Showdown in America: Workers vs. the Welfare State

The 2012 presidential election is coming down to a contest between those who want the economy to succeed and those who want it to go on failing. Hope and Change is dead, at least the brand that depended on oratorical inspiration injected via teleprompter from between Greek columns taken out on loan before they were due back for an arena rock show. Anyone capable of balancing a checkbook has done the math, and come reluctantly to the conclusion that it’s a choice between Romney and ruin.

No one seriously believes that another four years of Obama will fix the economy, mend race relations or restore international relations. Those things didn’t happen in four years and they won’t happen in eight. But even with lowered expectations, few of those voters who walk into the booth and go for the zero even expect any of these three areas to stay at their current level after another four years. Most of them know that the economy will be worse, the racial pool will be more poisoned than ever and the world will be a more dangerous place. They aren’t stupid. What they are is selfish.

We assume that it is in everyone’s interest for the economy to rebound, for the jobs to come back, for the factories to hum and the cash registers to sing their song. But what if it’s not?

The election is no longer a race between Democrats and Republicans; it’s a race between those who hope to benefit from an economic recovery and those who benefit more from the lack of an economic recovery. It’s a race between the entrenched interests of failure and the revolutionary surge of success. It’s a death match between the state of free enterprise and the welfare state.

Forget your traditional image of the welfare queen. Sure she’s out there, but she isn’t buying lobster with food stamps. She’s serving as a consultant to the State of Michigan on how to improve the dietary balance of the diverse populations of SNAP food aid recipients in compliance with a federal directive that her partners had a hand in drafting. The take home pay on her end is in the six figures and it’s all rolled into the cost of the welfare state, toted up as cost-savings measures for preventing heart attacks in the children growing up on food stamps and fated to live on them for the next 60 years.

Barack and Michelle Obama are the perfect power couple of the welfare state, not because they would ever touch it, but because they are a testament to how much money there is to be made feeding off the infrastructure of the welfare state, filing lawsuits, managing patients and organizing the hell out of every living dead voter in the State of Illinois.

Parasites like Barry and Michelle used to be a dirty little secret, vital links in the chain stretching from the vast treasuries of the national budget down the favor network over to the urban neighborhood and the people who get rich helping the poor. They were there for a long time, but they rarely got past the House of Representatives. Mostly they were satisfied grabbing their chunks of the aid pie and living a cheerfully upper-middle class life on the dirty trade in souls of the welfare state.

Barack Obama is a trailblazer, not on account of race, but on account of his profession. This isn’t a racial or class conflict, but a power struggle between those who work and those who work them over. It’s a power play by the professional organizers, activists, trainers, representatives and all the other players in the machinery of the welfare state who used an economic crisis to move one of their own into a position of ultimate power.

The welfare staters aren’t interested in an economic recovery. Like every company, they want to expand their sales territory, and what they are selling is dependency and false promises. Their stock in trade is promising their clients freebies which they get through agitation, activism, protests, lawsuits and deals that all end with the clients voting Democratic while the middlemen and middlewomen pocket 9/10ths of the take while their clients get the other 1/10th.

This scam is no different than the one practiced by every ambulance chasing lawyer. The difference is that the welfare staters make their scam seem benevolent. And their clients are often willing to accept the tenth, because while it may only be 10 percent of the total being spent on their freebies, it’s still free. And those clients will vote for the welfare staters and fight to the death to preserve their hold on power, because it’s the only form of economic participation that they know.

This is the living dead vote and it won’t be easy to beat. Its constituents are quite satisfied to see that the economy is a shambles and that race relations are in the toilet. They have no aspirations beyond making things worse and these two sets of conditions are the ones that favor their agenda the most.

The worse the economy becomes, the more clients turn up and the more violent the opposition becomes to enacting any financial reforms. The economic failures of the last four years are not a disappointment to them, but an encouragement. If they can move a majority of the population onto the welfare rolls and make it impossible for them to leave, then they will have won.

Their victory is defined by creating a political climate in which their economic position cannot be challenged and an economic climate in which their political positions cannot be challenged. Once the linkages are in place, then there will still be elections, but they won’t mean anything because the only purpose of such elections will be to reaffirm the political bosses who negotiate the payouts of the welfare state. America will become Chicago and Chicago will finally become the sum of America.

Even left-leaning Democrats are starting to pull away from the prospect of living under such a system, and as invested as they are in the networks of non-profits, many of them are none too enthusiastic about instituting economic failure and reducing the political and economic potential of the United States to the same system of bureaucratic collectivism and political patronage that has taken over its cities.

In a few short days we will see a critical clash between those who want to turn the United States of America into another Cuba or Venezuela, a corrupt dysfunctional oligarchy masquerading behind socialist ideals and rent-a-mobs, and those who want to see the restoration of a functional country of free people. It is a contest between those who still hope that individuals can use their creative abilities to fulfill their destinies and those who believe that reform requires investing total power into unaccountable institutions.

This election is nothing less than a showdown between the vitality of a living America and the living dead vote of the welfare state.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • pennylane

    Republican economics crashed the economy 2008. How can the same Republican economics restore the economy 2012? All Romney has to offer is a return to Bush economics and bashing the victims of Bush economics.

    • Mary Sue

      Um, no. That's not how that went.

      Bill Clinton went on Ellen back when Obama was first elected and ADMITTED that the economic collapse was his fault, via the creation of Freddy Mack and Fanny Mae, and Janet El Reno's insistence (on threat of prosecution), and Barry O's litigation (of Citibank) to FORCE banks to make loans to those who could NOT EVER pay it back because they had no job, no nothing, maybe not even welfare. A lot of people who never had any business getting a mortgage in the first place defaulted all at once, causing the housing prices to drop, resulting in HUGE losses when the banks took the houses back and tried to sell them to recoup their costs.

      Barney Frank, Teddy Kennedy, and Chris Dodd share responsibility for this as well. So no. It's not Bushonomics or Republicannomics or even Romneynomics that got us in this mess. It's Clintonomics, Frank-en-nomics, Doddonomics, and Kennedynomics.

      If Republican Economics don't work then how in blazes did REAGAN (a republican) manage to turn around the mess created by Jimmy Carter? Were you even alive during the Carter administration?

      • pennylane

        ….which still doesn't explain why 8 years of Republican Bush administration had neither the economic nor ability to get the economy back on track. and drove it straight into the wall.

        • Mary Sue

          Bush tried to STOP the abuses caused by the Freddy Mack/Fanny Mae stuff, but were blocked in the Senate by Kennedy and Dodd. Then 9/11 happened, and you can't dismiss the effect of that. Then Bush decided to raise a bunch of spending, which ironically is considered by the Left as a good thing when Democrats do it.

          • RONALD NELSON

            Don't be fooled those Bank's who participated in the Mortgage heist made money going in and are making money coming out of the so called government mandates to make loans to the unqualified… No Banker would have loaned a dime to the unqualified if those loans were not GOVERNMENT INSURED. ____It became a race to see who could make more in fees for originating bad loans than a careful and prudent lending practice… hell, with the governmnent buying all those bad loans banksters… and their cohorts raced to see who could originate the greatest numbers of bad loans… reaping origination and servicing fees guaranteed by the government.____

          • ronald nelsons

            I don't want to here about the feigned abuses of FrediMac Or FannieMae… they were not the ORIGNIATORS of these bad loans… for that we must turn to the REALTORS, APPRAISORS, and BANKSTERS making the big bucks ORIGINATING these bad loans without any personal risk attached. It is time for FrediMac na fFannieMae to examine the underwriting FRAUD used to sell these loans to investors and too enforce the REPURCHASE of all those UNQALIFIED LOANS by the BANKSTERS who made them and PROFITED from their origination. ____It wasn't enough that these Banksters and their cohorts made money making these loans… they now profit at the Tax payers expense by servicing/foreclosing these bad loans. If there is any crime it is the Banksters who made these unqaulified loans EXPECTING the taxpayers to pickup there mess when they began failing… defaulting.

          • patron


            Barak Obama sued Citi to lower lending standards in 1995. The current DoJ has lending discrimination as a higher priority than conflict of interest. Freddie and Fannie board members make millions and prevent any reform by charging attorney consultation to the taxpayer, as well as corrupting their regulators.

            Bad mortgage lenders have gone out of business. Freddie and Fannie are bailed out by the taxpayer monthly with no reforms.

          • Mary Sue

            Then why did Barack Hussein Obama have to litigate against Citibank in 1993 in order to FORCE them to make some of these loans? Why did Janet El Reno do pretty much the same thing?

        • patron

          Obama's statement that low taxes and small government caused the 2008 credit crisis is the biggest lie I've heard in politics. Lying about it and continuing the corruption is far worst than Republicans inability to reform big government Democratic's decades of entrenched housing corruption with a 50/50 Senate from 2000-2002, antiwar movements from 2003-2006 and a Democratic majority from 2006-2008.

          Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started under reporting of sub prime exposure in the early 1990s. Republicans tried to pass housing reform 17 different times in a 50/50 Senate. Senate Democrats blocked this reform and repeatedly assured the American people federal subsidized housing was in good shape and that Republicans were racists for trying to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

          Chris Dodd had special "Friend of Angelo" loan status with Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozillo. Barney "Roll the Dice" Frank was sleeping with Fannie Mae board member Herb Moses. Barak Obama sued Citibank to lower lending standards on behalf of ACORN and won, and while in the Senate lobbied for more taxpayer money to go to ACORN. Andrew Cuomo oversaw the growth in sub prime exposure under Clinton at HUD, and Jamie Gorelick sat on the board of Fannie Mae making hundreds of thousands of dollars.

        • Ar'nun

          Penny- You are missing a few keys here. How do you explain the 6 years of good economics, recovery from the 2002 Dot Com Bubble, and all the economic records set in that time frame. Is it that you can not see the one obvious thing staring you in the face? That it all just happened to change once the Democrats took back the legislature?

          Lets also not forget that in the 2006 midterms, economics was barely mentioned. The key issues were WMD's, Senator "Wide Stance" and Mark Foley.

        • NAHALKIDES

          The explanation is simple: The Bush Republicans either got on board with Democratic policies or else they lacked the power to stop them. An example was Bush and McCain wanting to reign in Fannie and Freddie but being stopped by powerful Democratic congressmen. Result: government controls crashed the housing market, and the rest of the economy followed.

          • patron


            And Barak Obama let's the corruption continue, more money goes into the too big to fail institutions due to Dodd Frank, and our former ACORN lawyer advocates for higher taxes every chance he gets.

            Obama either swallowed his own lies, which is likely considering how he's been revealed to be an intellectual lightweight, or he's just another big government crook trying to ride Air Force One for another 4 years.

            It would be really nice to have a President with standards and passion instead of someone who obviously bilks us for every cent we have, every chance he gets.

    • pagegl

      I guess you weren't paying attention back in 2003 when the NY Times published this:

      Check out Barney Franks comments in response to the Bush administration near the end of the article. Contrary to what Obama has been saying for over 4 years and every kool-aid drinking leftist has parroted, the Bush administration tried to warn Congress 5 years before that a collapse was possible.

      How can Republican economics restore the economy? Well, what they are proposing and the Democrats have been fighting is about the only thing that has a chance to reverse the downward spiral every Keyesian supporting Democrat has foisted off on the American people.

    • ldstar

      Mr. Romney is a turnaround specialist. His business background focused on returning businesses to financial health. His education and experience is what is essential for the continued success and economic health of the United States of America. We do not need a community organizer who has never had to meet a payroll or produced a single product or service. We don't even know who paid for his education! If he's a Harvard Lawyer, his lawyering skills are a joke. There are probably 1,000 attorneys in this country more competent than this president to save the economy and jobs. That is Obama's problem. To him a productive job is a minimum wage position or teaching position. What good will teachers be if the country cannot produce jobs that require teaching to learn?

    • Jana Wheeler

      What has Obama done for you except for letting healthy people sit on their asses and collect mega bucks while those of us with a concience work for a living. I now dread going to work to support people who can work. I work 40 hours and go to school at night so I can get a better job so I can have money for when I retire. Won't happen because the demo9crats want me to give up my retirement money for lazy people who think it is easier to have someone support them. My ex was one of them, That is why he is my ex.

    • vuse

      This election is like the Cuban Missile crisis of '62-America and the rest of the free world is that close to destruction, except this time the US president is for Russia. "Tell Putin my hands are tied until after the election" O didn't realize his mic still on.

    • chopdoc

      Think about this for a minute. Was it the republicans who crashed the economy or was it someone else. Bush Repeatedly warned the Democrat Congress about Freddie and Fannie but Chris Dodd and Barney Frank called bush's repeated warning "chicken little philosophy" and declared Freddie and Frannie to be sound. Yet when the sky fell it was all Bush's fault. Very easily verified.
      Bush also warned the 2007 controlled Congress about their "hawg wild spnding habits" and how they were hurting the economy. They also ignored this. So whom was really at fault for the 2008 economical crash.

  • Cat K

    Bush, I think, was actually quite progressive/liberal despite the Republican label that Miss Pennylane (above) likes to use as a derogatory descriptor. Recently, Bush was singing Obama's "Arab Spring" tune long after those in the know only use the term sarcastically. &Now look at what we have…..

    • Jim_C

      OK, but if you get to call Mr. Bush "progressive/liberal" due to, I suppose, the instances where he used his position to govern, may I call Obama what he essentially is: an Eisenhower Republican?

      • Mary Sue

        Probably more like a Hoover Republican.

        • Knucklehead

          I'd say more like a Putin/Castro/Chavez republican.

          • Mary Sue

            haha that too

  • DeAnn Bradford

    The private sector supports the Government. Capitalism is the only way the economy can survive. It's that simple. As usual, Daniel nails it.

    • Jim_C

      Can you find me a democrat who is anti-Capitalism?

      • pagegl

        We can start with the Congressional Progrssive Caucus.

      • Mary Sue

        Dennis Kucinich, for starters…
        Bernie Sanders (the socialist)
        Barack Obama (takeover of GM was anything BUT capitalist)
        Sheila Jackson Lee
        Carol Moseley-Braun
        Cynthia McKinney
        Barney Frank
        Chris Dodd
        Charles Rangell
        John Lewis

        …would you like me to continue…?

        • Obama4Life

          I know you guys think regulated capitalism is somehow "anticapitalism," but sheesh, it happens to be the best economic system the world's ever had.

          • Mary Sue

            Socialism is anti-capitalism, dude.

            There's "regulated (reasonably)" and then there's THOSE guys, with the tax and regulate the ever living —- out of EVERYTHING.

            And they wonder why people are having the worst trouble finding jobs in Democrat-dominated areas…

          • Mary Sue

            Wow, an obamabot doesn't know the difference between reasonable regulation and idiot over-regulation! Quel Surprise!

      • Knucklehead

        You're kidding, right? Heck, name one who isn't!!!

  • Carlos Perera

    Mr. Greenfield's essay is a good analysis of the economic forces at play in the electorate, but, I fear, it suffers from a certain "economicist" bias.

    I work for an urban school system whose employees are largely core Obama supporters; though a few of them are bright and cynical enough to think along the lines posited by Mr. Greenfield, for the majority Obama is a magical figure, one who embodies their highest–often inchoate–aspirations. They do not see him in ledger-book terms, nor would they abandon their support for him even if one could show with ironclad logic that voting for Obama would be disastrous to them in the long term. In fact, one need not even imagine the experiment: it has been done in places like Detroit, Newark, Birmingham, . . . and Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Uganda, and, most recently, South Africa. And, lest the foregoing list be deemed racist, consider how the German people followed Hitler to destruction, because of _their_ magical thinking regarding that dark figure.

