Open letter to Sen John McCain

Senator McCain,

My husband
worked and paid into Social Security from 1952 to 1998. That’s 46 years. I paid
into it from 1953, on and off for 8 years. My job was to stay home and raise
two sons.

Tell me why
it’s called entitlement. Because of reckless decisions and spending in
Washington we have not had a cost of living raise since 2009. Our cost have
gone up like everybody else’s, but you voted to give these benefits to illegals
who have not put in one penny. WHY?

Please, be the
Conservative Representative we hoped you were when we voted for you. Perhaps
you’ve been in Washington too long and made too many friends across the aisle.
Is that it?

Our Country and
our National Reputation are being stolen out from under us. I’m 78 years old
and have seen a lot of different people come to represent me, but at this time
I do not have a voice in Washington.

Spencer, my Great Granddad, removed nine times, was one of the Founders of
Jamestown. He came here in 1607 on the Susan Constant. The people on the three
ships met at Cape Henry, Virginia and raised a 7 foot wooden cross and
consecrated the land to God. I mention this because our [present] President
says we are not a Christian nation. He didn’t even come here until he was grown
and I am not that sure that he was ever an American. I’ve read his wife’s
thesis and certainly she’s not proud to be an American.

We are in need
of Proud, Conservative, Fearless, Patriotic and Godly people to save our country.
Please, stand up and be that person. Never before do I remember a voice in
Washington from the Oval Office being so ready to criticize our USA.

Bettye Simmons

Tempe, AZ

Sarah Palin: The Army’s Loss in Dis-Inviting a Good Man

Sarah Palin: The Army’s Loss in Dis-Inviting a Good Man

The Army’s Loss in Dis-Inviting a Good Man
 Today at 5:01am
My, have things changed. I was honored to have Rev. Franklin Graham speak at my Governor’s Prayer Breakfasts. His good work in Alaska’s Native villages and his charitable efforts all over the world stem from his servant’s heart. In my years of knowing him, I’ve never found his tempered and biblically-based comments to be offensive – in fact his words have been encouraging and full of real hope.

It’s truly a sad day when such a fine patriotic man, whose son is serving on his fourth deployment in Afghanistan to protect our freedom of speech and religion, is dis-invited from speaking at the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service. His comments in 2001 were aimed at those who are so radical that they would kill innocent people and subjugate women in the name of religion.

Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. Yes, things have changed.

– Sarah Palin

The Horrors Of Progressive Socialism Revisited

The Horrors Of Progressive Socialism Revisited

Posted By Andrew Marcus On April 3, 2010 @ 2:29 pm In Culture, History, News | 296 Comments

The LA Times has a piece out today that is entirely worth reading, about a brave and crazy Englishman who, contrary to all self preservation instincts, sneaked into Progressive Socialist death camps during WWII.


Bearing witness to Nazi horror [1]

Reporting from Bradwell, England – The men in stripes came in looking like boxers and ended up like skeletons. Denis Avey could see them wasting away in a place so evil that even nature had abandoned it, without a bee or butterfly in sight.

They were the Jewish inmates housed in the ghastliest part of Auschwitz, subjected to brutalities and atrocities that Avey, an English prisoner of war confined to another section of the camp, could barely imagine.

But then, he thought, why only imagine them? What if, somehow, he could see those horrors for himself — see them, remember them, bear witness to the world about them?

So the then-25-year-old pondered and plotted, soon hatching a plan so audacious that, more than 65 years later, he shakes his head at its absurdity. While so many Jews and others held at the infamous extermination camp were desperate to get out, Avey was actually devising a way to sneak in.

Read the rest of this entry »

How Obama’s party works

How Obama’s party works

Phil Boehmke

Many of us, myself included are incredulous that our elected officials could have defied the will of the people and passed such a fundamentally un-American piece of legislation as ObamaCare. Clearly the American people have been betrayed by Mr. Obama and his party. The question here is how could a majority of our representatives conspire to abandon their constituents, violate their oath of office, debase the rule of law, surrender even the pretense of ethical conduct and sacrifice the future of our republic?

