

You may even know--whether you accept it or not--that our government and the Constitution that is its foundation is a limited government of enumerated powers. This means that if the Constitution does not specifically empower the government to do a thing, the government has no authority to do that thing.

Interestingly, you will find NO authorization in the U.S. Constitution for social spending and government charity.

In addition to some quotes you've seen here at Dakota Voice before, Sweetness and Light has some enlightening quotes from the Founders on the subject of Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" scheme:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

Private charity is a good and wonderful thing. Government-mandated "charity" is oppressive, inefficient, and corrupting; it is no real charity at all.

Maybe Barack Obama is smarter than the Founders.

Are you willing to bet your vote on that proposition?

Obama Raises a Red Flag

Barack Obama's Marxist "spread the wealth" talk should be a big red flag to all the freedom-loving red-white-and-blue Americans out there.



From our friends at Americans for Limited Government.

Obama: Party Like It's 1984

Good retake on the retake of George Orwell's 1984.

Isn't the worker's paradise so beautiful? Let us follow The One into this glorious future!

HT to our friends at the People's Cube.

Another Attempt to Interview Terrorist Bill Ayers

Reporter Jesse Waters with the O'Reilly Factor tried last week to talk with domestic terrorist and Barack Obama-associate Bill Ayers, but with no luck.

He asked Ayers outside Ayers' home about his relationship with Barack Obama, provided Ayers an opportunity to apologize for his terrorist acts, and asked Ayers if it wasn't time for some repentance. Ayers, however, continued to ignore Waters as he walked into his house and closed the door.

In case you've been on Mars, or are a liberal who's had your head buried in the sand recently, Bill Ayers is the terrorist who started the Marxist Weather Underground group which bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, several court houses, several police stations, and various other buildings.

He is also the man Barack Obama worked with on various projects over the last 13 years, including serving together on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that Ayers founded, and the Woods Fund.

Ayers also helped launch Obama's political career with a meet-and-greet Ayers held for Obama in his own home.

In the video below, ABC's Brian Ross takes a stab at getting Ayers to talk about his dealings with Obama, or about his terrorist acts. Unfortunately, he didn't do any better than Jesse Waters did.

Ayers may be an America-hating terrorist, but he's at least smart enough to realize that if he opens his mouth, he'll only hurt the campaign of the man he wants to win on Nov. 4.

Why would we vote for a man who would associate with anti-American terrorist trash like Bill Ayers?

Would you vote for someone who associated with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh? If not, why would you vote for Barack Obama?

O'Reilly Factor Interviews Reporter Who Asked Biden About Marxism

The O'Reilly Factor interviewed Barbara West, the journalist who interviewed Joe Biden last week and had the gall to ask him serious questions about Barack Obama's Marxist philosophies. (see video below)

Once again West was very businesslike and straightforward. She said she also asked John McCain tough questions in a recent interview, and based on what she said, she did.

That's good. Most people don't expect underhanded kindergarten-league softballs to Republicans from the "mainstream" media...but we don't expect them for the Democrats either--which is usually how that ballgame is played. Meanwhile, the Republicans get all the fastballs and curve balls.

Barbara West deserves to run her own station or be promoted in some major way. She is an example of real journalism, which is a rare bird these days. She's obviously not afraid to ask tough questions of a hostile interviewee and doesn't pull her punches.

It was a real hoot, though, to watch the incredulous look on Biden's face! He must have been thinking something like, "Lady, didn't you see that I had a "D" after my name? Did somebody mess up and put an "R" after my name on your notes?"

Keep up the good work, Ms. West!

Bill O'Reilly interviews Barbara West, an Orlando Florida news anchor who became famous recently for her interview with Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

O'Reilly shows excerpts of her interview where she asks Biden if Obama's views are Marxist and about his connections to ACORN. The Obama campaign called the interview an attack and has refused further interviews with the news channel.

Biden Busted in Interview Again

What's gotten into journalists lately? That's two in quick succession who have asked serious, tough questions of a Democrat.

Is there something in the air? Is there an illness going around the journalistic community?

CBS 3 in Philadelphia asked Biden, since Obama has been talking about spreading people's wealth around "Is that not, you know, kind of being a socialist?"