    I fear that Romney may have made a mistake by trying to reduce the present Presidential race to, "It's the economy, stupid." An ideal has to be countered by another, more potent ideal.

    • Gylippus

      True, but if you break it down, the mythical salvation that these kinds of leaders represent is almost always expressed in largely economic terms. The "lands of milk and honey" and so forth. It's true that beyond that, there is the sense of religious apotheothis that is had by binding oneself to a transcendent figure. But don't underestimate the power of the free Obamaphone to buy votes. The Romans codified this principle with the phrase "bread and circuses". The halo of the God-King fades fairly quickly but the promise of free food and entertainment endures. As as we will see tomorrow, the illusion has been punctured for just enough people to buy us one more shot at Liberty. After that, the rest is up to us…

    • Mary Sue

      at some point the economy may cause a few to wake up, but you are generally right that the hardcore koolaid drinkers rarely awaken to such facts.

      It might not even take a full blown Islamist betrayal to wake the worst of them up…

    • EJL

      Excellent comment. Very readable and focused. Thanks Mr. Perera.

    • Sharmeeka

      What have you got against Hitler? Soon Americans will need another Hitler to get the Warmongering Jewish Monkey off our backs.

      • Mary Sue


        Jeez dood. Are you really that dumb, that you bought into the Ebbil J00s thing? Seriously?

        Hitler colluded with Islamists, to boot, so that's double reason to be against Hitler.

        The future does not belong to those who slander God's People!

  • Western Spirit

    Freedom has been rare throughout human history and there is a reason for it—the frailty of humanity. For instance people forewent their gift of freedom of speech for a mess of pottage because they were afraid of being called names by the political correct.

    And that's no reason, that's a parody of a reason. So if people lack the courage to even stand up for themselves to defend freedom of speech it stands to reason many people will gladly forgo their freedom of everything else for a free lunch.

    Add to this the delusions that have plagued human kind since the beginning of time and this accounts for freedom being the luxury of a few for a brief moment.

    Christ said he came to set the captives free and he certainly did just that in Christian America. But as Judeo-Christian values have diminished so has freedom.

    • Jim_C

      What part of your freedom has vanished?

      • Mary Sue

        they're working on taking away (more) guns and free speech, for starters…

        • Jim_C

          People always say that. Remember the big run on ammo after Obama won last time? Yet it doesn't happen.

          Speech? I suppose you could make the case if you believe money = speech. Which I'm willing to entertain.

          • Knucklehead

            You can count on a major attack on gun rights if Obama wins a second term. He won't have to face the voters again, and his true anti-gun agenda will come out in full force. That's why, if the unthinkable happens tomorrow, I'm hitting the gun show in Waukesha, WI this weekend and am going to buy up all the ammo I can afford, as well as finishing my purchase of parts to complete my M&P15.

          • Mary Sue

            Remember, Fast and Furious was caught with its pants down, so it is an incomplete. If it hadn't been ferreted out, eventually something would happen that would cause Obama to say they need to somehow stop the flow of the very guns they put in the hands of criminals. So that's why nothing much has happened yet, because it was clearly a long term strategy.

          • Mary Sue

            When the president says idiot things like "The Future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam", that indicates a willingness to at least abrogate free speech on the basis of "people will die".

            As for Guns, WHAT DO YOU THINK FAST AND FURIOUS WAS ABOUT???!!!! It was about MANUFACTURING the number of guns in Drug Cartel hands, BY PUTTING IT IN THEIR HANDS and using it as an excuse for more gun legislation! Obummer even SAID to that idiot of Handgun Control, Inc, Sarah "Mrs. Diamond Jim" Brady, "Don't worry, we've got something in the works [that will enable us to put in more gun restrictions/bans]"

  • Spider

    Bush discredited liberal policies not conservative ones as many people have been conditioned by the media to think. mainly because of his liberal spending policies. If he was a fiscal conservative like Regan he would have been much more successful.

    • Jim_C

      President Reagan also greatly increased spending, grew the size of government, had to raise taxes, and actually talked to democrats. I understand he's now some sort of patron saint beyond the realm of facts, but if he were around today, I don't think his party would recognize him.

      • Mary Sue

        "President Reagan also greatly increased spending"

        Um, no. THe DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS increased spending. Ever hear of the House Bank Scandal?

        Reagan pushed for spending cuts but never got them.

        • Jim_C

          So we have the democrats to thank for outspending the Soviets, then?

          • Mary Sue

            Military spending was only a part of the equation. The Democrats weren't too eager to spend in that area. No, their increases in spending were in various social programs (redundancies), and kiting checks.

  • Schlomotion

    Daniel Greenfield is so out of his mind about Barack Obama that he talks about race all through the article, unable to separate political race from black race. The article is literally "Bwaahh Mwaahhh race Nawwww Bwaaaaw welfare, Sqwawwwww Wawwww, race relations." Mr. Greenfield is one of those racist Jews who trots out the specter of damaged race relations every time Likud is rattling their saber to affect US elections. He is not alone. Dim nuggets like Cokie Roberts were doing the same thing on NPR. We are just being treated to the New York – Philadelphia Jewish racist analysis of the election. One more day. One more day and it will be all over. Mr. Greenfield will be able to discuss how "racist" the election was instead of is. Just a few more hours yet.

    • Ar'nun

      I love when an anti-Semite trys to convince themselves that being anti-Semitic is more honorable than being a racist, even while the person they accuse of being racist isn't being racist.

      • Schlomotion

        I love that "racist" isn't a good enough word, so Jews have to have their own special word for racism that accounts for them being more singular than other races.

        • reader

          Clinton feels your pain, schlo. I feel your agony. Don't watch tv tomorrow. We still need you for the entertainment.

        • Touchstone

          Attention polymath:

          The term "antisemitism" is generally considered to have been originated and first popularized by non-Jewish Germans in the late 19th century, especially Wilhelm Marr. It was these Germans who repeatedly substituted the word "semite" for "Jew" and it stuck. The irony is that an ignorant, contemptuous line like "Jews have to have their own special word for racism" is dripping with the very bigotry the word embodies. Well done. In taking issue with the "special" word, you actually labelled yourself with it.

          For what it's worth, I've always believed there should be a similarly specific term meaning "hatred of blacks", considering how widespread that particular prejudice has been. But it's not the fault of "the Jews" that we "have our own special word". Not that facts will diminish your ever-denied prejudice, of course.

          • Schlomotion

            I didn't say they invented it. Oh, man, I am too tired to make the joke about Germans as makers and Jews as takers. It's written on a bridge in New Jersey somewhere. My point was that regardless of who they turned to for its fine craftsmanship, the word gets ubiquitous play as the specialty word for running afoul of the specialty people.

    • Knucklehead

      Schlomotion, do you really think there are any people on this website who are stupid enough to believe your anti-semite, liberal crap? Not likely. Maybe a few libs who love to get on here and incite hatred like you do, but nobody with half a brain.

      • Schlomotion

        Yes. Yes I do. Perhaps even stupider. That being said, I am not a liberal.

    • Ghostwriter

      No,you're not. You're just a Jew-hating sack of garbage that thinks it's human.

  • Jim_C

    Why is it always about turning America into "Cuba and Venezuela?" Why is it never "Norway and Germany?"

    • Mary Sue

      Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. Next.

      • Jim_C

        Ever been out of Paducah, Mary Sue?

        • Mary Sue

          I've never been to Paducah. I have been out of the Province though, numerous times.

          • Jim_C

            Ah! Canadian. I was wondering why you seemed wittier than the average conservative.

