THE SAPIENT SPARROW: conservatism for commoners

"What has always made the State a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."–Holderlin


Ever wonder how the POTUS developed his unorthodox beliefs about America?  His book, “Dreams From My Father”, suggests that the books he chose to read as a young man planted the seeds.  The seeds were cultivated by his mentor, Frank Marshall.  Later associations in Chicago nurtured his growing ideology into full flower.

Now, we are seeing the fruits of all of these labors and who is benefiting from them.  Just as an acorn will never change itself into a pecan, Obama will never be anything other than an extreme left ideologue.  Notwithstanding the fact that some of the Left’s most radical agenda items have yet to be implemented, Obama has not given up on these.  They have simply been moved to a back burner.

The prevailing opinion seems to be that currently Obama is trying to hold together the center of his party in order to pass the defining legislation of his presidency, Health Care Reform.  After some form of Health Care Reform is passed, as it surely will be, he will be free to pursue the extreme leftist policies that are not only near and dear to his heart, they are his heart.  The following biographical sketches elucidate why this is true.

Chronology is a constant difficulty when speaking of Obama’s early years, so it is not clear whether his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, supplied the reading list, or whether Obama’s reading led him to seek out Davis.  Either is possible since Davis, when he was in Chicago, was a contemporary of two of the authors that Obama read, Langston Hughs and Richard Wright.  It is also known that Davis, a poet, was a close fellow traveler, if not a full member, of the Communist Party of the U.S.A.  Furthermore, during the House on Un-American Activities Committee hearings, Davis was accused of involvement in several Communist front organizations, including the John Reed Club.  He was also an editor for Left Front, a Communist Party magazine.  Davis was a labor activist and helped with fundraisers for progressive events in Chicago.  When he was working for the Associated Negro Press, he worked with Vernon Jarrett, the father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, Senior Obama Advisor.

Davis’ résumé has many elements in common with those of the authors discussed below.  As you read through these, notice the patterns and themes that recur.

James Baldwin was a devoted fellow traveler of the Communist Party during his high school years.  Richard Wright (see below) helped to launch his writing career by introducing and recommending him for writing assignments with The New Leader, The Nation, and Partisan Review.  Baldwin wrote book reviews and essays for these leftist publications.  Themes he pursued in the books he authored included ones of victimization, racial and class conflict and the corruptive evils in the United States.  Baldwin also wrote about the chasm of the racial divide.

W.E.B. DuBois, until the turn of the 20th century, had been a supporter of black capitalism.  By 1905, however, he had been attracted by Marxist/socialist ideas and moved further left throughout his life.  DuBois shared in the establishment of the NAACP in 1909.  He attended Pan-African conferences and was later involved in pacifist, anti-imperialist and anti-colonial pan-African movements.  He ran for U.S. Senate on the American Labor Party ticket.  His engagement with socialist ideas is apparent from his participation in organizing a “consumer co-op” which was a step toward the realization of an integral collectivist society.  Eventually, DuBois became so disillusioned with the U.S., that in 1961 he joined the Communist Party, renounced his citizenship and relocated to Ghana.  He became a citizen of that country, where he died two years later.  His writings reflected a collectivist perspective.  He believed that collectivism was the proper goal of the rational movement of historical forces along a continuum of progress.  He believed that the better classes should recognize their duty toward the masses.

Ralph Ellison probably joined the Communist Party in the late 1930’s, although later, after breaking with Communism, he denied ever having been a member.  In fact much of his later life was spent in minimizing his Marxist leanings and expunging his history.  He was a member of the John Reed Club concurrently with Langston Hughs (see below) and Richard Wright (see below).  As a writer of the Federal Writers Project, he authored pieces that were sympathetic and supportive of Marxism ideology.  The essays and book reviews that Ellison wrote for New Masses also have a decidedly Communistic bend.  During WWII, Ellison displayed a seemingly untroubled willingness to support the Communist Party, even when it shifted dramatically.  Nevertheless, by the late 1940’s, Ellison seems to have become totally disillusioned with the Party and broke with it.  The themes in Ellison’s works are various.  They include Blacks being for blacks, the white “power structure” as the enemy, America’s distorted value system, victimization, America’s refusal to accept diversity, blacks selling out by working for the system, emphasizing group over individual rights.

Langston Hughes journeyed to the U.S.S.R. to work on a film project there.  He concluded that Communism held the solution to racial equality.  It is unclear whether he actually joined the Communist Party, but certainly was a close fellow traveler.  He, too, was a member of the John Reed Club in the early 1930’s.  This group was established by the Communist Party and supported leftist and Marxist artists and writers.  Hughs came before the McCarthy Committee in 1953.  At that time he renounced his earlier associations with the Left.  However, he continued to praise Communism’s apparent racial egalitarianism and favorably depicted the U.S.S.R. even after renouncing his ties to the Left.

