The overwhelming majority of, once, traditional Democrats have little or no knowledge of the philosophies of the people they have been duped into unleashing upon America and it's free-market system. Whipped up in a frenzy of hatred for any and all moral underpinnings of our society, they were tricked under the slogan of "Change" to unwittingly elect a Marxist administration in the purest sense of the word.

Our liberal arts colleges and universities, aided by such individuals as William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and others of their ilk, have been indoctrinating our sons and daughters into policies which constantly bombard them with the notion of the failure to attain success in a capitalist society, such as ours, as to have nothing to do with the individual's poor choices and failure to avail his or herself of the opportunities that freedom and free-market capitalism only makes possible; but that the free-market competitive system of governance, itself, is structured in such a way as to cheat them of the lifestyle to which they are entitled.

This entitlement mentality has been carefully nurtured and tested, first with the black community over the past 40+ years, and has proven to be effective in coercing an entire segment of the population [black people] to accept this notion of themselves as victims of a structural barrier to their ever having a chance to become unghettoized under their own volition and without the largess of the Democrat Party system of a social welfare state.

Building upon the success of this experiment in population control and political power, the Democrats took it to the next level in 2007-2008 by elevating what they knew was a community organizer schooled in the Marxist social philosophy of Conflict Theory, to unleash their goal of the destruction of capitalism in the U.S. and to insure the ascension of a Democrat-run socialist-collectivist government-as-god type of new world order.

Sound far-fetched?

If it does, it was meant to. That is why Barack Obama's origins in Marxist social indoctrination was carefully hidden with the collusion of the Democrat-elite MSM throughout the entire election cycle. I am currently working as a Senior at a university in downstate Illinois seeking a BSW in Social Work.

One of the textbooks we are studying, "Human Behavior and the Social Environment, Macro Level, by Katherine van Wormer, Fred H. Besthorn, and Thomas Keefe (2007), in describing the "highly-regarded" social work theory of "Conflict" [of which BHO is obviously an adherent] the authors state:

"Conflict theorists Piven and Cloward (1993) utilized the functionalist analysis method borrowed from Merton (1957) to enhance our understanding of how the social welfare system serves as a societal device for "regulating the poor" in the interest of capitalism. The latent function of social services, from this perspective, thus becomes to preserve the establishment. Piven and Cloward's basic premise, based on their review of social change throughout U.S. history, was that "relief arrangements are initiated or expanded during outbreaks of civil disorder produced by mass unemployment and are then abolished or contracted when political stability is restored" (p.xv). In other words, the elites in society can be counted on to provide only enough aid, stigmatized at that, to prevent mass disorder and regulate labor. (Despite their use of functional analysis, Piven and Cloward's perspectives are far more closely aligned ideologically with Marxism than with Parson's funtionalist writings.)"

"Payne (2005) refers to conflict theory as radical and socialist-collectivist. Feminist, empowerment, and antioppressive perspectives are included under the rubric of radical, as well as the structuralist, approaches. We discuss the structuralist approach here because it places a strong emphasis on economic and social equality among people."

"These structuralist approaches, so called because the source of social problems is located in the social structure rather than in the individual, were inspired by the radical thinking of the 1970s, but their influence waned, as Payne speculates, with the collapse of communism in the 1980s. Along with the neoconservatism of modern times and the concordant erosion of the welfare state, there is a renewed interest within social work in effecting social change."

"Structural social work is associated today with and best articulated through the writings of Canadian social work theorist Bob Mullaly...Much like his predecessors, Mullaly (1997), in his book "Structural Social Work," espouses a conflict-oriented view of society and recognizes that one's circumstances and difficulties are connected to one's economic and social position in society (Lundy, 2005). "Structural Social Work" is described by Payne as the major statement of Marxist social work."

"Mullaly's (1997, 2002) vision of social work practice is that it must be anticapitalist. If as social workers we do nothing to bring about progressive radical change, we fail the people we serve; we become part of the problem instead of the solution."

______________________________________________

This should give you a better understanding of what "progressive" liberals in today's Socialist-Democrat Party, under an Obama administration, are trying to implement in the United States as we speak.

You see, under their adherence to these types of theories [Marxist to their core] they have as their belief, that capitalism is bad, and Marxism is the solution.

There, fortunately, are other theories being taught which are just the opposite, but this is what is being bought into by the Democrats in our society who proudly define themselves these days as "progressives."

Marxism 101--Obama style.