Thursday, October 16, 2008

Democratic Party and Radicalism

If we acknowledge that a radical is one who seeks to make change in the fundamental institution of our government then the Democratic Party has become the party of radicalism. At what point in time they became this party of radicalism I will not attempt to declare. It really does not matter when it happened, what matters is what will the people do now and whether they want this change. Furthermore, if the people actually want to change the fundamentals of this government then what will those who do not want change do?

The groundwork and foundation for this change has already been put into place. This occurred when the concept of a living Constitution became an acceptable ideological means to be used to interpret the Constitution. Without the use of this concept, radical change would not occur without an amendment to the Constitution. With its use the Constitution can be interpreted in any manner the judge deems fit. This, in essence, places political ideology above the Constitution.

Now, before I go any further, I wish to make one thing clear. I do not believe that whoever came up with the idea of a living Constitution had radical changes in mind. I just believe that it is a tool for radical change and it has been used very effectively. Furthermore, I believe that the changes that radicals seek will result from the use of this tool.

Which political party is an advocate of the use of this theory for interpretation of the Constitution?

Now, does the advocating of this theory in and of it itself declare the Democratic Party as being radical? No it doesn’t. Will I say that the Democratic Party has always been considered as being radical? No I won’t. This is a verily recent change in the party.

What has changed is their philosophy towards society and the role government has in society. What has changed is the tactics they use in order to gain the seats of power in this nation in order to bring about these changes that they seek.

A radical knows that power goes to two poles, one who has money and one who has people. We must remember also, that we are talking about the minds of people here. The radicals who control the Democratic Party now have both. Moreover, it is my belief they feel they have the man to lead this country and bring about these radical changes in the person of Barrack Obama.

The fact that both, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party have endorsed his candidacy for President would be the first clue. It would be hard to believe that these two political parties would endorse someone unless they believed that he would serve their political purpose of fundamental change in our way of life. There can be no doubt as these parties’ desire to change this way of life.

There is also the matter of his tax policies. He has openly admitted that they are for the purpose and intent of income redistribution. This is often called the Robin Hood syndrome. There is one problem here though. Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor because he believed that taxes were too high not because he felt that money should be more evenly distributed. In other words, he was returning to the poor what they had earned and he felt would be theirs if not for the high taxes.

Then we come to his association with others. He has surrounded himself with what can only be called radicals, some so radical as to use criminal means of violence to advance their political agenda. This is not an allegation. It is a fact. This is known to be a fact because they have confessed to it after they were set free by a court of law.

The last thing to consider is the tactics being used to regain power that is perceived in the office of the Presidency. They are the tactics of radicalism. These tactics have become more prominently used since the 2000 presidential elections and the Democrats feel that it was stolen from them by the Supreme Court decision.

Now, is this just some conspiracy theory? Based upon what I have written it could be seen and judged as such, this I’ll admit. It may be that it is just that too. Only the future will tell. There is far more to my idea then what I have written in this post. Blogs are not the best medium to use when making a claim such as this. It doesn’t easily allow for detailed explanations.

I do know one thing though. You do not have long term working relationships with people you do not agree with in regards to the desired results of that work. You do not continue to accumulate long term relationships with those persons whose agenda are the same as each other but is not the same as yours. That is just human nature at work. Obama would have you believe that he did though. How would you explain his ability to defy human nature?


Average American said...

Griper, there just plain is no rational explanation for his rise to where he is today. The head start came from his associations with the henchmen and criminal elements that have received way to little scrutiny. Once in politics, he gained acceptance from the people on the lowest rungs of the ladder by giving as much taxpayer money as possible to them. This whole community organizer thing is just a fancy name for buying votes. The next step in the progression is where I don't have an explanation. He captured the hearts and minds of the MSM, hook line and sinker. They were always liberal, but they got A LOT worse for this character. Then, of course, the MSM enabled him to sway a large portion of what are usually normal thinking Americans. It is this group, that if they get the real story will abandon him like rats abandoning a sinking ship! This is where our Army of bloggers and the republican party as a whole have to concentrate, AND EXCEL!

The Griper said...

the trouble is that we must get beyond the "guilt by association" mindset or "racism" mindset that he has instilled in the people. as long as people of those mindsets no truths will spoil his image.

BB-Idaho said...

We Americans are politically diverse and eclectic. These interesting demographics are summed in this recent analysis
wherein we find the right-left range of views. (From discussion with my conservative friends, I would place many in what is termed
'Enterprizers', we can get rich by hard work and the gov't should be sent to the Maldive
Islands :)) Further study reveals some shifting of opinion over the last eight years, a bit fewer hard right, a bit more liberals; though both these groups are relatively small. One would suspect economic conditions to be a driver, as well as the increase in young voters. As far as 'radical' we may be seeing a reaction to apparent flaws/failure in a free market economy which has seen its mfg base shrink from 20% to only 12% GDP, while 'financial services' has grown to 40%GDP...
unhealthy by comparison to China with its 34% mfg base. Pouring taxpayer monies into places like
AIG, where the execs immediately
took a $100,000 hunting trip/business seminar to Britain,
strikes some as 'socialism for the rich' and others as 'privatization of profit, socialization of risk'
So, when as one expert notes, 'moving money around' is the backbone of an economy in which most working folks have seen the value of their real wages stagnate and decline, there is a general dissatisfaction. Which we label as 'class warfare'..and others label as 'leveling the playing field. Whichever, when the treasury pays off MY bills which I incur by gross stupidity and greed, by giving ME $250 billion...I shall be off to England on a hunting trip...and
consider the playing field leveled. I dunno, radical? :)

The Griper said...

i guess this is clearly one of those times that i did not write a very clearly constructed post, bb.

when i was speaking of being radical i was referring to the idea of a complete change of form of government along the lines of a revolutionary movement. but as i said in my post this is not a good medium to use to make a point clear on an issue like this because it doesn't allow for a detailed reasoning. to do so would be the need to give a more detailed reasoning in regards to associates along with the tactics i see being used. maybe i should have never posted an issue like this in the first place because it does look like i'm only seeing something that isn't there. but i do see it as important enough to try to put out my ideas and get feed back on it, both pro and con.

Anonymous said...

I love your blog and your original ideas. I was reading this post about Democrats being radicals, and throughout the entire post, I was trying to figure you out. Are you liberal, conservative, both, neither? I don't know why we are programmed to do that. I guess it's because so little of the news we get these days is impartial, therefore, I am always trying to look at the bias in it.

I love on your profile how you say you never consider yourself a member of society. I often feel the exact same way!

I also wanted to drop by to thank you for leaving a comment on my blog at

Yes, the US being United. . . That is ironic. Sometimes I wonder if our country needs to split into a few countries. Thoughts?

Keep up the great blogging. I really enjoy what you have to say, and hope you don't mind, but I'd love to add your blog address to my blog. Have a great day!


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster