Printer-Friendly Version

One of this nation's most influential Democratic strategists published some of the goals that should be achieved when the federal government is controlled by Democrats:

1. Take over some of the functions of state governments.

2. Ensure that an appropriate portion of corporate profit goes to support government.

3. Ensure that government and labor is adequately represented on corporate boards.

4. Interweave America's destiny with Europe's to create a lasting beneficent peace, and establish the principle of the brotherhood of man.

These goals arise from his belief that:

"... many of the civil institutions [are] debased by the power of wealth, under the thin guise of the constitutional protection of property"

"..in the future children [will be] trained from infancy [so] that they can measurably conquer their troubles by the force of mind, a new era will have come to man"

"The strong will help the weak, the rich will share with the poor, and it will not be called charity, but it will be known as justice. The man or woman who fails to do his duty, not as he sees it, but as society at large sees it, will be held up to the contempt of mankind"

"Our Constitution and our laws served us well for the first hundred years of our existence, but under the conditions of today they are not only obsolete, but even grotesque"

Does this sound like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, James Carville - or a combination of all of them?

While all of the above have made similar statements, the strategist quoted here was the campaign manager for Woodrow Wilson: Colonel Edward Mandell House.

Colonel House is no longer a subject of study in public education, but his influence is forever stamped across American Society. As Wilson's chief advisor, he led the campaign to:

1. Establish the graduated income tax system;

2. The Federal Reserve system;

3. The Federal Trade Commission, and an extensive industrial regulatory regime;

4. And helped to write the Charter for the League of Nations.

Now, nearly a hundred years after the House-Wilson era, Democrats are simply updating the lyrics of the same song: more taxes, more government control, more global governance.

Like House's vision of the League of Nations, today's Democrats seem to have a dream-world vision of the war against terrorism. Their goal, of course, is to get out of Iraq under the thin guise of "phased re-deployment." Their reasoning - give the Iraqi government a U.S. withdrawal date so they will feel the urgency of taking control - sounds reasonable. Except for the "what if."

What if the new Iraqi government cannot compromise on the outstanding issues, and the government collapses? Would the Democrats send the troops back into Iraq? Or, would they turn the problem over to the U.N.? Or, would they simply take the line of least resistence, and let the Islamo-fascists turn Iraq into a more powerful pre-war Afghanistan, a safe harbor for terrorists and a launching pad for their global jihad?

>> Continued -- Page 1 2