Perhaps a long forgotten book entitled The Whole Of Their Lives by Benjamin Gitlow can offer us a clue. From 1917 until his disillusionment during the Stalin regime Benjamin Gitlow was a leading light of the Communist Party in America. Gitlow gave us a first hand account of communism in America and much more importantly he provided us with remarkable insight into the communist psyche.

Human conduct, the comrades were told, must not be based on ethical or religious abstractions but on concrete tangible objectives. The leaders kept pounding into the heads of their followers that communist loyalty consisted not in loyalty to one’s wife, family, children or one’s country but to the organization to which the communist belonged-The Party. They pictured the Communist party as the final, the highest form of the collective will of the toiling masses who compose the working class. Hence they claimed everything the Party willed was justified, that the Party could do no wrong. Hammered home was the idea that communist morality consisted in completely suborning oneself to the Party. Thus were the men and women of the Communist party transformed into beings devoid of all spiritual idealism, without a sense of right or wrong, to be used as the communist machine saw fit. (1)

When put in those terms we can see how devout Roman Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Kennedy or John Kerry can easily support abortion. It was clear that Bart Stupac was never going to violate his highest loyalty, to The Party. Public opinion be damned, the ends justify the means. Mr. Obama, The Party and their fellow travelers in the MSM are now busy selling the proletariat on the redistributionist healthcare miracle that they have wrought in the name of the working class.

Will Obama and The Party assure their base that single payer is now inevitable? Will they tell the masses that in the new America their will be social justice? “From each according to their ability to each according to their need.”

Socialists Are Fools But Not All Fools Are Socialists

Socialists Are Fools But Not All Fools Are Socialists

Created 2009-04-25 16:41

George Handlery about the week that was. Hesitant vacillation as a policy principle. Paralyzing preconditions for soluble problems. The failed state and its benefits. Iran, the Anti-Racism Conference and nuclear negotiations. Too neutral? In whose favor? When an enemy is more useful to a dictatorship than a friend.

1. It has become fashionable to present reports on piracy that are wrapped in a tranquilizer. It is suggested that the solution of the problem is in Somalia. Save Somalia (throw money at it?) and all will be hanky-dory. One is tempted to suspect that the popularity of the mantra has to do with the trick of attaching an otherwise threateningly soluble problem to a precondition that cannot be met. The benefit is that, succumbing to the West’s luxurious self-doubts, a good reason is given to persist in doing the unreasonable. Thereafter it becomes easy to desist from solving the solvable.

2. Helping Somalia as a project assumes that Somalia’s population is ripe enough to want to be helped. The assumption that, the solution of the piracy-problem begins with the rescue of Somalia, ignores that piracy is not only a symptom but also among the causes of disorder. Chaos creates golden opportunities. Piracy pays as long as the victims that suffer from moral relativism pay and in doing so acknowledge some moral obligations that make them into virtuous suckers. If the chaos of a “failed state” results in dividends expressed by the profit from piracy then a non-PC solution recommends itself. Make piracy a losing business. Then start to give Somalia what it might be able to use.

3. The question is how to deter the addicted Somali from piracy. In the news, accounts multiply, according to which, pirates are apprehended and then released. The soothing explanation is that there is “no legal power to arrest them”. This gives hesitant vacillation posing as policy a pleasing label and a good excuse. Meanwhile, the self-imposed impotence aggravates the problem by reducing the offenders’ risks. Only by destroying pirates will piracy be restrained and, as a result, its on-shore bases dismantled. To do that security zones need to be set up and these must be patrolled from the air. Obviously, aircraft can hardly detain the mother ships and their auxiliaries. However, what it can do is to be at the aid threatened vessels within useful time. Once on the scene they can destroy buccaneers. The rest may be trusted to word of mouth propaganda. Let the news spread that raiders are unlikely to return and the hunters will desist from sailing. The winds of the present’s ineffective counter-actions might change as soon as non-Western naval forces, unrestrained by inhibitions, appear to participate in the “project.”

