commonsensesd.org

My Parents were Democrats, always voted that way. But it was for Kennedy,and every other Dem that ran. But if they were alive today, they would not recognize their party. They believed in working hard for what you get,and don’t be stupid after you get it. They gave their fair share to charity to !Progressives want to socialize everything, Medicine ,gov. social programs. They want to be France. Is that why some of the Democrats have joined the Tea Party? to separate themselves from the Progressives?

I would vote for a classical liberal if they were still existed in the democrat party. They seem to have gone to the (Ron Paul type) republican or libertarian party usually today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

They hijacked the party starting with Woodrow Wilson then FDR.

It combines fascism with socialism. (Though they are very similar as fascism is ‘private property’ in name only with strict government control while socialism is outright nationalization of property).

“The “progressives” who today masquerade as “liberals” may rant against “fascism”; yet it is their policy that paves the way for Hitlerism.” said classical liberal Ludwig von Mises 1940 http://mises.org/daily/1691

The Fascist Epithet
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-fascist-epithet/

American Roots of Fascism By John Ray (M.A.;Ph.D.)
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/amerfasc.html

Progressive Illiberalism
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/the-goal-is-freedom-progressive-illiberalism/

Also, why do the Democrats want to expand the coverage of young adults up to the age of 25 to maintain insurance through the parents’ plan. Why are Republicans against this?

Lets see what it does to cost….and the word MANDATORY…hmmmm guess you dont believe in personal FREEDOM…PS over 18 is an ADULT…where is the personal RESPONSIBILITY…..oops a word the dems are unfamiliar with.

It is the American dream. To buy a beautiful house with the white picket fence, and raise a family in a safe neighborhood, where crime is almost nonexistent was reality for many families of generations past but unfortunately has become wishful thinking in the 21st century.

With the recent murders of singer/actress Jennifer Hudson’s mother and brother in their Chicago home, Americans have once again come to the sad realization that no one is above tragedy and anyone could become the next victim of a violent crime. In many presidential elections, the issues that candidates often stress are those on a national level such as the economy or national security. But what would the presidential candidates do to address crime prevention and assist state and local law enforcement officials in making American streets a safer place to live?

According to Barack Obama’s official website, he and running mate Joe Biden would fully fund the COPS program to put 50,000 police officers on American streets and also address the issue of police brutality that is so prevalent in communities of color. As a result of understaffing at many police departments, the Democratic ticket will also encourage more young people to enter the field of law enforcement.

Republican John McCain also supports federally funding state and local law enforcement agencies but believes rampant earmarking of federal funds to the local level has reduced funding to those jurisdictions that are in most need. According to his official website, “John McCain will restore credibility to these grant programs by ensuring funding is based on need and provided to the most worthy jurisdictions based on a peer-review of grant applications.”

Both McCain and Obama also support reducing crime recidivism by enacting programs that help former inmates readapt to society. According to BarackObama.com, “Obama and Biden will create a prison-to-work incentive program, modeled on the successful Welfare-to-Work Partnership and work to reform correctional systems to break down barriers for ex-offenders to find employment.”

Consequently, McCain supported the Second Chance Act, which will provide up to $360 million for reentry services from 2009-2010. The Second Chance Act funds many faith-based programs that help former prisoners transition back into mainstream society by providing job training, counseling and mentors. Many of these programs have reported reducing recidivism rates by 50 percent. According to JohnMcCain.com, the annual cost of incarcerating a prisoner is more than $20,000.

Obama plans to address crime prevention in many cities by respecting the Second Amendment rights of gun owners but at the same time keeping guns away from helpless children. According to his website, “(Obama and Biden) support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent; as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not our streets.”

The Democrats also wants to see an end to racial profiling, as Obama passed a law in his home state that required the Illinois Department of Transportation to record the ethnicities, gender and age of all drivers stopped.

To post your opinion on the presidential election visit www.regalmag.com/forum.

Todd A. Smith
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/where-do-the-candidates-stand-on-crime-prevention-691290.html

The republicans let the democrats protest the eight years that George Bush was in office. We didn’t call them an angry mob or insult them.

Democrats have selective memory.

The lies about ‘poverty’ are legion. They make tearful reading. If you believe the media, academics, and the huge ‘poverty’ industry which feeds off of massive government welfare and poverty-relief programs, than poverty is a widespread pernicious evil, and soon to grow as rich whites and Jews get richer, and everyone else becomes poorer.

It is always the same wailing cry, ‘what about the poor?’ for politicians and activists. It sounds like a caricature of one of Dicken’s bad books. The most annoying fact is this – real poverty has been declining for decades and afflicts a very small percentage of people and it has no relationship to massive government welfare and programs of compassion. None.

Consider these facts:

-American University published a 2007 which concluded that the average family income per person has gone up by 35% in the past 20 years, and income per peson was up 153 percent [fewer little apes per household].

-There is a 60% chance – thanks to income and social mobility – that income earners in the bottom 20% will leave that ‘class’ of earners and move up the income ladder.

-Between 1979 and 2004 the number of US households earning less than $75.000 per year, fell by 10% while those earning more than $75.000 increased by the same. [translation for Marxists – 'more people are getting wealthier']

-In 2007 alone net income in the US went up by $500 billion – about the same as the ‘housing mortgage crisis’ which is supposed to destroy capitalism and usher in an era of benign socialist peace under King Obama or Queen Hillary.

-The top 10% of tax payers actually saw a reduction in earned income since 2000, while still paying close to 50% of the national income tax. Just for the record, the bottom 50% of income earners pay a whopping! 3% of the total national income tax [that must truly please the inner marxist in all of us].

How about this factoid. Poverty rates – real and nominal – were about 25 % or so in 1950. Fifty odd years later they are 8-12% depending on which report you read and what your definition of poverty is. The trend however is rather clear – it is going down. This downward trend should be met with positive comments and some degree of satisfaction. After all who wants to see poor people hanging around society? Not many. So are we happy that we are winning the ‘war’ against poverty? Of course not!

It is much better to be negative and to hate the world. Instead of focusing on what works to relieve poverty, the little minds of the world, do the opposite. They scream out lies and distortions and claim that the ’system’ is racist, bigoted, unfair or too white. They then expect taxpayers to fund all sorts of crazy ideas to ’solve’ all of these ‘inequalities’ [all men are created equal you know] which exist and which apparently create ‘the working poor’. Yet paradoxically they try to halt the very programs and market conditions which actually do relieve poverty. For the class marxists and compasionate socialists only government should help the poor. But what the little dears don’t get is that government is the problem, not the solution for the ‘poor’.

The series of marxist lies start with who is poor. In the US, the poverty rate is set at $19.900 per year in income for a family of four. This is admittedly a pretty low income number. The census says that 12.7% of Americans are at or below this number. There are of course many problems with this ‘fact’.

First, it leaves out the black market or non-taxed transactions. Second, it ignores cash grants and cash transfers. Third, it ignores the asset wealth of those in this income group. When you analyse ‘the poor’, you find out that not many of them are really poor at all. How about these facts:

-50 % of US poor own their own homes [yet net assets are never used in accouting for who is poor].

-75% own at least one car with 1/3 owning 2 cars.

-97% own a color TV

-Poor US blacks live in more square footage than the average European [average not poor – average].

Very few Americans – maybe 2% - earn a minimum wage [now reset to $7.25 per hour] to support a family. Most minimum wage earners only stay that way for less than one year and most are part-time and teenagers. In other words poverty is about choice and about not following guidelines to get and stay out of poverty. So how does one become poor?

-have kids when you are young and out of wedlock

-drop out of school

-don’t work hard

-go on welfare

-get involved in crime and drugs

-be part of a broken family

If you follow that program you will be poor.