          • Mary Sue

            …is……is that a compliment? XD

      • trickyblain

        Yes, they are exactly the same.

        • Mary Sue

          Cuba is not exactly the same as Venezuela. Neither are they identical to Germany and Norway.

          However, emulating ANY of these is BAD. No matter which one.

      • Knucklehead

        Heheheheh! Amen!!

    • reader

      All Euro countries suffered from Obama-style chronic double-digit real unemployment for decades. Just because idiots like you ride a tour bus around palaces does not mean that they know what you're talking about. I lived in Europe and it sucks.

    • patron

      Illegal drugs
      Civil litigation
      High population without education
      Amount of habitable land
      World standing
      Economic output

  • Clare Spark

    Speaking of Germany, take a look at a recent German e-book reviewing the brilliant job the UN did in rehabilitating displaced children right after WW2. Here is the link:…. “The Social Work of Progressives.”

  • clarespark

    I was being sarcastic above. The conception of social work is what has destroyed all knowledge of politics and trauma in the U.S. and in other welfare states. I nailed the author of the book I reviewed above, and I hope it is instructive as we contemplate "social work" as practiced in the schools and in the media, not to speak of our political parties.

    • Jim_C

      "Welfare states" as opposed to…?

      I wonder what you refer to when you say "social work as practiced in the schools and the media?" I have no idea what social work is as "practiced in the media", but I do know that social work as practiced in the school often means the difference in a child's life, particularly those with special needs and those in horrible home situations. Such workers exist in both public and private schools.

  • clarespark

    If you read my review essay, Jim C you will understand what I mean by social work. It goes way beyond rescuing displaced children or children from abusive homes, but rather penetrates, ideologically, all of our institutions. The field itself arose after the Industrial Revolution, and is demonstrably anti-science, and anticapitalist. Though I have no doubt about the benign intentions of social workers, their theory is flawed and typically optimistic as progressives are wont to be. Read the essay, including the links, and you might be as alarmed and wary as I have become.

  • @JibreelK

    this is moot and foolish due to the fact these things never ever go away regardless of who wins even if you're from the reddest of red states you will still have Welfare. I know you hate the fact you live in the First World but you live in the First World so why don't you act like it?

  • WilliamJamesWard

    To many problems attributed to Obama's inabilities, rube ideologue confederates and
    hate America hangers-on for him to be taken seriously in the job of President, he plays
    one on TV but in real life he is and actor with snake oil in his veins. The only way that
    he will be reelected is due to the absolute laziness of the electorate, total devolvement
    of personal integrity and a death wish for the greagtest Nation of the moder era. If people
    no longer care a scammer like Obama can run wild, if sobriety is returned there is a
    good likelyhood Romney wins big and life can go on to sort out all of the leftist damage
    of the last four years…………………………….William

  • poetcomic1

    'Compassionate' leeches, parasites and human dreck. I've known them up close and it is a fight to the death for America. They are malignant cancers on the Body Politic.

  • vuse

    This election is like the Cuban Missile crisis of '62, America and the rest of the free world is that close to destruction, except this time the US president is for Russia. "Tell Putin my hands are tied until after the election" O didn't realize his mic still on.

  • Len_Powder

    And so, Daniel, we await the Battle of the Titans on Nov 6th, 2012. Many, as you point out, benefit mightily from the Welfare State, some receiving 90% of the benefit, others 10%. On the other hand, those who have to pay for the Welfare State do not benefit at all. They will join the ranks, eventually, of the beneficiaries they now support with the fruits of their labors, if Obama is reelected. That phrase "if Obama is reelected" I use with the greatest incredulity and anxiety. There was a time when Obama's election would have been an impossibility, let alone his reelection after the most dismal term in presidential history, not because he's black but because his ideology is revolting and completely anti-American. How comforting it would be to read and hear the phrase "Obama cannot be reelected" despite the polls and the MSM's propaganda to the contrary. His election and reelection would suggest that the transformation he promised to produce had in fact occurred even before his 2008 campaign began. George Bush would have had more to do with this transformation than Obama. Obama would be George Bush's legacy, for which Obama should be grateful, instead of being resentful about the problems which he inherited, which only foreshadowed his very own policies before he even became the President. The nation's demise, if it comes about, should be equally blamed on Bush and Obama, and all of the Welfare State beneficiaries these two morons created in their pursuit of power and utopian delusions. Beware of those with utopian visions, whether from the left or the right. Communism and Nazism offer the same dystopian hell. Only God can PRODUCE heaven on earth while only Satan can PROMISE heaven on earth, while delivering only HELL. The script is provided in the Book of Genesis.