4. Parallels pertaining to ignored and tolerated criminality seem to exist on the home front, too.. Those who feel exposed to the unpredictable mercy of criminals, people that are uncertain of their own skill to evade crooks and folks unsure of their ability to fight them off, have a legitimate concern. The state is, under its current rules of operation and, due to the values of those who act in its name, not sufficiently able to protect them. This complaint is not about lacking laws. We have plenty of laws regulating nearly everything – even the right to fight off effectively what are, even according to the official definition, criminals. No, the problem is not that we have no laws or not enough laws. The problem is the predictable application of existing rules. What troubles is the insecurity that flows from the perception that some actions are not acted against even if they are illegal. This is because their perpetrators enjoy, for being what they are, a degree of immunity as a collective right.

5. Kim’s “Rocket and Nuke Show” might convince some analysts that the man is sick. Regardless of his mental state, the “Dear Leader’s” actions are not entirely irrational. He, as well as his Iranian clone, might have a praxis-tested shrewd understanding of how the liberal Western mind works. Let us not forget that extortion – oriented tantrums have tended to net handsome profits. When not, no harm came to visit upon clumsy actors putting on shows of fits of temper.

6. As a concession, Ahmadinedjad likes to tantalize his enemies with proposals to discuss Iran’s nuclear project. The invitations to talk begin with the other side having to accept the already existing facts and what Tehran is overtly or covertly doing. In this case the ensuing negotiations serve to signal at least short-term lenience and the relaxing -but at least the non-tightening- of sanctions.

7. “A dialogue is better than no dialogue” was the justification of Switzerland’s protocol President’s meeting with Ahmadinedjad at the opening of the Geneva Anti-Racism conference on April 19th. Mr. Merz had a reason to meet briefly the Persian at the opening of the widely and rightfully suspected gathering. Switzerland, acting in tune with her traditional role to be the neutral go-between among hostile parties, represents the US’ interest in Tehran -and the other way, too. (She performs the same service for Washington in Cuba.) Israel protested the meeting. The overly warm handshake’s justification depends on how convincingly Merz might have warned Ahmadinedjad about improving his “bad habits”. At any rate, Ahmadinedjad used his performance to reiterate his wish for Israel’s removal from the map. As a concession, he dropped his Holocaust-denial formulated in the original and distributed text. (If Switzerland’s government which is tempted to flirt leftwards would take its official reservations seriously, the Socialist-run foreign Ministry would have down-graded its presence at the summit. As things stand, Switzerland’s credibility as an honest broker and go-between has again suffered by being too neutral in favor of an impostor.)

8. Ahmadinedjad’s speech to the anti-racism conference in Geneva surpassed even the expectations of seasoned pessimists. This it did to such an extent that most scandalized Western delegations walked out during the harangue. The needless provocation in Geneva shows that Tehran is unable or unwilling to apply diplomacy to secure its interests. There are implications to the instinctive use of diplomacy limited to the tactic as an extension of war by other means. The impact of this on future negotiations about nuclear projects is left to the imagination of the reader.

9. Dealing with the enemy brings the Americas’ Summit to mind. Obama assured the prominent autocrats of the continent “I want to be your friend”. There is some potential opportunity in that phrase. Should, as it is to be expected, the addressees persevere on their current course, the President could, while he reacts, state convincingly “I have already tried everything else”. Regardless of the opportunity presented to them, some of the region’s more notorious dictatorships might need a credible enemy more than a wary friend. Why? The ideology at the base of their systems is a password to failure. Malfunctions cannot be admitted because the alleged absolute truth of the ideology legitimizes the absolute Leader. So a malign outside force is needed to explain the gap between the expectations created and the performance delivered. The same applies to the Weltanschauung-related role of the “infallible” Party.

10. We need to be careful not to over-apply the Socialist label. Admittedly, Socialism is foolish. However, this does not mean that everything that is out of whack amounts to Socialism.

11. “Tax haven” is a loosely conceived category. Highly diverse states and policies (ranging from the criminally conniving to the legitimately protective) can be stuffed into it. Exempting the institutionalized dealings with truly dirty money, the legitimate havens serve a useful purpose. They create a tax-competition between systems. Therefore, they encourage the responsible expenditure of the public’s money. Some tax havens allow those who desire to stash away portions of their legitimately created – and at the home base property taxed – reserves in a safe place offering competent management. Some US’ Senators like to grandstand with investigations of contrite havens. In doing so they overlook an important ramification of which they are apparently ignorant. It is that some tax havens like to invest in America many of the untainted billions entrusted to them. The amount is many times of whatever evaded taxes might amount to. Scores of firms and industries are major beneficiaries of these investments. Taking banks such as the UBS hostage –which repentantly admits having had employees that facilitated tax cheats – makes a good show within the congressional circus. The resulting reduction of their operations will net little profit compared to the economic negatives it creates. As usual, the proper corrective reaction to an inequity – in this case of investment advisors violating firm policy by helping clients to cheat on their taxes – lacks a sense for nuances and proportions.

An Acorn Whistleblower Testifies in Court: The group’s ties to Obama are extensive.

An Acorn Whistleblower Testifies in Court: The group’s ties to Obama are extensive.

An Acorn Whistleblower Testifies in Court: The group’s ties to Obama are extensive.
by John Fund, Wall Street Journal, October 30 2008

The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states, amid allegations that almost a third of the 1.3 million cards it turned in are invalid. And yesterday, a former employee of Acorn testified in a Pennsylvania state court that the group’s quality-control efforts were “minimal or nonexistent” and largely window dressing. Anita MonCrief also says that Acorn was given lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions.

The Obama campaign denies it “has any ties” to Acorn, but Mr. Obama’s ties are extensive.

McCain suggests Obama tax policies are socialist

McCain suggests Obama tax policies are socialist

CONCORD, N.C. – Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Saturday accused Democratic rival Barack Obama of favoring a socialistic economic approach by supporting tax cuts and tax credits McCain says would merely shuffle wealth rather than creating it.

“At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives,” McCain said in a radio address. “They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it’s just another government giveaway.”

McCain, though, has a health care plan girded with a similar philosophy. He proposes providing individuals with a $5,000 tax credit to buy health insurance. He would pay for his plan, in part, by considering as taxable income the money their employer spends on their health coverage.

McCain leveled his charge before a pair of appearances aimed at restoring his lead in critical battleground states. In both North Carolina and Virginia, where McCain was to speak later in the day, his campaign has surrendered its lead to Obama in various polls. President Bush, a Republican, won both states in 2004.

During a rally outside Charlotte, N.C., McCain returned to the socialism theme, although he did not use the more tart language of his radio address.

He also was sharply critical of the Bush administration, saying it should be more aggressive in buying up the home mortgages of those trapped by high interest rates and falling housing values.

“The administration is not doing it. The secretary of the Treasury is not doing it,” McCain told the crowd. “We need to buy up these mortgages, give you a mortgage that you can afford, so you can pay your mortgage and realize the American Dream of owning your home.”

McCain stoked the crowd by accusing Obama and his fellow Democrats of assuming they will not only win the White House but expand their congressional majority.

“Did you happen to see that Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi anticipates a 250-seat majority” in the House, the senator asked. “My friends, we can’t let that happen. My friends, taxes will increase, spending and they’ll concede defeat in Iraq.”

The last Democratic candidate to win North Carolina was Southerner Jimmy Carter in 1976, when the Republicans were reeling from President Nixon’s resignation following the Watergate scandal. Virginia has not voted for a Democratic nominee since President Johnson’s landslide victory in 1964.

