[Loud Mime]

This is a good article with some interesting comments at the source.

[Sans-Culotte]

Bump.

[Jacquerie]

Imaginary victims are the fuel of the democrat party.

The rats’ 80 year jihad to divide America, to foment more and more divisions among us is bearing its bitter fruit. As the Framers knew, a republic requires a certain level of shared traditions and values. Destroy that commonality and the republic will descend into anarchy. Once the people with property to defend demand the government “do something,” will be the day Obama drops the presidential mask and reveals the totalitarian he is.

[Ohioan]

Welfare programs, if not to be socially destructive, have to be locally administered, guided by moral principles, not the idea of entitlements.

Here is how Jefferson described what worked well in 1782: Jefferson On Welfare.

Let's get the Federal Government out of this!

William Flax

[MrB]

“My colleague Congresswoman Ryan’s comments about “inner city” poverty are a thinly veiled racial attack and cannot be tolerated. Let’s be clear, when Mr. Ryan says “inner city,” when he says, “culture,” these are simply code words for what he really means: “black.””

OK, I guess the shoe fits. If the criticism somehow especially applies to one group, then that group needs to consider the criticism. Now, what are you going to do about the dysfunctional “black” culture, Miss Lee?

[Parmy]

The poverty rate in 1950 was 30%. In 1965 it was 15%. After 49 years’ and the Great Society transfer of trillions of dollars of wealth, it is still, for all intents and purposes, 15%.

[PapaBear3625]

This is an obvious act of psychological projection, because it is the left that has long since converted all discussion of economic policy and the welfare state into mere place-holders for racial politics. They are the real code-talkers, and the motive is obvious: precisely to shut down discussion of these issues, leaving the unreformed status quo in place.

From a David Horowitz column:

In 1969, the year that publishers reissued Alinsky’s first book, Reveille for Radicals, a Wellesley undergraduate named Hillary Rodham submitted a 92-page research project on Alinsky for her senior thesis. In her conclusion Clinton compared Alinsky to Eugene Debs, Walt Whitman and Martin Luther King, as someone who was considered dangerous not because he was a self-declared enemy of the American system, but because he “embraced the most radical of political faiths -- democracy.”

The title of Clinton’s thesis was “There Is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” In this title she had identified the single most important Alinsky contribution to the radical cause – his embrace of political nihilism. An SDS radical once wrote, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” In other words, the cause of a political action – whether civil rights or women’s rights – is never the real cause; women, blacks and other “victims” are only instruments in the larger cause, which is power. Battles over rights and other issues, according to Alinsky, should never be seen as more than occasions to advance the real agenda, which is the accumulation of power and resources in radical hands. Power is the all-consuming goal of Alinsky’s politics.

This focus on power was illustrated by an anecdote recounted in a New Republic article that appeared during Obama’s presidential campaign: “When Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: ‘You want to organize for power!’ In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote: “From the moment an organizer enters a community, he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing, and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army.” The issue is never the issue. The issue is always building the army. The issue is always the revolution

Guided by these principles, Alinsky’s disciples are misperceived as idealists; in fact, they are practiced Machiavellians. Their focus is invariably on means rather than ends. As a result they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies or theoretical dogmatisms in the way their still admired Marxist forebears were. Within the framework of their revolutionary agendas, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is power

In any discussion with a Leftist activist, things will never resolve, because the activist will never admit his real agenda, and never concede anything which might hinder his agenda, which is getting more power and money.

You would have more luck getting a defense attorney to concede in court that his client is a scumbag who should be executed.