The Democratic Party is alienating middle-class married white voters and older white voters, but the Republican Party does not seem able to differentiate itself enough to take advantage of this before it's too late.
Seventy-five years of progressive public education has paid off big-time for the Democrat Party. The popular vote indicates that slightly more than half the electorate preferred a failed community organizer to an experienced problem-solver with a great economic vision for our future. Why? Because they don’t understand the difference between socialism and capitalism. Recently, when I asked a young computer repairman what was the difference between socialism and capitalism, his answer was: “A socialist government is for all the people. A capitalist government is for the few.” He had been well indoctrinated by his Marxist teachers.
Four years ago during an October 30, 2008 campaign speech at Missouri University, then U.S. Senator Barack Obama told a crowd of about 40,000 students, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Understandably, many conservatives scrutinized this comment because the idea of fundamentally transforming the United States of America is upsetting to anyone who cherishes basic American values.
Dare we risk how far President Obama will go when he never has to face the voters again, and can appoint Supreme Court justices who can rubber stamp his power grabs? Will this still be America in 2016?
While intelligent CEOs had thought they had found a way of reforming American education, they were totally unaware that left-wing, progressive educators were creating their own “reforms” designed to make things worse. With all our standards, tests, and accountability, and with No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, our literacy continues to decline. Only parents who are informed enough to teach their children to read at home can save their children from school-induced illiteracy.
If we focus on whether a given candidate is bent on doing what we consider evil, others, knowing the truth that people virtually always intend to do “good,” may dismiss it as radicalism. So a better question often is: What is the person’s conception of good?
This brings us to Obama. Like the average American, his goals are directed toward what he considers good. But on what is considered good is where he parts company — quite drastically — with the average American.
I consider — and repudiate — the notion that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for "the lesser of two evils" and amounts to a "compromise of principle."
Most Americans who have become aware of the academic and moral decline of public education tend to believe that the humanistic curriculum that now dominates the system is of relatively recent origin. They believe that the great emphasis now placed on the “affective domain” — all of those programs devoted to values, feelings, activities, behavior, group dynamics, sexuality, etc. — is somewhat new. Actually, it is far from new. The fact is that the groundwork for what we have in our schools today was laid in the 20th century by the Progressives who knew exactly where they wanted to lead America: to a socialist society.
How can we characterize government disaster aid? Well, we now complain about a crony capitalism through which Uncle Sam “picks winners and losers,” but what do the feds do through disaster relief? They pick winners and losers.