McCain’s drop in the state polls follow larger national trends that have given Obama a lead following Wall Street chaos that focused the race on who is best equipped to restore the economy.

On Sunday, McCain was to travel to Ohio, where he might appear with “Joe the Plumber,” the Holland, Ohio, plumber Joe Wurzelbacher whom the senator has been portraying as emblematic of people with concerns about Obama’s tax plans.

Wurzelbacher became the focal point of the final presidential debate after he met Obama earlier in the week and said the Democrat’s tax proposal could keep him from buying the two-man plumbing company where he works. However, reports of Wurzelbacher’s annual earnings suggest he would receive a tax cut rather than an increase under Obama’s plan.

Obama has said his tax policies would cut payments for 95 percent of working Americans, while increasing them only for families making more than $250,000 a year. McCain has argued that 40 percent of Americans don’t pay income taxes, either because they are seniors or don’t meet minimum earnings thresholds, so the only way to cut their taxes is to give them various credits.

“In other words, Barack Obama‘s tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington,” McCain said in the radio address.

An Obama spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.




The New Party, ACORN, and the Arab American Action Network are not by any stretch of the imagination mainstream political or social organizations. They are radical anti-capitalist, pro-Marxist, and in the case of the AAAN a group supporting the terrorist activities of the Palestinians. The New Party is an unabashed Marxist “fusion” party from which Barack Obama actively sought out and received an endorsement for his state senate candidacy. [1]

Four political candidates were “there” seeking NP support. Barack Obama won the 1996 election, by using legal technicalities to get all his opponents disqualified-but he still used New Party volunteers in his campaign. [2]

Obama sought the New Party endorsement, which required him to sign a contract that he would keep up his relationship with the New Party. [1]

There’s a lot of buzz being generated about Obama, ACORN and Obama’s first political party – The New Party. How did the Oba-messiah get this far without anyone reporting he was a member of a fringe Leftist political party? Where the hell is the media anyway? Oh, I know. It was just Chicago so he could get on the ballot, yadda yadda. [3] I followed the links back, and can find nothing but assertions without documentation. Surely a Lexis/Nexis search would produce something contemporaneous from the Chicago media? I would imagine the New Party would have rated coverage on its own, and so would news of Obama being endorsed by them. [4]

A short-term strategy of working with the Democratic Party and in the long-term work with the New Party. Barack Obama clearly saw the potential of the New Party, because he was soon seeking their support. [2] I don’t understand what the big deal is about. Barack Obama was a member of an extremist political party established by the Democratic Socialists for America, the Chicago New Party, and they cheered his victory in his uncontested run for his Illinois state senate seat as a step away from American values, towards socialism. [5] The New Party: The New Party is an unabashed Marxist “fusion” party from which Barack Obama actively sought out and received an endorsement for his state senate candidacy (in 1996). He did. [1] The party was a Marxist Political coalition. This was not a guilt by association thing. Senator Obama sought out their nomination. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers. [6] After allegations surfaced in early summer over the ‘New Party’s’ endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. [7] (hat tip Slimguy)

Back on September 17th , Atlas ran Obama’s ties to DSA and the socialists of the world: Atlas Shrugs: ONE WORLDER OBAMA OUT AND OUT SOCIALIST. Who can forget his socialist for Obama page on his community website. And Yid with Lid has this story:Senator Obama Signed a CONTRACT WITH THE CHICAGO SOCIALIST PARTY

Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat.  Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.   

Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama’s career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama “one of the great leaders of the United States Senate,” even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as “the most liberal Senator.” More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too? 

DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called “consultative status” with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body. 

The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, “The Global Poverty Act,” has just been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the “Millennium Goals” established by the United Nations. Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a  “hold” on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative “victory” that he could run on. 

Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.

