Reporting from the Daley Plaza Recess Tea Party

Today, at noon Central Time, Daley Plaza was the home of one of 435 tea party demonstrations against Obama Care. This particular protest was directed specifically at Senator Dick Durbin. Senator Durbin declined to attend and the crowd let Durbin know just how they felt about his lack of attention to his constituency. This demonstration was promoted by John and Cisco of 560 WIND. The Thomas More Law Center was also a sponsor and they did the leg work in getting the permit.

The event drew about 500-1000 protesters and there were about 20 counter protesters from the Chicago Single Payer Network. The majority of the signs were hand made and they varied in style and substance. Because rallies like this always create an intersection between local, state, and national politics, the protest continued to intersect between all those political intersections over and over.

For instance, Patrick Hughes was a speaker. Hughes is a candidate for the Republican nomination in the U.S. Senate. He will be running against Congressman Mark Kirk. Kirk, himself a Republican, has become a scourge of the tea party movement with his vote for cap and trade. The mention of Kirk drew a plethora of boos from the crowd. After the scheduled speakers spoke, several folks from the crowd also spoke. One pointed out that Durbin, implicated in the University of Illinois clout scandal, would use his influence to put friends and family to the front of the line when health care would become rationed. Others pointed to cost overruns at the Illinois toll road as examples of broken promises. The bankrupt Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were examples of national government programs that made this crowd distrustful of Obama Care.

It's also clear that this crowd wasn't buying this morning's oped by President Obama. Fears of tax funded abortions, health care for illegals, and government take over and rationing were raised over and over. In fact, in most ways, the ideas that were presented today were a microcosm of the concerns we've heard at town halls everywhere this month.

If this crowd is any indication, then for tea parties the main reform health care mantra is tort reform. Patrick Hughes suggested allowing insurance to cross state lines, ending mandates, but it was when he pronounced his support for tort reform that the crowd exploded. That was his political home run. He wasn't the only one. Each and every time tort reform was mentioned was the moment when the crowd was at its most ruckus.

One speaker described her own personal story. Her daughter has a very rare heart condition. She says that her daughter required specialized cardiovascular surgery. It was her private insurance that gave her a full menu of doctors to choose from. She continued to point out that every drug, every procedure, and every doctor was created in America "the best health care system in the world".

A representative from Chicago Single Payer Network was also given a minute to speak. He said that his dad was treated FOR FREE for several decades under Medicare. He said the only fair system is the government run system. The crowd pointed out that Medicare is broke and that his dad's free health care was really picked up by someone else.

I also spoke with a sympathizer of the Chicago Single Payer Network after the rally. They are a self professed "Marxist". They are not only for a single payer health care but against business entirely which is "dictatorial". They believed that it's flat out evil that Warren Buffett has billions while others starve. He didn't believe that Microsoft should belong to Bill Gates, and refused to acknowledge that Gates should be rewarded for the risk he took when he started Microsoft. Instead, he saw a world in which workers owned their own wealth. When I said that any worker could own their own wealth by being an entrepeneur, he said that he envisioned a society without business. It is a command society where the workers rule. It's important to note that the Chicago Single Payer Network is part of a coalition that includes the International Socialist Organization.

There's no question that single payer is part of an ideology that eventually leads our society toward socialism, a point made by several speakers. What's fascinating about this ideology is it's disgust for private business, entrepeneurship, and free markets. Think about that as you watch this video of Congressman Weiner.

null

The same disgust for the free market that the Marxist felt was felt by Weiner in this clip. Make no mistake. The public option is a trojan horse for single payer. Also, make no mistake, those that support single payer are rooted in the ideology of Socialism. It's just that some more freely admit it than others.

Argentina and My Favorite Reagan Quote

Last week, Argentina announced a bold measure.

Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez has signed a bill that will nationalise the country's 10 private pension funds.

The move will put the government in control of almost $30bn (£18bn) of investments and is aimed at protecting them from the global market turmoil.

Shares slumped amid fears of the move's impact and critics accused the government of trying to grab the funds.

The bill needs the backing of Congress, where the ruling party has a majority.

Argentina's pension funds were struggling with corruption and the country of Argentina was struggling to make payments on its own debts. This move was supposed to calm the panic setting in on the country.

So, how has the move been seen in the country? The Argentine stock market has spoken.

THE main stock index in Argentina plunged more than 16 per cent overnight, after the president announced plans to nationalise private pension funds. Markets also fell 11 per cent on Tuesday.

President Christina Kirchner moved to nationalise $US30 billion ($A44.3 billion) in private pension funds yesterday, saying it was necessary to protect retirees in the global financial crisis.

Some analysts saw the move as a tactic by the government to get hold of cash to help service the national debt of some $US150 billion ($A221.5 billion). Argentina defaulted on its debt in 2001.

In fact, the market has lost more than a quarter of its value only four days prior. Rather than calming the market, this bold government intervention has only put them into more of a panic.

There is of course a bit of cruel irony in a third world government with a long history of its own corruption attempting to nationalize an industry in order to root out corruption. Maybe, that's one reason why the market has responded as it has. Furthermore, maybe just maybe, the markets know better than bureaucrats and policy makers. No matter how dire the situation Socialization and nationalization isn't the way to go. The government which intended to help only made things worse and once again Ronald Reagan was right

the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'

...

Some Context On Barack Obama and the New Party

According to World Net Daily, new evidence has come out linking Senator Obama to the New Party.

Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.

Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.Obama's campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.

But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official
newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him

.



the New Zeal Blog, an independent blogger, has dug up this clipping from a newspaper the party used to publish.
For about five years in the mid 1990's, the New Party took advantage of a rule called fusion in which they would piggy back on top of the Democratic Party. Fusion allowed one candidate to run on multiple tickets. Their stated goal was to use fusion to move the Democratic Party as far left as possible.

Folks like Barack Obama were used in order to gain influence in the Democratic Party and attempt to move it further left.

Now, think about how stunning this news should be. Barack Obama was recently caught on tape saying one of the tenets of Socialism "spread the wealth around", and now we find out that he was in fact affiliated with a Socialist Party for four years while in Illinois. If the media were performing their role as a watchdog, they would try and find out as much as possible about this story. Instead, a blogger, from New Zealand no less, is the one discovering the so called "smoking gun" on Obama's membership in a radical Socialist Party.

Of course, this news comes on the heels of more revelations about Obama's associations with both radicals Bill Ayers and ACORN. In fact, as WND reports, the New Party was itself in bed politically with ACORN.

Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN.

"[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.

Isn't all of this worth investigating? So, what was on the front page of the New York Times yesterday? It was a story about how much the RNC spent to dress Sarah Palin.

Let's examine this another way. When Sarah Palin was first chosen as the Vice Presidential pick, the media was in a frenzy to uncover information about her. One of the things the New York Times "discovered" was that Sarah Palin was once a member of the Alaska Independence Party. (one of the tenets of the AIP is the secession of Alaska from the United States) The only problem is that it wasn't Sarah Palin that was a member of this party but her husband. When I say a member, I mean he registered as a member of the AIP. Keep in mind that Todd Palin is not that active politically. (the original story ran on the front page while the retraction ran on their blog, viewed significantly less) In other words, the Times is significantly more interested in whether or not the spouse of the Vice Presidential candidate was once a member of a radical party, then whether or not the Presidential candidate once ran on the ticket of a radical party.

There is even more though. Check out this column by Kirsten Powers.

ONCE the McCain campaign said Barack Obama was a ter rorist sympathizer, we should've have known "socialist" was next.

Ever since Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that we should "spread the wealth," John McCain and Sarah Palin have taken to blasting Obama's tax plan as a socialist plot.

Socialism involves collective ownership of the means of economic production and similar institutional "sharing of the wealth." Nothing Obama has proposed comes close to that. (Instead, the Bush administration is virtually nationalizing the banks.)

What McCain calls socialism is actually just old-fashioned progressive taxation - taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor. It underlies most of US tax policy - so mainstream that one of its biggest defenders has been . . . John McCain.

First, the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama is the first candidate to propose taxing one group of tax payers in order to give a tax cut to another. There is progressive taxation and then there is income redistribution.

More than that, what folks like Ms. Powers want the electorate to believe is that unless someone believes in every tenet of Socialism, there is absolutely no story to be told. Is Barack Obama a full fledged Socialist? No, I don't think he wants government control of all business. Instead, he just wants government control of most health care. He wants to tax the rich more while at the same time taxing the poorer less. He wants the govenrment to take the lead in creating new jobs. How close to a full fledged Socialist does the potential President need to be before it is something news worthy? It appears that being once a member of the Socialist party and believing in most, if not all, of their tenets isn't enough, and certainly, that isn't nearly the news story that the Vice Presidential candidate's wardrobe expenses are.

How Obama Has Ridden Class Warfare and Gimmicks to the Brink of the Presidency

In many ways, it is amazing that such a blatantly Socialistic economic proposal could put someone on the brink of the Presidency. In other ways, once you examine the dynamic that has brought Obama to the brink of the Presidency, his blatant income redistribution, class warfare, and Socialism is actually perfect political strategy. Here is why.

1) Barack Obama learned great lessons from Karl Marx.

Socialism, class warfare, and income redistribution has one very effective political tool...strengths in numbers. From the beginning, Barack Obama has been touting that his plan will cut taxes for 95% of the people. Barack Obama has been able to carry this simple message of economic populism

Economic populism, the staple of the Democratic left, demonizes Wall Street and glorifies Main Street. It rails against unequal distribution of wealth and warns, perpetually, that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. From Andrew Jackson's frontier democracy to Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, economic populism has powered the left.

Give credit where it is due. Barack Obama has effectively sold his message. He bemoaned the growing income gap, wage stagnation, tax cuts for "the rich", and a deregulation environment that benefits the few at the expense of the many. Furthermore, Obama has effectively framed those getting a tax increase as Warren Buffett and himself. In this way, Obama is not that much different than Marx. In much the same way, Marx bemoaned the capitalistic system benefitted the few at the expense of the many. He said the system was taking advantage of the proletariat and unfairly rewarding the bourgeoise. Obama is doing much the same thing.

2) Americans are economically illiterate.

Think about Obama's tax plan for a minute. He wants to raise taxes on the top earners by as much as 10%. Meanwhile, 40% of the population pays no income taxes, only the 6.5% payroll tax, will get a tax cut. (or in reality a tax credit since you can't cut below 0) This is his tax proposal. So, why is he leading? It's because far too many Americans are simply economically brain dead. They see a tax proposal that will cut their own taxes far more than the opponent, and the tax increase comes to someone else.

