Number One Goal of the Radical Progressive Left

Posted byTina

“The goal is the destruction of U.S. imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism. Winning state power in the U.S. will occur as a result of the military forces of the U.S. overextending themselves around the world and being defeated piecemeal; struggle within the U.S. will be a vital part of this process, but when the revolution triumphs in the U.S. it will have been made by the people of the whole world.” – 1969 manifesto called “You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows,” written by leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

HT: Frank Miele

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Number One Goal of the Radical Progressive Left

  1. Post Scripts says:

    Bill Ayers, eh? And he was a friend of Obama’s…it figures.

  2. Joe Shaw says:

    Really? The #1 goal of the radical progressive left is defined by a manifesto from 1969? OK, even if this were true, what percentage of the liberals make up the radical left? I would guess about the same percentage of conservatives that make up the radical right. But then agian, that may not be true as the middle right has all become radical right these days. What used to be considered the middle right is now called middle left. The middle left is now considered radical left. Come to think of it, things have moved so far to the right that I don’t believe there is a radical left anymore. And if there is a radical left, they must be like rolling Cuban cigars or something. Now I’m not sure what I’m even talking about!

  3. Libby says:

    What happened to the “Reagan Revolution”?

    We seem to be attempting a re-writing of recent history with the aim of glossing over some 30 years of ruinous economic policy.

    Luck to you.

  4. Pie Guevara says:

    Speaking of left wing radicals, Post Scripts folks may find this video of Obama’s visit to Palo Alto last April interesting.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c-jIRzgNswA

    At the around the 2:10 mark an Obama voter proposes and remarkable solution to get the US to stop borrowing money.

  5. Pie Guevara says:

    Someone is attempting to re-rewrite history by posting part of the SDS manifesto?

    Huh?

    That has to be the non sequitur of the day.

    Ronald Reagan served in office for eight years, not thirty.

    The Reagan revolution came during his term in office when, by applying Hayekian economic theory, he completely turned around the failing US economy in two years. That was the Reagan revolution. Thatcher did the same.

    Reagan’s only true economic failure was he ultimately could not convince congress to control non-defense government spending or get congress to pass the line-item-veto.

    The Soviet Union collapse came about partly due to Reagan’s policies pushing that corrupt tyranny past the tipping point.

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    No more radical left? Now there is one heckuvamazing statement. I wonder where Joe has been?

    Try:

    Media Matters

    The Nation

    Democracy Now!

    Mother Jones

    Chico News and Review

    Listening to a Pacifica station (like KZFR).

    Give http://zombietime.com/ a gander.

  7. dickwitman says:

    ‘Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex’, is what Eisenhower said, and now they have created the TEA Party, encouraged killing on a massive unimaginable scale and have intimidated individuals and governments around the world. Rendition and torture are the norm.

    Liberals just cow-tow to the American terror machine every chance they get. Just like you do.

    You should rest easy knowing full well that what the SDS wished for was bong smoke compared to the feeling of someone walking on your grave which is what the conservatives and liberals have given us now.

    You can blame anyone you like, but really it was YOU who had led us to the end we are at now. And me too.

  8. Tina says:

    Joe I got a kick out of your comment; it is pretty tough to keep track these days! You asked:

    “what percentage of the liberals make up the radical left?”

    I don’t think the percentage is as important as the number of committed radicals that are now in positions of power and influence. Many of them have been working away quietly for lo all these years. Mr. Ayers, for instance, is a highly regarded academic that has had a great influence in the world of teaching. Teachers in todays schools have been trained to teach by his methods…our children and our teachers have been managed, dumbed down and poorly served as a result. The influence that this has had on our population is great when you consider the numbers of citizens that have been schooled since the 1970’s.

    I have posted recently about the numbers of congress critters that are on the hard radical left. Maxine Waters suggested that when they won in the 2008 election they were going to “take over” energy companies…she realized she had revealed too much and stuttered and tried to cover up the remark but her grounding and principles and her commmunist roots came right through.