Socialists in Congress (hat tip buf)

Executive Commitee Rep Bernard Sanders (VT-AL), Chair

Democracy is indispensable to socialism. V.I. Lenin

Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx

The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin

Democratic Socialists of America’s Progressive Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives

Taken verbatim from the Internet web site of the Democratic Socialists of America

“The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International (also in Francais and Espanol). DSA’s members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics…

“We invite you to support the campaign by adding your name to the list of signers of the Pledge for Economic Justice. In conjunction with the Campaign DSA is working with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a network of more than 50 progressive members of the US House of Representatives…

“The Progressive Caucus of the US House of Representatives is made up of 58 members of the House. The Caucus works to advance economic and social justice through sponsoring legislation that reflects its purpose. The Caucus also works with a coalition of organizations, called the Progressive Challenge, to bring new life to the progressive voice in US politics.”

UPDATE: Slimguy points out, “Wikipedia has a newer listing for the now named Congressional Progressive Caucus and there are 73 active members listed. Note also some members have been removed for reasons noted in the article. For example Nancy Pelosi resigned from the Caucus when she became Speaker of the House. Now if you follow these things like a cockroach trail as some of us do you would for example see that during the recent debates over the bailout bill in the House of Representatives , on the Dem side of the debate over 90% of those who made remarks in the House chamber during the debate on the bill on the second time through the House (controlled by Barney Frank as to who got to talk) were members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

If Bailout Plan Is Too Socialistic, Just Wait For Obama Leviathan

If Bailout Plan Is Too Socialistic, Just Wait For Obama Leviathan

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election ’08: Have Americans been so lulled by Barack Obama’s smooth talk that they don’t realize his plans would expand government into a massive socialist behemoth? His is a soft-spoken, hard-left agenda.

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism


During Friday night’s debate in Mississippi, Obama disparaged what he called “this notion that the market can always solve everything and that the less regulation we have, the better off we’re going to be.”

But the subprime crisis Washington is dealing with is the result of three decades of the federal government pressuring banks — via the regulatory demands of the Democrats’ 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which was expanded by Bill Clinton — to make tens of billions of dollars in bad loans to poor people with lousy credit ratings.

It was Democrats’ regulatory and litigious assaults upon the mortgage market in pursuit of “social justice” that left our economy in its precarious position of today; indeed as an attorney, Obama himself in 1994 represented a client suing Citibank, accusing it of systematically denying mortgages to blacks.

But if the taxpayer rescue of Wall Street and Uncle Sam’s taking over the banking system scares you, the broader socialism planned by the Democratic presidential nominee should leave you petrified.

Here are a few examples, with price tags provided by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation:

• Politicized financial regulation: Obama would establish a Financial Market Regulation and Oversight Commission to “end our balkanized framework of overlapping and competing regulatory agencies” and “which would meet regularly and report to the president, the president’s financial working group and Congress on the state of our financial markets and the systemic risks that face them.”

Translation: more centralized and heavy-handed regulatory power over businesses for Washington.

• Government-managed medicine: Even left-leaning health care experts concede that Obama’s expanded coverage plan will cost $100 billion; with no real cost containment, that will mean a second wave of reform that could impose full socialized medicine on our country.

Obama declares that “governments at all levels should lead the effort to develop a national and regional strategy for public health, and align funding mechanisms to support its implementation.”

His plan also presumes racial discrimination, “requiring hospitals and health plans to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding them accountable for any differences found.”

• Community health centers: Your local doctor may become obsolete in Obama’s brave new world in which $6.7 billion will be spent over five years building “community health centers” featuring “preventive, diagnostic and other primary care services.”

• Antitrust enforcement: Promising this “is how we ensure that capitalism works for consumers,” a President Obama would “stop or restructure those mergers that are likely to harm consumer welfare, while quickly clearing those that do not” and “working with foreign governments to change unsound competition laws.”

Behind this harmless-sounding rhetoric is the misguided belief that the government must shield companies of its choosing from their competitors’ lower prices and innovative practices. Courts and government bureaucrats under Obama could be expected to use antitrust to claim the existence of imaginary monopolies and squash mergers and other business transactions.