Interestingly in the US the poorest urban areas have been run by left wing politicians and the democrats for more than 40 years with nary an anti-socialist in sight. These poor left wing run cities with poverty rates of over 25% include Cleveland, Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, Buffalo, Philadelphia and the corrupt black run city of New Orleans. Interesting isn’t it?

In the past 10 years the income of the poor 1/5 has increased by over 10%. Poverty can be reduce by trade, opening up job opportunities through having a dynamic economy where productivity and profits open up new sectors, new products and new jobs. Having a rigidified, protectionist society only adds to poverty, it does not decrease.

Neither does government welfare, the huge ‘poverty’ industry which feeds off of bloated budgets or allowing illegals to happily walk into the country and low bid jobs away from poor blacks and whites. Instead of government redistribution to help the poor, it would be more efficient and cheaper, to have all people earning $100.000 or more a year to simply write cheques directly to the poor and monitor the use of that money. That would save billions a year in government welfare and force those receiving the money to start to change their behaviors and their lives [no behavioral change no more private welfare grants].

Poverty is something which will never be eradicated. All men are created equal in the eyes of God but capabilities and skills are anything but equal between people. The best system to help the poor is one which can teach them what patterns, behaviors and attitudes will lead them out of poverty, and which gives them a chance to get and keep a job.

Any other system is nothing more than failed Marxist lunacy and should be avoided at all costs. It certainly does nothing to help the poor.

C. Read
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/who-are-the-poor-exactly-681945.html

The overwhelming majority of Americans don’t agree with illegal immigration, Cap and Trade a government run health care system or global warming. Are the Democrats that far out of touch with the will of the people do they even live in reality ? Why do they continuously push for ruinous policies that only seem to benefit themselves ?

Because we let them.

The Democrats are now fighting for their political survival, and will surely lose Congress in 2010, and the White House in 2012.

I speak for all Americans when I say, thank you Glenn Beck, for exposing the left wing socialist Democrats.

The Tea Parties are what is going to sink the Democrats, and the GOP will retake Washington and fix Obama’s messes. Hundreds of thousands of people, more than any other gathering in Washington, fact.

Yep, I think the upcoming demise of the Democrats in the white house is the concept that they seem to ignore those that oppose their policies. We’ve been called astroturf, racists, swastika carrying thugs and the like. I don’t believe they know the power of the independents that put Obama into office and the "We won" We are going to do what we want" mentality is not going to carry them past 2010 or 2012.

I see fully matured Democrats working the lowest of the low all the time. We see them on TV BEGGING for the minimum wage to be increased for these geniuses…They support handouts, entitlements and crime…What am I missing here?

The backbone of Democratic party is SEIU - the union of janitors and mailroom boys. Andy Stern who represent this extremly educated workforce is the most frequent visitor to the White Hose.

Some Democrats have Uniersity eduction for sure, but those are the ones which are ignored by the Obama administration. Such Democrats are not in favor of big labor, they are after environment, civil rights, non-proliferation. Obama spends trilions to subsidize SEIU and ignores everything else. Such "educated" liberals as we see turn out to be held as suckers by the Obama admistration.

Shrek would make a good President. He has green skin – uber cool color. He has never had a job. He loves animals. He has big ears. He talks in halting stultified and often times irrational rhythms. He believes in sharing wealth. He has a thing for fat chicks. Why not Shrek for 2012 ? If Barack Obama who is a media created cartoonish politician can seize power why not the real thing ? After all Shrek is green and when the fetish with Black skin as carried by the new Messiah evaporates, the eco-cult, the socialists and other cult members can smoothly move over from the Obama cult to the Shrek cult. It is perfectly sensible.

No one knows what Shrek believes – but it can’t be any worse than what the Black Jesus has espoused over 12 years in politics. Obama believes in 4 core issues consistent in his voting and political record:

1.government ownership of much of production and equalisation of profits;

2.a redistribution of income to create equality amongst ‘classes’;

3.a reduced US military and more subservience to international institutions and

4.an ambivalence towards life with the most extreme pro-abortion record in recent US senate history. The support of death over life says alot about both the man and his inner beliefs.