    The rise in activism coming from the right today is a direct response to this leftward lurch…a much needed response in my opinion.

    I’m curious Joe, if you are willing, what ideas do you fear most?

  9. Tina says:

    Pie: “At the around the 2:10 mark an Obama voter proposes and remarkable solution to get the US to stop borrowing money.”

    OMG…its so easy!!!

    “Ronald Reagan served in office for eight years…”

    Amazing given the incredible economic and entrepreneurial BOOM that followed!

    I was just thinking…if the democrat party would move back to where it was before Reagan left it…WOW…we’d be America again!

  10. Chris says:

    Jack: “Bill Ayers, eh? And he was a friend of Obama’s…it figures.”

    Oh, not just friends. The truth is much more sinister. You see, President Obama is actually just Bill Ayers in black-face, which explains both the true authorship of “Dreams From my Father” and why Obama has been unwilling to show us his birth certificate. Even worse, Bill Ayers is actually just George Soros in gentile-face! It’s like a Russian doll, and you know what else is Russian? Communism.

    I think I’ve proven my point. 😉

  11. Pie Guevara says:

    Re dickwitman: ‘Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex’, is what Eisenhower said, and now they have created the TEA Party, etc.

    The Military-Industrial Complex created the TEA party? I didn’t know that. Can any TEA party members who may frequent this blog confirm that?

    There ya go Mr, Shaw! Here is your modern left-wing radical, dickwitman. (I am not sure where to put the emphasis, you will have to decide that for yourself.)

    Evidently the SDS is just so much bong smoke compared to dickwitman.

    The Weather Underground Organization (aka Weatherman), which originated in the SDS was responsible for numerous bombings. Obama pal Bill Ayers reflected years later, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

    Here is a list of Weatherman bombings and other actions:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Weatherman_actions

    Re dickwitman: “You can blame anyone you like, but really it was YOU who had led us to the end we are at now. And me too.”

    Who is YOU? Who, exactly do you mean dickwitman?

  12. Tina says:

    dickwitman: “‘Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex’, is what Eisenhower said…”

    Yes he did. He worried that government and industry could lead to an imbalance and tyranny.

    Eisenhower, like Reagan, believed in peace through strength. The full text of Eisenhower speech referring to the militaryindustrial complex here:

    http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

    The following excert puts his remarks in perspective (emphasis mine):

    A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
    Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
    Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    Eisenhower knew first hand about ruthless enemies but even he probably could not have imagined the enemy we face today. Our tools for fighting the enemy must remain strong and at the same time we must develop new tools and new ways of dealing with the threats that face us.

    “…and now they have created the TEA Party”

    The Tea Party is made up of loosely affiliated concerned citizens…what’s the problem?

    “Liberals just cow-tow to the American terror machine every chance they get. Just like you do.”

    What do you suggest?

    “You should rest easy knowing full well that what the SDS wished for was bong smoke compared to the feeling of someone walking on your grave which is what the conservatives and liberals have given us now.”

    Like what? What are your concerns?

    “You can blame anyone you like, but really it was YOU who had led us to the end we are at now. And me too.”

    We at Post Scripts seek information and truth. Discovering and exposing “cause” is part of that process and more adequately describes the quest we are set upon as we converse with each other about the events of the day and about our history.

    Blame is a fairly useless endeavor but holding people responsible is key if we are ever to return this nation to a state of freedom, prosperity, and adherence to the rule of law.

    My responsibility was in thinking that the leftist activists had little power. I’m doing what I can now to inform others and to clarify the problems we face so we know what needs to be done.

    What are you doing about it?

  13. Pie Guevara says:

    If QC is not completely and utterly deranged he sure is giving one heck of a good impression that he is.

  14. Tina says:

    Chris: “The truth is much more sinister.”