Most Americans can't make the simple connection. If you punish the job creators, there won't be as many jobs. Americans are simply not economically literate enough to understand that this is boiler plate tax and spend income redistribution. Americans lack of economic understanding is truly frightening really. Obama will lower no one's income tax bracket. Yet, he will raise the top two income tax brackets, the capital gains tax, and the corporate tax. Every single one of his so called tax cuts is a actually an obscure tax credit. That's his plan. Raise the top two tax brackets, the capital gains tax, and corporate tax and every single tax cut is in the form of an obscure tax credit. Meanwhile, he's proposed one trillion Dollars in new spending. Yet, the American people are willing to elect him the new President. Not despite making this the centerpiece of his economic agenda, but because of it. That's simply economically brain dead.

3) The McCain campaign has been totally incompetent in exposing the policy

The most obvious example of this is that Joe the Plumber has been more effective in exposing Obama's plans than the McCain campaign has. Until recently, we have heard nothing from the McCain campaign about the fact that Barack Obama plans on cutting taxes for 40% of the people that currently have an income tax rate of zero. Senator McCain should have been visiting successful small businesses all over the country and ask the owners what would happen to their business if Obama's tax plan went into effect. Why did he need Joe the Plumber to expose the obvious fallacy that raising taxes on the most successful hurts everyone? McCain has done little to point out that a series of targeted tax cuts, tax credits, and tax increases will complicate the tax code. In fact, I've never once heard McCain point out that Obama's so called tax cuts are actually nothing more than a series of tax credits.

4) Time and Place

The only time we have ever had a President swoop in with a promise for so much government expansion was in 1933. The similarities between FDR and Obama have a lot to do with the state of the economy. One would never be able to propose Socialism and income redistribution unless the economy isn't merely doing bad but on the brink of collapse. The reality is that our economy is on the brink of collapse and most folks blame the naked capitalistic system for getting it there. Barack Obama hasn't merely been effective in selling this economic populism, but he has sold it at just the right time.

Are Gaffes and Scandals Engulfing the Obama Campaign

No doubt if you are a liberal Democrat, you are likely to be planning your agenda for the next two years minimum. Of course, as the campaign heads into the home stretch, the focus is now shifting the spotlight entirely onto the Obama campaign. Just in time, the Obama campaign is creating several bit of headaches for itself that gives their opponents hope that they may still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.





1) Four words, "spread the wealth around"





These four words have changed the dynamic of the race in the last couple of weeks. It has given the McCain campaign a whole new attack angle in the last couple of weeks. While the Obama camapign continues with their standard attack attempting to link John McCain to George Bush, the McCain campaign has created a whole new angle for itself. They have turned Joe the Plumber into a mini celebrity and turned these four words into a whole new campaign theme. In the last two weeks of any campaign, it is vital that each campaign find a new message. By Obama repeating the same mantra of Bush/McCain they continue hitting old themes. By McCain finding a new voice linking Obama's policies to Socialism they have found a new message.





2) Joe Biden: Barack Obama will be tested.





What Joe Biden said the other day was stunning, revealing, and most of all perplexing. Here is what he said.

And here's the point I want to make. Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with this statement is that it's perplexing. In other words, no one is really sure what he means when he says that Obama will be "tested" and when he says, "it's not gonna be apparent that we're right". The Obama campaign hasn't really cleared it up. When a statement is unclear and vague, the talking heads take over. What follows is that said statement becomes a regular part of the media's news cycle. If the media spends the next week doing any sort of analysis of this statement it will not only raise doubts about Obama's readiness, but frankly Biden's gravitas. The media has helped the Obama campaign again by doing everything it can to keep this off the front pages but sometimes that boomerangs. That's because stories like this have a way of creeping onto the front pages anyway and when they take a few days to get there they tend to explode once they do. Look at the initial Reverend Wright story as an example. That didn't explode until days after the initial tapes came out but once it did it became an endless loop. This story is starting to creep into the news cycle as well.





3) New Revelations on Bill Ayers.





Over the last week, two new revelations regarding Bill Ayers and Obama's relationship with him have surfaced. First, it has surfaced that Barack Obama wrote a blurb on Bill Ayer's book about the prison system. This is a direct challenge to Obama's assertion that their relationship was merely tangential. Of course, there is a much bigger looming problem here.

That problem is best explained after we look at the second revelation.




In this video, from 2002, Bill Ayers declares himself not only an unrepentent terrorist but a Marxist and an Anarchist. This interview was done days before both Ayers and Obama sat on a panel together. This should put to rest any doubts that Obama didn't know Ayers current beliefs were as radical as the beliefs he once had.

The bigger problem is what is the content of Ayers' book, A Kind and Just Parent, and what sorts of radical ideas does it have for our prison system. Since Barack Obama endorsed the book by giving it his blurb and calling it searing, he, by extension, also endorsed the ideas in the book. Ayers is a radical, a Marxist, and an Anarchist and those are the sorts of ideas that are in this book. What happens when even one enterprising reporter decides to read the book and analyze its contents. Its contents are what Barack Obama sees as the proper vision for our prison system. That will be the most damning portion of this gaffe and it is coming. In fact, it was already examined by Stanley Kurtz long before this latest revelation.

Meanwhile, Obama worked closely with the Illinois Black Legislative Caucus to slow the bill's progress, expressing skepticism about the blended sentencing provisions. While one report speaks of Obama negotiating with Cook County state's attorney Richard Devine for a compromise, there is good reason to believe that Obama's actual aim was to scuttle the entire bill. We have this on the authority of someone who may very well be Michelle Obama herself. Michelle Obama organized a University of Chicago panel about Bill Ayers's crime book in November 1997, just as the battle over the juvenile justice bill was heating up. That panel featured appearances by some of the key figures discussed in Ayers's book, along with Obama himself, who was identified in the press release as "working to block proposed legislation that would throw more juvenile offenders into the adult system." In effect, then, this public event was a joint Obama-Ayers effort to sink the juvenile justice bill-Obama's decision to plug Ayers's book in the Chicago Tribune the following month was part of the same political effort.