Richard Wright began his association with socialism in ~1931.  By 1933 he had joined the Communist Party after first joining the John Reed Club in 1932.  He worked for the Daily Worker in 1936 and wrote over 200 articles for that Communist organ.  His writings reflect his belief in the promise of socialism to bring about racial equality, and his belief in the working class to bring about social change.   However, Wright became disillusioned with the Communist Party during WWII.  At that time he began to believe that the Communists were abandoning the fight against racism.  He officially broke with the Party in 1944.  During the Cold War, Wright continued to believe that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were twin monsters of imperialism.  In the 1950’s, Wright began to believe that the real conflict was not between classes but one of the individual vs. the society and the intellectual vs. totalitarianism.  Wright sided whole-heartedly with the anti-colonial revolutions taking place across Africa.

What do we think the chances are of Obama renouncing his Leftist views?  Slim, or none?

Filed under: indoctrination, language, liberal activism, , , ,

America: a dark city in a valley

Jean Kaufman at the Weekly Standard has written an article that compares and contrasts the language of Reagan with the language of Obama. As stated in my previous post on “words”, one can clearly see how inextricably language is woven into worldview and subsequent policies. This one is a must read.

Filed under: language, media, POTUS, , ,


After our fun (?) foray into Obama “Doublespeak” recently, I was curious about the roots of the language of the Left. Seriously, why do they seem to speak in code? Where does it come from? What does it mean? I know that all administrations have their messages and talking points. I know that certain words and phrases are purposefully chosen after being thoroughly tested on focus groups. Yet this language seems different in a qualitative way. As a friend of mine used to say, “It’s not only that they are on a different page; they’re reading a different book!”

All groups have their own “lingo”. It is what, in large part, gives a group its identity. We recognize that someone belongs to a group by how well and to what extent he or she knows particular “jargon” or catch phrases. However, as a counseling-psychologist myself, of the cognitive-behavioral school, I believe that language has greater potency than simply defining group character. Language shapes the way we think about relationships, events, oneself and the world. In turn, the way we think generates particular feelings. Those feelings lead to observable behaviors, (or in the political arena policies). Understanding resultant behaviors, (and/or policies), is impossible without first developing an understanding of the words, thinking and feelings that preceded them. It all begins with language.

Initially, we acquire our vocabularies, syntax, grammar and idioms/slang within our families-of-origin. Later, these are enlarged and refined to a great degree by our interactions with others. The nature of these interactions can be active, (as a conversation), or passive, (as in listening to or watching media). As we mature, our usage develops nuances and shades of meaning. We begin to understand that words are often used in less than concrete ways. Perhaps the most important impact on language acquisition and development occurs from reading the written word. “The pen is mightier than the sword.” A reader interacts with the material that is read on numerous levels. Words can paint pictures and inflame passions. A seemingly well-reasoned argument can influence, persuade and even radically change perceptions of reality. All of us are vulnerable to a speaker or writer who has a facility with the language. Words can manipulate. Words can mesmerize. Words can illuminate. Words can indoctrinate. Words can obfuscate. Words have power!

Consider the example below:
“Democrats can win if they stop being corrupted by cash and bullied by lies paid for by special interests. Democrats will lose if they remain cowed into fear by those who shout at town meetings, yell at joint sessions, rant on cable television, slander on talk radio, bring guns to greet elected officials, take surveys about violence against presidents, cheer when America does not win the Olympics and filibuster to preserve, protect and defend the despised status quo.”

(Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He can be read on The Hill’s Pundits Blog. 10-5-09).

The above quote is filled with evocative language; language that is meant to arouse the emotions of the reader. What type of picture is the writer painting by using words and phrases like: corrupted, bullied, lies, special interests, cowed, fear, shout, yell, rant, slander, guns, violence, cheer when America does not win, filibuster, despised status quo? To me, it seems to paint a picture of a weak, victimized minority being coerced into submission by an unscrupulous, dangerous and vicious enemy! And, lest we forget, the Democrats possess control over, arguably, all three branches of the Government, as well as its bureaucracy and the Fourth Estate, an extraordinary amount of power-power that the Left wishes to not only retain, but to expand.

The current administration excels at using words in such a dissembling fashion. We “sparrows” would do well to be alert to these contortions of the language. And, as we will learn in coming posts, this insidious usage did not originate with the present Administration. Its roots are deep within the words that so influenced and shaped Mr. Obama—those of Marx, Baldwin, Ellison, Hughs, Wright, Zakaria, DuBois, Alinsky and Davis, among others.