  • Len_Powder

    I have asked myself why anyone would vote for Obama who has no accomplishments to tout from his first 4 years in office and who has no agenda containing solutions or remedies to the myriad problems we face as individuals, families and as a country. Today I realized why some people will vote for him on Nov 6, 2012. These are people who:

    1. Support the genocide of infants and euphemistically call it "pro choice",
    2. Support the abolition of freedom of religion (except for Muslims), freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms,
    3. Support the subsidization of "green energy" companies and the consequent increased costs to taxpayers and consumers,
    4. Support the Islamization of America and the acceptance of Sharia Law,
    5. Support the subordination of the USA to international bodies like the UN, IMF, Word Bank, etc.,
    6. Support the idea that wealth needs to be redistributed,
    7. Support an expanding government and growing entitlements,
    8. Support unionization and obscene salaries and benefits for union workers,
    9. Oppose energy independence by restricting energy exploration using all available resources,
    10. Support profligate spending and irresponsible taxation,
    11. Support making the US a third world nation through globalization and income redistribution through programs like 'Cap & Tax',
    12. Oppose marriage between a man and a woman and support same-sex marriage (called 'gay' marriage before political correctness came along).
    13. Support immorality, injustice, deception because they deny our God but worship their Secular Alternative (ego, pride, arrogance, and self-righteousness),
    14. Despise Christians, Whites, Jews who support Israel, Evangelicals, Mormons, the Rich & Successful, the Constitution and the Bill or Rights,
    15. Support the dismantlement of our Military and Weapons Systems to make us cower before our enemies.

    Obama's followers know what his policies, ideology and agenda are. He does not have to expound on them or clarify them for his fellow travelers. He cannot describe his goals openly and honesty because he knows that most Americans disagree with them and would vote him out of office by a landslide. But his acolytes know that he is in total agreement with them and they will reward him with their votes. They know exactly what he is offering them in the next 4 years, and the love it!

    His followers also not only have no problem with his campaign style or methods, they actually approve resoundingly of them. They like his denouncements of Conservatives and Republicans, his blaming George Bush for all his troubles, his slandering of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, his shoving tyranny down the throats of citizens, his name-calling, his divisiveness, acrimonious accusations, his condescending tone. He satisfies their lust for vengeance, for attack, for defamation, for using Saul Alinsky tactics against opponents. Let's remember that his worshipers hate us and have nothing but contempt for us and his is satisfying their lust for blood, vindictiveness and retribution.

    Finally, I clearly understand why some people would cast their votes for Obama in 2012. In retrospect I realize that I have know their reasons all along but I was too intensely focused on refuting their talking points and their sick ideology. I now realize fully that it is futile to attempt to understand or to heal the insane. Perhaps but for the grace of God I could have joined them. I am thankful that I never did and never will. They are the unfortunate ones and the ones who should be pitied.

    Nonetheless, they are also the dangerous ones and I pray to God that on Nov 6th there will be more of us voting than there are of them.

  • Tibor R. Machan

    Insisting that a zygote or embryo is a human child is scientifically ignorant and a self-destructive viewpoint for people who supposedly support individual rights and liberty.

    • Mary Sue

      Insisting that a human embryo isn't a human being is the height of moral ignorance.

  • wsk

    …..and the Welfare State has won. Amerika, R.I.P.