The book is no doubt a radical platform for transforming our prison systems and soon the country will know it, and Obama's support for its ideas.

4) ACORN and Obama continue to be linked.

(H/T to Hot Air)

The New York Times has uncovered all sorts of explosive information about ACORN and this information leads directly back to Barack Obama.

The June 18 report, written by Elizabeth Kingsley, a Washington lawyer, spells out her concerns about potentially improper use of charitable dollars for political purposes; money transfers among the affiliates; and potential conflicts created by employees working for multiple affiliates, among other things.

It also offers a different account of the embezzlement of almost $1 million by the brother of Acorn’s founder, Wade Rathke, than the one the organization gave in July, when word of the theft became public. …

Ms. Kingsley’s concerns about the way Acorn affiliates work together could fuel the controversy over Acorn’s voter registration efforts, which are largely underwritten by an affiliated charity, Project Vote. Project Vote hires Acorn to do voter registration work on its behalf, and the two groups say they have registered 1.3 million voters this year.

As a federally tax-exempt charity, Project Vote is subject to prohibitions on partisan political activity. But Acorn, which is a nonprofit membership corporation under Louisiana law, though subject to federal taxation, is not bound by the same restrictions.

This report spells out clearly that Project Vote is nothing more than a front group for Barack Obama. Barack Obama has been working with Project Vote since 1992. Thus, this revelation should put to rest any rebuttal by the Obama campaign that his relationship with ACORN is merely tangential. Finally, two new videos have surfaced raising speculation about not only how much influence groups like ACORN will have in an Obama campaign and just how hard ACORN has been working to elect Obama.


In this video, he makes it clear that groups like ACORN will have a serious advisory role in his administration.

In the second video, Maxine Watters rallies up the troops at an ACORN gathering in support of Barack Obama.




Keep in mind that ACORN takes public funds and thus they aren't supposed to be partisan. As such, we have damning evidence that ACORN is involved in serious criminal wrongdoing, Obama and ACORN have had longstanding connections, and that ACORN is working actively, outside the law, to elect Barack Obama.

Only time will tell if this series of gaffes and scandals will mean anything but make no mistake, this race is not over.

Is America Ready for Socialism

So far, I have been working under the so called conventional wisdom that John McCain has the opportunity to tie Barack Obama to Socialism and by doing so, he may thread the needle and grab the election. In fact, I have been working under this assumption because I assume that Americans would roundly reject any hint of Socialism. Yet, as I have given this some thought, my assumption maybe wrong. Politics ultimately comes down in large part to framing. Certainly, Americans would reject Socialism if it was framed strictly as Socialism. Yet, most have no problem with so called targeted tax cuts, even though that is tenet of Socialism. Americans would likely reject socialized medicine, but would be in favor of universal health care. (even though the two are ultimately nearly identical) They reject Socialism, but the latest Rasmussen Reports poll has a very slight plurality actually agreeing with the idea of "spreading the wealth". A great anecdotal example of where Americans belief systems maybe headed is this interview by Bill O'Reilly of two college students that support Senator Obama.



In it, both college students dismiss the idea that they support Socialism per se, even though they favor Senator Obama because 1) he will provide health care to all and 2) because he will target the middle class with tax cuts which are both tenets of Socialism.

The pendulum has also swung regarding the public's view of regulation. The public now favors increased regulation of most industries. This has a lot to do with the public's perception that it was deregulation and naked capitalism that caused the current financial malady.

So, any serious examination of scientific polling would lead to this conclusion. Americans currently continue to reject the concept of Socialism per se, but they overwhelming approve nearly each and ever tenet of Socialism.

There are two reasons for this. The first reason is time and place. Back in 1933, the United States public roundly accepted and followed the quasi Socialist policies of FDR. He ordered bank holidays, mortgage buybacks, government created jobs, Social Security, farm subsidies, and even created the quasi Socialist Fannie Mae. The public was ready for this because the economy was in crisis. The crisis was created by a failure of naked capitalism and so the public looked for something exactly opposite of what caused the crisis to begin with. We are now facing a near exact dynamic. That's why the public is accepting of many of the same principles that FDR pushed in the 1930's. There is a great deal of irony in the public now embracing FDR again since
since history has proven that his New Deal only prolonged the crisis.

The second reason is even simpler. If framed correctly, Socialism sounds swell. Who doesn't want everyone to have health care, a living wage, affordable housing, and government assistance everytime they fall down. Universal health care is a great idea until it is implemented and everyone waits in long lines to get treated. Of course, that isn't how it is sold. When the focus is on the 47 million uninsured, then the idea is swell. Once we all realize that all universal health care will offer is 18 week waits to get treated, then it will be roundly rejected. Of course, it has to be implemented in order to be rejected. While it is still an idea, it is one that has a great deal of appeal. You aren't ever going to hear Barack Obama tell you that universal health care will likely mean that it will take weeks for a doctor to treat you. He will say that universal health care will mean that everyone will have access to affordable health care. It's properly framed and thus it polls well.

Barack Obama is on the stump offering a slew of new spending programs guaranteeing job training, access to education, unemployment benefits, and at the same time, he says that only the top 5% will face a tax hike. That sounds great. Everyone gets lots of free stuff and only the really rich pay for it. That's how you sell Socialism. That's why America might just be ready for it.

Time for McCain to Sharpen the Socialist Attacks

I read this piece on CNN and it gave me an idea about the manner in which John McCain should proceed in the last fifteen days.

Gov. Sarah Palin continued the GOP offensive Sunday, attacking Sen. Barack Obama's tax plan as "socialist," and though Sen. John McCain tempered his allegations, his message was the same.

The Palin-McCain line of attack was also echoed at an Orlando, Florida, event by their GOP colleague, Sen. Mel Martinez, who likened Obama's tax plan to communist Cuba.

"Where I come from, where I was raised, they tried wealth redistribution," the Cuban-American senator said. "We don't need that here. That's called socialism, communism -- not Americanism."

McCain dodged a question from Fox News' Chris Wallace about whether Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, was a socialist himself, but McCain criticized Obama's tax plan, which he dubbed an effort "to spread the wealth."

Now, reading this piece got me thinking. If the McCain campaign makes the last fifteen days into an effective examination of Obama's policies and links them to socialism, they will win. That's because despite his eloquence his policies are largely socialistic in nature. That said, simply repeating over and over that he wants to "spread the wealth" and using that as proof of his socialism is not nearly enough. It appears that Dick Morris is again an oracle.

Follow this election cycle. Between the summer of 2007 and the end of February of 2008, all focus was on Hillary Clinton’s ups and downs. And Obama defeated her decisively. Then in March and April of 2008, Obama was in the focus and Rev Wright and the surrounding controversy propelled Hillary to victory. Then during the summer of 2008, all eyes were on Obama and he gained. In September, McCain was on the griddle. At first his selection of Sarah Palin let him move ahead. But then his “suspension” of his campaign and subsequent complicity in the bailout package cost him his lead and moved Obama to an advantage just short of double digits.
Now the attention should logically shift to Obama. He is way ahead and McCain is nowhere to be seen. Few give McCain any chance and the debate is over whether the race is over already. This is, of course, the ideal environment for a McCain surge. All attention would normally focus on the Democrat. But it isn’t. Every American checks the market before they check the polls. The ongoing anxiety over the stock market is not only giving more and more people reason to hate the Republicans of Wall Street and their allies in Washington, but it is keeping us from focusing on Obama.

In fact, as the race nears the end, with Obama in the lead, the focus is in fact now flatly on the front runner. This gives the McCain campaign an opportunity to massage the news cycle so that it focuses on Obama's policies in a manner that is optimum for the McCain campaign. If all the McCain campaign does is repeat Joe the Plumber, spread the wealth, and socialism over and over it won't be enough. It won't be near enough. In order for this to work, they must create a narrative and a narrative can be created that will leave no doubt that Barack Obama is much closer to a socialist than he is to a capitalist.

Soon, Sarah Palin must point out that Barack Obama believes that health care is a right. John McCain believes it is a responsibility. That was each of their answers at the second debate. Palin needs to forcefully point out that it was never the founding fathers intention to make health care a right. If it was, that's exactly what they would have done. When health care is a right that means the government imposes that "right". That's exactly what happens in Socialist societies. In fact, it isn't only in Cuba and Venezuela, but as Europe has moved more socialist, they have also created such rights as health care. John McCain should welcome a debate on whether or not it makes sense to make health care a right. He needs to use Sarah Palin to move the debate from Joe the Plumber to whether or not our country should make health care a right.

Then, the McCain campaign should point out that the center piece of Barack Obama's plan to create jobs the government to spend nearly a quarter million Dollars to create them. Remember, the center piece of Ronald Reagan's plan to create jobs was to cut taxes so that the private sector could create them. You can't get a more opposite philosophy than that. Of course, when the government spends more in order to create jobs, that is another center piece of Socialism, and again, Sarah Palin, the attack dog, must forcefully say it. The McCain campaign campaign must ask the simple question: Do we want a society in which the private sector leads in job creation or the government? If it's the first, vote for McCain, if it's the latter, vote for Obama.

Finally, the McCain campaign will need to wrap up the narrative in the last week in three ways. First, they must point out that Barack Obama's economic plan punishes each and every driver of capitalism: the entrepeneur, the investor, and the corporation. Barack Obama wants to raise the corporate tax, taxes on the highest earners, many of whom are successful small business owners, and the capital gains tax. Furthermore, he once told Charlie Gibson in a debate that he wants to raise the capital gains tax in the interest of "fairness". Of course, using tax policy to promote "fairness" is another bedrock of Socialism.

Second, they must soon begin to anticipate Obama's responses and use them against him. This was actually best done in this scene in the movie 8 Mile.



In it, Eminem's character anticipates all the insults his opponent will use in his own free style mix and thus takes away all the attacks from him. It isn't that difficult to anticipate what Barack Obama will say in response because he says the same thing over and over.

Lately, [McCain] and Governor Palin have actually accused me of -- get this -- socialism," Obama said. "It's kind of hard to figure how Warren Buffett endorsed me, Colin Powell endorsed me, and John McCain thinks I'm socialist."

Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them -- in roads and airports and hospitals and schools," President Bush's former secretary of state said. "And taxes are necessary for the common good, and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less.

"For us to say that makes you a socialist, I think, is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate

Barack Obama always responds by proclaiming that his tax policy will give more back to the middle class.

Here is how Sarah Palin should anticipate his response.