• Required IRAs: Under Obama, “employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan will be required to automatically enroll their employees in a direct deposit IRA account.”

Costing $292 billion annually, according to the NTUF’s latest analysis, Obama’s plans are far more than just “change”; they would transfigure American society into full-blown socialism. With little more than a month to go before this most consequential election, voters seem not to appreciate the danger.

• Dictatorial energy policy: Obama would spend $150 billion over a decade “to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids” and create other ways to force uneconomical forms of energy on the auto and oil industry.

A Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund would artificially finance the environmentalist pet projects in which private investors have little faith.

Negating the global labor market, the Illinois senator also promises to “provide specific tax assistance and loan guarantees to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient cars and trucks” are built within the U.S.

• Bullying utilities: The Chicago Democrat would require that 25% of electricity consumed in the U.S. be “derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.” Unless those alternative sources get cheap fast, that likely means a big escalation in consumers’ electric bills.

Obama also proposes “to ‘flip’ incentives to state and local utilities by ensuring companies get increased profits for improving energy efficiency, rather than higher energy consumption.”

• Billions for teachers unions: Instead of school choice for parents, in which competition would improve public educations and give the poor access to private education, Obama proposes “an accountability system that supports schools to improve, rather than focuses on punishments.”

His five-year, $90 billion education plan would dole out “a $200 million grant program for states and districts that want to provide additional learning time for students in need,” double federal funding for afterschool programs, provide “professional development and coaching to school leaders, teachers and other school personnel,” “develop multi-tiered credentialing systems that encourage principals to grow professionally,” and cook up other ways to keep public school teachers on the clock longer.

Uncle Sam would also “collect evidence about how prospective teachers plan and teach in the classroom” in an Obama administration.

• Required public service: In return for the federal government paying the first $4,000 of college tuition through a tax credit — which would be tough for most American families to turn down — Obama would require recipients “to conduct 100 hours of public service a year.”

• Required sick leave: Spending $1.5 billion over five years, Obama would “encourage” the states to adopt paid-leave systems that “guarantee workers seven days of paid sick leave per year.”

• Thought police: In what sounds like the outdated and unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine on steroids, Obama would “encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”

What would the “public interest obligations” of liberal Democrats’ opponents within the media end up being in an Obama administration?

• Green Corps: Barack Obama would spend $390 million over five years to fund “an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to engage disconnected and disadvantaged youth . . . to improve the energy efficiency of homes and buildings in their communities, while also providing them with practical skills and experience in important career fields of expected high-growth employment.”

It’s a quasi-paramilitary organization dedicated to environmentalism that promises inductees that they would be getting practical employment training for future “green jobs.”

• Teaching parents parenting: The senator would spend $300 million over five years establishing “Promise Neighborhoods in cities that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement.” A key feature would be “parenting schools for parents.”

• Housebuilding army: the Youthbuild program would be expanded from 8,000 to 50,000 over eight years at a cost of $257 million to “construct and rehabilitate affordable housing for low-income and homeless families.”

• Patent reform: Obama’s idea of “opening up the patent process to citizen review” would make it much tougher for businesses to challenge the government’s judgment on the ownership rights of an invention, which will have a negative effect on the incentives to innovate.

• Private parklands regulation: Obama would “do more to encourage private citizens to protect the open spaces and forests they own and the endangered species that live there . . . and encourage communities to enhance local greenspace, wildlife and conservation areas.”

The Obama campaign uses the word “encourage” over and over in numerous areas of policy. Expect it to be the form of encouragement practiced by Don Corleone — making you an offer you can’t refuse.

• Autism czar: If you weren’t convinced that the Democratic nominee intends to use the federal government’s powers to solve every known problem, consider his promise to spend $2.5 billion over four years on appointment of an “Autism Czar” to “ensure that all federal funds are being spent in a manner that prioritizes results.”

Change Obama can believe in: Socialism?