Obama is also the first man in history to hold the highest office in the world without ever having a job. Like Shrek, Obama has never worked in what constitutes the reality of life. No private sector concerns; payroll; adhering to idiotic government rules and over-taxation; competition; the pain of being innovative; or business process rationalisation has ever troubled the new Dear Leader Barack. No need for uncertainty, a respect for individuality, a comprehension of complex market and capital forces or an understanding of management skills and planning has ever bothered the knitted brow of the Great Messiah.

A Harvard trained lawyer; a community organiser who organised his own political ambitions on the backs of others; a crony-politician of the corrupt Chicago-Democratic party; a man who sat in a racist church for 25 years smiling; the new Dear Leader has led a life of Pauline beatitude – inured to such bothersome things as competition, failure, and the heavy hand of the state. Like Shrek the new Messiah exists in a fantasy world – one in which his greatness should be obvious and respected.

Obama is also the first US president elected on skin color. If skin is in, why the heck not Shrek? The reality of the Obama vote is this – he won 80% or more of votes amongst the following:

-the brainwashed, globaloneywarming cult of 18-25 year olds, who don’t like their country too much and who are taught in school that the ills of the world are the fault of the White Devil

-minorities with 98% of Blacks voting for Obama [but that is not racist you understand]

-the poor and those on welfare

-union workers

-the media, whose adulation makes a mockery of the 4th estate

-Silicon Valley and Wall Street

-the uber-rich with their champagne socialism

-Catholics and Jews [many of these groups are far left giving lie to the idea that all Christians vote 'right wing' whatever that term means]

-those who want a very liberal judiciary and constitutional reform to enhance the power of left wing courts

These are hardly the groups that you want running a country. They are a sad collection of leftist state-lovers; opportunists looking for welfare, handouts, corporate bailouts, subsidies, rich hypocrites, or those who want to buy off regulatory agenices. Many are anti-American; peace at all costs nihilists; or outright racists preaching anti-White and indeed anti-American vitriol.

Quite a large minority could be termed secular fascists with the true elements of that word which comprises intolerance, thought-control; and a viral dislike of the modern world. Radical Gay and Lesbo organisations attacking Churches recently come to mind, as does talk of the ‘fairness’ doctrine in media with many Democrats and Obama-lovers musing about shutting down ‘right wing’ and conservative media outlets.

There is no ‘hope and change’ in such a collection of interests. There will not be a ‘reform’ of Washington inside such a coalition of negative dead-enders – those who hate capital, markets, White ‘domination’, the US, or those who display a cultish inability to think, rationalise and listen. As for solving the economic crisis Obama has rehired the entire Clinton team. This is interesting. Did people vote for change to change back to the Clinton years ? Isn’t that what Obama opposed in 2 years of campaigning and ‘Yes we can’ innuendo ? How is hiring very old White guys who need hearing aids and drool when they speak, an affirmation of radical cleansing and renewal ?

Yes the Obama cartoon show is a very interesting display of manipulation, lies, deceit and platitudes parading as policy. Maybe he will reinvent himself as a practical leader, who though never holding a real job, is able to lead the most complex organisation on the planet and perhaps he will reform the economy, win foreign wars, and re-establish American primacy. Maybe. Then again maybe Shrek will make a good President in 2012. After all, green is the new uber-cool – apart from the Black Messiah’s skin color of course. Blessed be the Messiah. All hail the Shrek.

C. Read
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/the-ultimate-media-and-cartoon-creation-barack-obama-681935.html

After months of secret meetings behind closed doors, and breaking promises of televised meetings on CSPAN, democrats suddenly want to work with Republicans. I was just wondering if anyone knew why the sudden change in their attitude?

The kick in the nuts they got last night is one hell of an attitude adjustment.