I had a feeling the story about Obama’s ties to the Chicago New Party which was formed by Democrat Socialists for America and leaders of the Communist Party USA would break in the mainstream media. Today this article appeared as a link on the FoxNews website. It also mentioned a quote from Obama that made me scratch my head in confusion. There is much America does not know about Obama. Take a look at this statement he made after he and two other New Party members were victorious in 1996:

these victories prove that small ‘d’ democracy can work.”

I immediately wondered: what is “small ‘d’ democracy?” The very first thing I found on Google was an article written in 1962. I read the piece, and by the end, I sat stunned. Is this….anarchy…what Obama truly believes in? This is the anti to everything we’ve known in American politics! Do the people know this about him? Or is there another meaning for “small ‘d’ democracy?”

Now if we practised small d democracy in this country, those who voted for Nixon would have him running their affairs; those who voted for Kennedy would have him; those who voted for someone else to regulate their lives would have him. And those who didn’t want anyone to run their affairs for them would be left without anyone running their affairs.

The concept of representation is essentially a concept of agency. Someone is to act for you. But how can someone act for you if that someone is completely committed to actions contrary to your own best interests? To suppose that he represents you because others have chosen him is to suppose a lie. He can only represent you if you select him, and then, if he confines himself to your interests.

It is capital D Democracy that is doing us in. Men who are opposed to your own best interests obtain power over you through actions taken by others; Democracy (capital D) means majority control of all. Majority control of all means monopoly. And it always results in monopoly control in the hands of a minority. This is never moral, nor is it necessary.

Another blog used it to refer to the concept of a welfare state, i.e.,socialism…a Senator in Vermont invited the people to a town-hall meeting where the guest speaker was the Ambassador of Finland.  The Senator wanted the people to see that there is a different way to do government.  In Finland, we learn, the citizens pay 43.1% income tax per capita, but they enjoy their benefits of “universal health care, free child care, and and free college education.”  They also “enjoyed” a 17% unemployment rate, lines so long for health care that now the government allows them to pay a ‘premium’ (on top of the taxes they already pay) so they can see the doctor on the doctor’s “own time.”  The article concludes,

It was a good night in Burlington. A good night for small-d democracy. A good night to express the yearning citizens feel for a better way for America. A good night for looking beyond our own borders for vision, inspiration, and concrete examples of how things are working – and working well – in another nation.

Someone please tell me that this is NOT what Obama was referring to back in 1996.  Capital “D” Democracy works well for me, thank you very much.  It also worked for our founding fathers.  In 1776, Samuel Adams had something to say to those who wanted socialism for America:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

John Quincy Adams said this about our American Revolution, a revolution for Democracy with a capital D:

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected, in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

As I wrote in an earlier post, Jesus, the One whom all the principles of Christianity are derived, is NOT a socialist.