Folks, make no mistake. If Socialism is sold eloquently and with charisma, it can be made to sound like a great policy, but it will be Socialism nonetheless. Our opponent will tell you that he isn't a Socialist. In fact, he will say that all he is doing is providing more relief to the middle class. Folks, ask yourself this question: Where is he getting the money he is providing to the middle class. He's getting it from those at the top. That's income redistribution. He'll tell you that his plan will create jobs. Ask yourself how he wants to go about creating jobs. He will spend government money to do it. When government spends money to create jobs, that's socialism. He's going to tell you that health care is a right. Ask yourself what sort of person creates a right to health care, and of course that person is a Socialist.

Finally, the McCain campaign needs to wrap this up by tying Obama's Socialist leanings to many of his radical ties like Bill Ayers, the New Party, ACORN, and Frank Marshall Davis (his communist mentor in Hawaii). By tying his Socialist leanings to his radical set of friends and associates, they can make the connection why his past associations matter. It's because they have lead him to the ideology in which he wants to put America on a path to Socialism.

Make Health Care a "Right": The First Step Towards Socialism

In my previous post, I compared Barack Obama's policies with that of Socialists. Where the two converge most is on the issue of health care which they both see as a right. Previously, I also pointed out that once health care is termed a "right", there will be no end to the rights. I also pointed out that creating rights is standard boiler plate for Communists and Socialists.

In fact, the very same Socialist Party sees all sorts of rights.

1) Jobs.

The La Riva/Puryear campaign believes that everyone is entitled to a job. A job should be a constitutional right. Youth training and hiring programs, along with apprenticeship programs and job placement for adults of all ages can fill the employment for the projects above and more

2) Education

While Democratic and Republican candidates pay lip service to education reform, the quality of education for working-class students will continue to deteriorate as long as we live under a system that prioritizes profits over people. The La Riva/Puryear PSL presidential campaign calls for free, high quality education for all from pre-school through college.

3) Health care

The La Riva/Puryear PSL presidential campaign believes that quality health care must be free and available to all people. Capitalist insurance companies and providers must be dismantled and replaced with publicly-owned entities that provide health care for all.

4) Housing

The real root of the housing crisis lies in the capitalist system—an economic
and social system that produces for profits alone, not to meet people’s needs.
The La Riva/Puryear PSL presidential campaign believes that housing is a basic
human need and right. The foreclosures and evictions must end now.

5) A living wage

In the $12 trillion U.S. economy, working class people should be guaranteed, as a legal right, an income that assures that they will not spend the last years of their life in poverty.

6)Citizenship regardless of where you were born or how you got here.

All undocumented immigrants and residents in the United States should have full rights and equality now. That means equal wages, benefits, union rights, voting rights, and access to free, quality education, housing and health care. The government’s war on immigrants must end. Racist home and job raids must be stopped and concentration camp-style detention centers must be dismantled. The
border wall must be dismantled.

Now, think about it this way. If you believe that health care is a right, then why should it stop there? Isn't education, a living wage, housing, and citizenship just as important as health care?

The term "slippery slope"

In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies. The argument is sometimes referred to as the thin end of the wedge or the camel's nose. In broader, especially recent, pragmatic usage, the term slippery slope argument alternately refers to a non-fallacious argument that such undesirable events are rendered more probable. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymous with continuum fallacy, in that it assumes there is no gray area and there must be a definite transition at a certain point from category A to category B.
While the general form of the argument involving a slippery slope is not valid, the conclusion it leads to is not necessarily wrong.

is in my opinion overused. Yet, here it is quite appropriate. Once health care is determined to be a basic right, then are all sorts of human needs that also fall under the umbrella of human rights. The Socialists make no bones about their view of the world. People have the "right" to free health care, education, housing, a living wage, and citizenship regardless of status. Socialists believe in a compassionate world, and they see the government as the instrument to provide that compassion. That's why to them health care is a RIGHT. It is not compassionate to let someone go without health care, and so the government must ensure that everyone is taken care of. Barack Obama sees the world the same way and so he also believes that health care is a right.

Of course, the unabashed Socialists take that world view to its logical conclusion. They don't stop at health care. They see all sorts of human needs and believe they are all rights. Barack Obama says that in a wealthy country like ours health care should be a right. Well, replace health care and one could make the same argument about all sorts of basic human needs. Yet, unlike the unabashed Socialists, he seems to stop, for now, at health care. Of course, this makes no sense. If health care is a right, and in a wealthy country like ours, everyone should get health care, why end there? Our wealthy nation should be able to provide living wages, good retirement, housing, jobs, education, and citizenship to all. After all, in a wealthy nation like ours all those basic needs should be available to all, if you believe that health care is a right, then all the things I mentioned are also rights. Of course, since they are "rights", it is the government's responsibility to provide them.

That's what makes his assertion that health care is a right so dangerous. It isn't a small leap from health care to everything. Just look at the platform of the Socialists and you can see our not too distant future if we truly do make health care a right.

Obama and the Socialists: On the Issues

Many may not know it but the Socialists in America have fielded their own candidate, Gloria La Riva, and a quick glance at their website finds some remarkable information. The platform of the Socialists and of Barack Obama has remarkable similarities. I won't make any ridiculous claims that there is no difference, on foreign policy for instance they see the world much differently, but on many domestic issues there is a dangerous symmetry.

1) Health Care.

No issue is more similar between the Socialists and Barack Obama. Here is how the Socialists view the problem of health care and its solutions.

None of the major presidential candidates pledge to implement what the people of the Unites States really need: free, universal access to quality health care. All the major candidates are stooges for corporations, including insurance companies, health care providers and pharmaceutical giants that profit from illness.

To deny the right to heath care is to deny the right to live. Even other imperialist governments, like Canada, Britain and France, provide universal health care. So, why can’t the U.S. government do the same? It can. A militant, working-class movement must demand it.

The La Riva/Puryear PSL presidential campaign believes that quality health care must be free and available to all people. Capitalist insurance companies and providers must be dismantled and replaced with publicly-owned entities that provide health care for all.

Now, as many will remember, Barack Obama was clear in the last debate that health care is a RIGHT. When analyzing his assertion that health care is a right, I pointed out that this is the way that Communists view the world, and of course, Socialists as well. The Socialist party also makes an interesting point about Obama's own plan. If health care is in fact a right, then why isn't provided universally free to everyone? Obama's plan is that it combines our current free market system with government run health care. (I pointed out the fallacy of such a plan by comparing it to the structure of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) Of course, here I have to say that Obama is disingenuous. If health care is a right, then why should anyone pay for it. If he believes it is a right, then his honest plan should mirror that of the socialists.

2) The economy.

Here is how the Socialists view our economy.

In the United States, the productive capacity exists to meet people’s basic needs—here and all over the world. But under capitalism we experience repeated economic crises because goods are produced only to make profits for rich owners, not to meet the needs of people. Owners end up producing goods at a rate that exceeds the ability of the market to continue expanding.

The logic of this economic system requires the capitalists to stop producing goods or even destroy products that cannot be sold at a profit. Since human beings need these products it would make sense to sell abundant products at a lower price or just give them away. Instead, hundreds of thousands of workers are laid off from their jobs because they have produced more goods than can be sold at a profit. Under capitalism, profits come over peoples needs. Socialism reverses that equation.

More than 50 million people are already poor from low-wage jobs and now the
capitalist system is plunging the country into a severe recession and depressions. A depression is an exceptionally severe crisis of capitalism. The army of the unemployed grows by the millions. People lose their homes or are evicted from their apartments. Workers and even middle class people are confronted suddenly with the choice of buying either food or medicine when they and their families fall ill. Last year, more people were forced into bankruptcy than ever before; 50 percent were filed by people who could not pay their medical bills.

What can be done? There are only two choices. Either we can continue suffering under the present capitalist system with a tiny group owning everything and seeking to make greater profits. Or we can fight for socialism—a system where people are the priority, not profits. Under socialism, the economy is structured in a rational and ecologically sustainable manner to ensure that the basic needs of all people are met. Only under socialism will the economy brought into the realm of true democracy.

It should come as no surprise that the Socialists attack Capitalism and offer Socialism. The main problem that the Socialists see in our economy is that wealth is consolidated in the few wealthy. The only solution is the fair redistribution of wealth by the system of Socialism. So, what about Obama? Here is how Obama theorized about the problems of our economy and the solutions.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the Illinois Democrat said that he was trying to put together tax and spending policies that dealt with two challenges. One is the competition from rapidly growing developing countries, like India and China. The other: the U.S. becoming what he called a "winner-take-all" economy, where the gains from economic growth skew heavily toward the wealthy.

...

Sen. Barack Obama shed new light on his economic plans for the country, saying he would rely on a heavy dose of government spending to spur growth, use the tax code to narrow the widening gap between winners and losers in the U.S. economy, and possibly back a reduction in corporate tax rates.

So, much like the Socialists, Obama sees the main problem in the economy is that wealth is centered in the few. Rather than proposing full Socialism, Barack Obama merely proposes a plan that has its roots in Socialism, income redistribution. Rather than outwardly proposing Socialism, Obama proposes a hybrid. Under his plan, what will happen is that wealthy will be punished, severely. Anyone making over $250,000 will see their taxes go up as much as 10%. Not only will their income tax increase about 6% but they will also pay an extra newly created payroll tax. Meanwhile, everyone under $200,000 will receive a tax cut, even those that don't actually pay any income taxes. That may not be Socialsim but it certainly is close.

3) Reproductive rights.

Here is how the Socialists see it.

Women’s rights are under attack at the federal and state levels. The continuing subordinate position of women in society, at home and on the job, originated in the rise of class society. It has been compounded today by vicious attacks against women’s right to control their own bodies, by the virtual elimination affordable high-quality child care, and by drastic cuts in welfare and health care benefits. Black, Latino and other women of color are confronted by institutionalized and individual racism as well. Violence against women is still at epidemic proportions in the United States. Women are still paid far less on average then men for the same work. More working-class women than ever before are being incarcerated in the prison-industrial complex.

The La Riva/Puryear presidential campaign demands full reproductive rights for women, including the right to free, safe and legal abortions on demand. Free or affordable child care must be a top priority. Women’s clinics must be defended, and anti-choice bigots who attempt to deny women control of their bodies must be prosecuted. Access to free, quality health care and prenatal care, and access to free contraceptives is necessary.

Well, here again we have symmetry between the Socialists and Barack Obama. Obama wants to insure equal pay for women so much that he wants to make it law. As for so called reproductive rights, there isn't an abortion that Barack Obama thinks is wrong or should be made illegal. In fact, Obama is so pro abortion that he even believes that sometimes the baby should be killed even after the baby is born. Here I see absolutely no difference between his ow positions and that of the Socialists.

4) Immigration

Here is the Socialists position on immigration (or what the rest of us call illegal immigration)

All undocumented immigrants and residents in the United States should have full rights and equality now. That means equal wages, benefits, union rights, voting rights, and access to free, quality education, housing and health care. The government’s war on immigrants must end. Racist home and job raids must be stopped and concentration camp-style detention centers must be dismantled. The border wall must be dismantled.