It also looks like she asked Biden about business taxes, and if they wouldn't just get passed on to the consumer (which they always do).

Biden insists: "Absolutely not."

Then this reporter has the audacity to ask "Please explain that."

Another reporter in this segment also asks Biden about a little favoritism and nepotism, about him sending campaign cash to his son's business.

Apparently the Obama campaign is furious and has cut off this TV station, banishing them to outer darkness where there is journalistic weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Finally, 1 week from election day, a little journalism.

I love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Interview Shows Obama Radical Ideas on Constitution and Weath Redistribution

Below is a video/audio recording of Barack Obama in a 2001 interview talking about a 'reparative' strategy for wealth redistribution.

There is also a transcript of the audio available here, thanks to Power Line News.

This interview is a remarkable insight into what Obama thinks about taking your hard-earned dollars and giving them to someone else (he obviously knows better than you who needs your money and how it should be spent).

Notice how Obama thinks the constraints the Founders put on government through the Constitution are a "tragedy" and that he regrets that even radical Supreme Court makeups have failed to "break free" from those constraints the founders put there.

Some of those limits are exemplified in comments like these from the Founders:

A wise and frugal government...shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. – Thomas Jefferson

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

Notice Obama doesn't talk about whether it's right or wrong to take one person's property and give it to another.

Notice Obama doesn't even so much talk about whether, since we are legally blocked from doing this by the Constitution, we should work on an amendment to the constitution, but rather how best to ignore and get around the Constitution, either through the courts, or legislatively, or administratively.

The sad irony here is that wealth redistribution is already happening, and has been in this country for decades. Obama and the socialists like him are only dissatisfied at the slow pace of it and the meager level of redistribution--meager in terms of where they'd like to see it, at least.

Obama's ideas of wealth redistribution are unAmerican (i.e. they run counter to the ideals of our Constitution and our American heritage of personal responsibility and private property rights). Rather, they are Marxist ideas. They are the ideas of nations that have opposed us and sought to destroy us for decades.

How can we possibly be considering allowing someone who believes this unAmerican rot to lead the country?


TRANSCRIPT:
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.


In this newly uncovered radio interview from 2001, Barack Obama charts a 'reparative' strategy for wealth redistribution

Behar Wouldn't Know a Terrorist if One Blew Her Up

This ditsy Joy Behar woman from The View really needs to pull out a dictionary--or better yet, an encyclopedia and get caught up with intelligent folks.

She says Rush Limbaugh is a terrorist (but, I'd venture, doesn't see Barack Obama's domestic terrorist associate Bill Ayers as one).

She also fails to realize that Barack Obama's philosophies are far closer to communism than they are to capitalism or Americanism.

"He’s a terrorist. Rush Limbaugh is a terrorist. You heard it here ladies and gentlemen."

Leftist Radicals Defend Unrepentant Terrorist Ayers

It seems a bunch of Leftist educational elitists have banded together in defense of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

WorldNetDaily reports hundreds of academic elites have signed a statement of support for Ayers.

Do they really expect this to mean anything to average Americans? How stupid do these elitists think we are? Pretty stupid, I'm sure...but I'm equally sure we're not.

They include lots of lofty sentiments about "challenging orthodoxy" and dogma, and say that characterizations of Ayers as an “unrepentant terrorist” and “lunatic leftist” are "unrecognizable to those who know or work with him."

Really? If Ayers has repented of his terrorism, I'd really like to see that. The last I knew, Ayers was still saying

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

He also recently bashed Americans fighting to keep the South Vietnamese free from the oppression of communist thugs.

Ayers also and bashed capitalism as being "built on exploitation, theft, conquest, war and racism."

He also said capitalism "must be defeated."

Since Barack Obama went to this man's home for a meet-and-greet launching Obama's political career, and Obama has worked with Ayers on various projects around Chicago, do we really want to elect someone who associates with a person who STILL holds such loathing for America?

Ayers isn't an "unrepentant terrorist" or “lunatic leftist”? These academics either can't or wont' admit that he is both, because they have too much love for "lunatic Leftists" to either see it or admit it.