    Indeed it is, despite the silly jokester garbage that followed this remark, I’d say sinister is precisely what I would call a decades long subversive fight to fundamentally transform America to a communist state.

    http://www.academia.org/bill-ayers-unmasked/

    At a press conference on August 20, Americas Survival, Inc. unveiled the results of several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made regarding the curriculum and activities of University of Illinois at Chicago professor Bill Ayers.

    Ayers has visited Germany, the Netherlands, and Venezuela to advance his educational ideals, said Cliff Kincaid, President of Americas Survival and editor of Accuracy in Media. The so-called World [Education] Forum in Venezuela carried the title Bolivarian Education and the Overcome of the Capitalist School, he noted.

    Ayers in his speech of 2006 made reference then to this being his fourth trip to Venezuela,
    Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez came under intense criticism this month for a new law which reshapes the countrys educational system, reported The Economist in August. Teaching is to be rooted in Bolivarian doctrine, a reference to Mr Chvezs ill-defined Bolivarian revolutionsupposedly inspired by Simn Bolvar, a leader of Latin Americas 19th-century independence struggle, it stated. Schools will come under the supervision of communal councils, indistinguishable in most places from cells of the ruling socialist party. In addition, the bill would undermine religious schools, allow the government to shut down media outlets which cause terror among children, and seeks to weaken or abolish students and teachers unions and to democratise university authorities, states the Economist.

    (The Venezuelan Student Movement has long opposed Chavez reform efforts).

    Professor Mary Grabar analyzed eight syllabi used by Ayers and argued that the work done by this Distinguished Professor of Education was not scholarly.

    However, after reading most of his so-called scholarly books and several syllabi I come away with the impression that this respected professor of curriculum instruction tells future teachers to dispense with curricula, but to have some on hand in order to fool administratorshe actually tells them this, she asserted. This education professor, furthermore, does not think that it is necessary for teachers to have knowledge of their subjects. He does not think that teachers should bother to make any objective assessment of students progress. He does not think that teachers should maintain order in the classroom.

    Ive seen the “change” that has occurred over a few decadesI see thiskind of change accelerating unless we expose and stop it.

    You proved nothing with your comical craft. In fact you’ve proved only that you are naive, Chris. And I’d like to remind you, it is your future we aim to secure, we will be long gone.

    Finally, and for the record, the man who studied “Dreams From My Father” and determined that it was probably not written by Obama, or at least heavily edited, is a highly regarded expert in analyzing the authorship of literary works.

    Our readers can read his analysis of “Dreams” here:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

  15. Tina says:

    Quentin is an opinionated man and that is fine.

    I prefer to consult with others for information regarding the Reagan record. CATO for instance. Those who are ibnterested in information driven opinion will enjoy reading the following:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa261.pdf

    Often partisanship and ideology prevent a dispassionate assessment of the Reagan years. The political left has adoptedthe convention of arguing that the beneficial economic changes in the 1980s–the conquering of inflation, the surge inemployment, and the sustained economic expansion–had little to do with Reagan’s policies, whereas any negativechange–the explosion in the budget deficit, the savings and loan crisis, and so forth–was a direct consequence of thefailed theology of Reaganomics.

    [3] Meanwhile, the right argues that only the triumphs of Reagan’s record deservemuch attention, and that any blemishes–again the big budget deficits–were inconsequential or the fault of theDemocrats in Congress.
    [4]

    This study attempts to cut through the fog created by this partisan dialogue and spotlight the real economic record ofthe 1980s–sticking to “just the facts.” All the figures provided in this study come from standard statistical sources:Bureau of the Census, the Economic Report of the President, and Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government.To judge how well the economy performed under Reagan’s policies, we compare the economic performance of theReagan years (1981-89) with that of the immediate pre-Reagan years (1974-81) and the post-Reagan years (1989-95).