The La Riva/Puryear presidential campaign believes that the struggle for legalization for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants is a top priority for the U.S. working class. Immigration is a natural outgrowth of imperialism and the forced uneven economic development of nations. “Free trade” agreements have eliminated national borders to enrich the capitalists, while the capitalists have erected borders against humans displaced by the effects of global capitalism.

So the Socialists are unabashedly pro totally open borders. .Here is how Barack Obama described the situation at the separatist group, La Raza.

And I will never walk away from the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live, work, and contribute to our country every single day.There are few better examples of how broken, bitter, and divisive ourpolitics has become than the immigration debate that played out in Washington a few weeks ago.

So many of us - Democrats and Republicans - were willing to compromise in order to pass comprehensive reform that would secure our borders while giving the undocumented a chance to earn their citizenship.

We knew that the American people believe that we are a nation of laws - that we have a right and duty to protect our borders. And we should also crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers so that we can protect jobs and wages.

But the American people also know that we are a nation of immigrants - a nation that has always been willing to give weary travelers from around the world the chance to come here and reach for the dream that so many of us have reached for. That's the America that answered my father's letters and his prayers and brought him here from Kenya so long ago. That's the America we believe in.

As for policy, Barack Obama has voted against stricter sanctions for those cities that practice sanctuary policies. He has voted for quasi pro open borders policies like the DREAM Act. He has come out against a border fence, and has not supported tough anti illegal immigration measure of
the SAVE Act. So, in words, he will "never walk away from the 12 million undocumented workers", and in deeds, he will support any pro open borders measure and oppose anything that will counter illegal immigration. On this issue, the only difference I see is that the Socialists are at least honest enough to say that they believe there are no borders in this country and anyone can come in. Barack Obama simply hides this belief with euphimisms.

5)Free trade

How do the Socialists view free trade?

In today’s capitalist-dominated world, capital is increasingly free to roam the planet in search of ever-greater profits. So-called free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA and other agreements negotiated through the World Trade Organization or bilaterally, serve the interests of the big capitalists. Unions and other organizations representing the interests of working people in industry and agriculture are excluded. Countries like Mexico have suffered severe economic destruction due to “free trade,” forcing millions of Mexican workers and farmers to emigrate to the U.S. for reasons of survival.

While the richer get richer and working people get poorer, racists and chauvinists like the “Minutemen” and Lou Dobbs try to scapegoat immigrants in order to hide the true cause of economic crisis—capitalism itself.

So, how does Barack Obama view free trade? Barack Obama doesn't take it quite that far but he comes close.

Improve Transition Assistance:To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.

Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.

Rather than abolishing free trade entirely, Barack Obama believes in the nebulous concept of "fair trade". Once again, here the Socialists are honest about their total protectionist stance. Obama hides it with some Utopian concept known as "fair trade".

6) Jobs

Instead of using our tax dollars to fuel the destructive Pentagon budget of more than a half a trillion dollars per year, the La Riva/Puryear presidential campaign calls for redirecting that money to create millions of union jobs for unemployed and underemployed working-class people. We also demand that the minimum wage be raised to $15 dollars an hour now.

The highway and bridge infrastructure in the United States is in serious need of repair, More than 155,000 U.S. bridges need to be restored or reconstructed. The creation of hundreds of thousands of permanent, full-time union jobs could restore the infrastructure. Mass transit and high-speed national train systems also are needed to greatly reduce dependence on cars and to reduce global warming.

We demand that New Orleans and the Gulf Coast be rebuilt. There must be homes, schools, hospitals and parks for all those who were displaced in Katrina’s aftermath. Jobs and job training should be guaranteed first for the region’s residents. Environmental programs also must be created to restore wetlands and other natural areas, and to rebuild the levee system

The Socialists want to end war and use that money so that government can provide more jobs.

So, how does Obama match up? Here is how Barack Obama described his job's plan.

Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters. Obama's investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.

Sixty billion would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis.

How does he plan on paying for this?

Obama explained that the money for his spending proposals will come from ending the Iraq war, cutting tax breaks for corporations, taxing carbon pollution and raising taxes on high income earners.

Remarkable...If you think that Barack Obama reminds you of a Socialist just compare him to a real one and see how close they are.

Epilogue:

To be fair on foreign policy, the Socialists see the world much differently than Obama. Here is their foreign policy view.

U.S. foreign policy has only one purpose: global domination through military, economic, political and diplomatic means. Washington uses war and the threat of war, economic blockades, sanctions and bribery to force other countries—particularly those in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East—to accept its dictates. There are over 700 U.S. military bases in over 130 countries. Governments that refuse to go along with the U.S. imperialists’ agenda are targeted for “regime change.” Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, Bolivia, Zimbabwe and others are currently on their list.

U.S. imperialism serves the interests of the capitalists in corporate America, not working-class people. This expansionist, profit-based system seeks to gain control of resources and markets for unlimited exploitation. Imperialist leaders and their media lapdogs whip up racist campaigns against targeted countries to gain popular support for wars of aggression.

In place of chauvinist imperialist domination, the La Riva/Puryear PSL presidential campaign stands for relations with all nations and peoples based on equality, mutual respect, friendship, cooperation and solidarity. This policy could only be implemented by a government that was no longer beholden to the interests of transnational corporations and banks.

That sort of anti American hate doesn't come out of his mouth.