It is crucial that each of us develops the ability to dissect, dig out, interpret and discern the true meaning of what the Left says in order to grasp how they will act-the future of our Country depends upon it.

Filed under: brainwashing, education, indoctrination, language, media, POTUS, , , , ,


For any of you out there who remained skeptical about school indoctrination practices, even after seeing the videos posted yesterday, this video should remove all doubt. It aired, in part, on Fox News this morning, but this is the entire video. (I understand that it was taken down from YouTube earlier today). The sound quality is not the best, but listen carefully, and you will hear the line, “Red or yellow, black or white we are equal in his (Obama’s) sight”.

What do we think about all this, Sparrows?

Filed under: brainwashing, education, indoctrination, language, media, POTUS, , , , ,


Do you ever wonder just WHERE kids pick up the ideas they have nowadays?

Recently, Tucker Carlson exposed how text books in our schools are decidedly slanted to the Left. Furthermore, they often delete, misstate and twist information. The program aired on Fox and can be seen on YouTube by searching for “Text Book Wars”. It is well worth a look.

I was very concerned after watching “Text Book Wars”. However, I believe that parents, once alerted, can be more than equally influential in comparison to a book. In fact, pointing out where a text book is in error can be educational in and of itself, teaching children to not believe everything they read, how to do independent research and how to be an active participant in their education, in short, how to think and arrive at reasoned conclusions.

But, what happens when “educational” videos are shown to children during the school day? How is a parent to know what their children are hearing or seeing? Moreover, what impact do these kinds of presentations have on various aspects of our children’s thinking and development? I have linked to what I find to be a very disturbing video that is being shown in our public schools. It is called, “The Story of Stuff”-a fairly innocuous title; the content is anything but innocuous. Lee Doren, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute developed a critique of this video, so his commentary breaks into the video itself with helpful information. There are four parts to the video. You will want to watch it in its entirety. Pay special attention to the language that is used. There are many “code words” of the Left in the video, words that are a familiar part of Liberal speeches, writings, interviews, legislation, etc.

As I was watching the video, I was reminded of “educational” films that we were shown during Junior High School (as it was then known). I especially remember a series about life in the Soviet Union. One particular portion of the series was horrifying to me at the time; it still is. The segment showed how the children were being brainwashed with Communist propaganda, misinformation, distortions and lies in their schools. In the discussions that followed these films American liberties, free speech, access to the truth, etc. were all stressed as a contrast to these films. I never have forgotten those black and white films, and how I hurt for those children. They seemed to have no chance to ever know the truth or think for themselves. Their future was nothing more than to be imprisoned and oppressed by the Communist ideology.

Today, that ideology is still around. It is now our own children and grandchildren that are being indoctrinated into it under the green guise of being environmentally responsible; something I could have never imagined in Junior High School. Information is power; empower yourselves to protect the children from this sort of blatant anti-capitalist teaching.

Filed under: brainwashing, education, indoctrination, language, liberal activism, media, POTUS, , , , , ,


Pull out your decoder rings and follow along, Sparrows. Below are my definitions for the list of Obama Doublespeak words from yesterday. If any of you have a better definition, or two or three, please feel free to submit them. Together, I believe that we can break this code!

Values: subjective assessment of what “feels” right in a particular situation, and/or what is politically correct, especially with respect to what supporters want to hear.

Distraction: any scandal, fact or data that threatens the “message” and that cannot be honestly explained without squirming.

Rude: any forthright and clear disagreement with the Administration, especially that which is reported in the media and raises subsequent uncomfortable questions. (Closely related to Distraction-see above).

Smear: using facts, video/audio tapes, speech transcripts, documents, etc. to prove background, associations, beliefs, votes, policy statements, positions shifts, etc. that show the Administration in an unattractive light.

Haves/Have-nots: the Rich/everyone else, especially designated special interest groups. (Also see Middle-class).

Middle-class: those who live one accident or illness away from bankruptcy; marked by hard work, little reward and exploitation by Failed Policies (see Failed Policies) and the Haves (see above). Needs constant Government intervention in order to survive.

Change: converting Democracy to Statism, free markets to central planning/regulation, and placing individual liberty under Government control.

Mandate: Government dictates to the individual, i.e. if you don’t do something, it will cost you.

Fees/Revenue Enhancers: taxes.

Failed Policies: any policy of the Bush Administration. Used especially to deflect distractions, (see Distraction), smears (see Smear) and explain unsuccessful strategies.

Specifics: vague generalities, empty promises, emotional appeals and fabricated statistics followed by rhetorical flourishes to inspire support for something.

Transparency: misdirection, denial, stonewalling, a.k.a. smoke and mirrors.

Civility: complete agreement and conformity with any and all stated programs, policies and positions; unanimity.