    Table 1 contrasts side by side the economy’s performance for the three periods of analysis–1974-81, 1981-89, and1989-95–for 10 key variables. We measure the change in each economic variable from the start of the period throughthe end and present the annualized change.
    [11] On 8 of the 10 key variables, the Reagan record unambiguously outperformed the records of the pre- and post-Reagan years. The two exceptions were the savings rate, which declinedin the Reagan years at a faster rate than in the pre- and post-Reagan years, and productivity, which grew faster in thepre-Reagan years but slower in the post-Reagan years.

    [12] The following is a summary for each of the 10 variables:

    Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect ofreversing Carter’s high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economicexpansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began.
    [13] Figure 1 shows the economicgrowth rate by president since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and 1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent annual real growth.

    Economic Growth per Working-Age Adult. When we adjust the economic growth rates to take account of demographic changes, we find that the expansion in the Reagan years looks even better and that the 1970s’ performance looks worse. GDP growth per adult aged 20-64 in the Reagan years grew twice as rapidly, on average, as it did in the pre- and post-Reagan years.

    Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years–from $37,868in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989, as shown in Figure 2. This improvement was a stark reversal of the income trends inthe late 1970s and the 1990s: median family income was unchanged in the eight pre-Reagan years, and incomeshave fallen by $1,438 in the anti-supply-side 1990s, following the 1990 and 1993 tax hikes.

    [14] Most of the declines in take-home pay occurred on George Bush’s watch. Under Bill Clinton’s tenure, there has been zero income growth in median household income.

    Employment. From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year. Contrary to the Clinton administration’s claims of vast job gains in the 1990s, the United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs per year in the post-Reagan years. The labor force United Stateshas averaged only 1.3 million new jobs expanded by 1.7 percent per year between 1981 and 1989, but by just 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 1995.
    [15]

    Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years.

    Unemployment Rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program. Figure 3 shows that in the pre-Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended upward; in the Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended downward; and in the post-Reagan years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated up and down but today remains virtually unchanged from the 1989 rate.

    Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year–the worst presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.

    Inflation. The central economic evil that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981 from Jimmy Carter was three years of double-digit inflation. In 1980 the consumer price index (CPI) rose to 13.5 percent. By Reagan’s second year in office, the inflation rate fell by more than half to 6.2 percent. In 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, the CPI hadfallen to 4.1 percent. Figure 5 shows the inflation and interest rate trend.

    Interest Rates. In 1980 the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was 15 percent; this rate rose to its all-time peak of 18.9 percent in 1981. The prime rate steadily fell over the subsequent six years to a low of 8.2 percent in 1987 as the inflationary expectation component of interest rates fell sharply. The prime rate hit its 20-year low in 1993 at 6.0 percent. The Treasury Bill rate also fell dramatically in the 1980s–from 14 percent in 1981 to 7 percent in 1988. In the 1990s, interest rates have continued to migrate gradually downward, as shown in Figure 5.

    Savings. The savings rate did not rise in the 1980s, as supply-side advocates had predicted. In fact, in the 1980s the personal savings rate fell from 8 percent to 6.5 percent.[16]

    In the 1990s the average savings rate has fallen even further to an average of 4.9 percent [17]–although the rate of decline has slowed.

    The decline in the personal savings rate in the 1980s was disappointing, but two factors mitigate the implications of these statistics. First, the drop in the savings rate was partly a natural response to demographic changes in America–namely, the baby boomers entering their peak spending years. Second, the savings rate data fail to account for real gains in wealth, which clearly are an important form of savings. The real value of capital assets and property doubled from 1980 to 1990. The Dow Jones Industrial Average nearly tripled from a low of 884 in 1982 to 2,509 in 1989. These increases in the value of stocks, bonds, homes, businesses, and so forth added to Americans’ balance sheets hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth that are not accounted for in the savings rate statistics. [18] (emphasis mine)

    I’ll take the polices, the BOOMING economy, and the wealth building of the Reagan years any day of the week over the stagnant, job killing, business ending, wealth reducing polices of the O man and his clan of clowns in Congress.