Stability: security to not be without anything; guaranteed reduction of personal risk and rescue from the negative consequences of one’s own choices and life in general.

Choice: that which the Government provides; it is always what is best for you.

Truth/Lie: synonymous terms; used interchangeably depending on the situation and desired effect.

Extreme elements: (see Rude).

Never again find ourselves…: (see Stability).

Definition: depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Business as usual: (see Failed Policies).

Profit: nasty mammon produced as a result of successful business endeavors that exploits the Have-nots, (see Have-not), and the Middle-class, (see Middle-class).

Legitimate debate: a one-sided argument marked with Civility. (see Civility).

Fairness: that which the Government deems to be equitable-and also good for you.

Justice: removing any natural consequence of individual action and replacing it with Stability. (see Stability).

Empathy: acting out of emotion and Values (see Values) vs. considered rational judgment as measured against a standard, such as a law.

Okay, I’ve shown you my thoughts. Show me yours.

Filed under: brainwashing, congress, indoctrination, language, POTUS, U.S. GOVERNMENT, , , ,


The title of this entry is lifted from an article in the Wall Street Journal. It is a delightfully descriptive noun for the POTUS. Keeping track of the way he defines particular words and phrases could actually be a full-time job. One that only Orwell, or fans of his, could really love.

I believe that words have power. Furthermore, the misuse and/or re-definition of words not only creates misunderstanding and confusion, but also cripples our very ability to clearly communicate. Which begs the question, “does the POTUS really WANT to clearly communicate his intentions?” Scan through the following list of words and phrases. We hear at least some of these everyday from this administration, and I do not believe that they are being used according to their true meanings. So what do YOU think that the new definitions of these are?

Bear in mind the old adage, “Republicans are afraid that you will not understand what they are talking about; Democrats are afraid that you will”.

Middle Class
Revenue enhancer
Failed policies
Extreme elements
Never again find ourselves…
Business as usual
Legitimate debate

The list could go on and on, but these are enough to ponder for now. To paraphrase Orwell–our ignorance is their strength.

Filed under: brainwashing, indoctrination, language, POTUS, , ,


There is an article on World Net Daily today that describes the links between ACORN and Obama, ones that he has previously denied. I had been researching these very things early on in the 2008 election cycle, and was planning to post that research here. However, their article is an excellent summary and contains much of the same information.

I would direct you to the complete videos of Obama addressing the Community Change groups. The attendees included many community organization groups, including ACORN. The video is in two parts.

An article from Thursday by Stephen Spruiell at National Review Online, provides a good insight into how the theories that underpin ACORN also can lead to other policies, for example reversing welfare reform, all of which drag our Nation more leftwards.

Read, digest, learn and act!

Filed under: ACORN, language, liberal activism, POTUS, , , ,


Obama Profile

Obama so mastered the workshops on power that he later taught them himself. On his campaign website, one can find a photo of Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, “Power Analysis” and “Relationships Built on Self Interest,” an idea illustrated by a diagram of the flow of money from corporations to the mayor.

For any “sparrows” out there who missed the information concerning ACORN that was published during the Presidential campaign, (possibly because you were relying on the mainstream media for your information?), check out the reprise of Stanley Kurtz’s article. Be sure to take the time and read the two articles he links to within his article. Read them CAREFULLY, especially the first one, because it details how far the reach of ACORN goes–truly scary.

Lest we forget, the POTUS worked to train these folks, defend these folks and promised them a “place at the table” in his administration! (More on that in the coming days). Above are the Obama/ACORN pictures that I first stumbled upon back when I was researching Obama. They are difficult to find now, since they have been “scrubbed” off of the pro-Obama sites where they used to be, but I persevered, because a picture IS worth a thousand words!

I think that it is important to realize that ACORN has been under scrutiny for a while, but it finally took these undercover videos to have it removed from census work, and to have the Senate vote against funding for it. We can hope that the House will follow suit!

Filed under: ACORN, brainwashing, indoctrination, language, liberal activism, POTUS, , , , ,


Lately, I’m sure you have heard quite a bit about insurance companies profiting on the sickness of others, hugely and immorally.
Let’s think this through. Isn’t it when someone is SICK that the insurance company has to PAY? In fact, they are betting (because, after all, insurance is really gambling), that you will stay WELL. So, I guess they are making these HUGE profits on our wellness? And, of course, according to the POTUS, on denying care and not paying claims.
Dr. Mark Perry has a great chart on his blog that documents these evil profits. Check it out and you, too, can be smarter than the President.

Filed under: healthcare, language, LEGISLATION, POTUS, , ,

"His eye is on the sparrow, and He surely watches me." --Mrs. Doolittle, 1905