  16. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Tina’s: I prefer to consult with others for information regarding the Reagan record … etc.

    It seems that every time Tina answers a certain foolish man with the facts and a citation the foolish man clams up.

    Tina, I too will take the polices, the BOOMING economy, and the wealth building of the Reagan years any day of the week over the stagnant, job killing, business ending, wealth reducing polices of the O man and his clan of clowns in Congress.

    That pretty much sums it up. Obama is an Obummer.

    ONE TERM!

    One very foolish man knows doodley squat about economic history. He might try reading “Commanding Heights” and “The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World” but it might cut in to deeply on his comic book time or skit writing.

    He might actually try to look up economist Friedrich August Hayek with a simple Google search. But that would take way too much effort and steal time away from making cranky posts in Post Scripts.

    This is for you, Tina, you can be sure the vastly ignorant Dr. Demented won’t be reading it —

    “Ronald Reagan at his time listed Hayek as among the 2 or 3 people who most influenced his philosophy, and welcomed Hayek to the White House as a special guest. In the 1970s and 1980s, the writings of Hayek were also a major influence on many of the leaders of the “velvet” revolution in Central Europe during the collapse of the old Soviet Empire. Here are some supporting examples:

    There is no figure who had more of an influence, no person had more of an influence on the intellectuals behind the Iron Curtain than Friedrich Hayek. His books were translated and published by the underground and black market editions, read widely, and undoubtedly influenced the climate of opinion that ultimately brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Milton Friedman* (Hoover Institution)

    The most interesting among the courageous dissenters of the 1980s were the classical liberals, disciples of F. A. Hayek, from whom they had learned about the crucial importance of economic freedom and about the often-ignored conceptual difference between liberalism and democracy.[43]

    Andrzej Walicki* (History, Notre Dame)

    Estonian Prime Minister Mart Laar came to my office the other day to recount his countrys remarkable transformation. He described a nation of people who are harder-working, more virtuous yes, more virtuous, because the market punishes immorality and more hopeful about the future than theyve ever been in their history. I asked Mr. Laar where his government got the idea for these reforms. Do you know what he replied? He said, “We read Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayek.”[44]

    U.S. Representative Dick Armey

    I was 25 years old and pursuing my doctorate in economics when I was allowed to spend six months of post-graduate studies in Naples, Italy. I read the Western economic textbooks and also the more general work of people like Hayek. By the time I returned to Czechoslovakia, I had an understanding of the principles of the market. In 1968, I was glad at the political liberalism of the Dubcek Prague Spring, but was very critical of the Third Way they pursued in economics.[45]

    Vaclav Klaus (President of the Czech Republic)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

  17. Joe Shaw says:

    “I’m curious Joe, if you are willing, what ideas do you fear most?”

    Tina, this is a great question and thank you for asking. I would say that any idea that seeks to over-empower any one person or group is an idea to fear, or at least be concerned about. Hitler sold the Germans on this idea that if he had complete power he could make Germany a major player in global economics and military mite. And he did, but he didn’t stop there. Today in America the big money players (banks, Wall St., large corporations, etc.,) have convinced a large percentage of Americans (conservatives) that the less they are taxed and regulated, the more jobs they can create. In theory, this could actually work and there have been times in our history that it has. But what has tax breaks and deregulation accomplished in the last several years? Corporations are gobbling each other up to the point that there are only a handful that control things like the media, gasoline production, health insurance, prescription drugs, and the number of companies are shrinking as power, political influence, and control over competition are increasing in the few companies that are slowly taking control over….everything! Republicans and democrats have/are both responsible for the corporate takeover of America. However, when I look at what you conservatives are trying to do….fighting for these giants to be taxed and regulated even less…..I feel like you are unwittingly playing right into their plan. You have this idea that if we give them everything, they will in return trickle it all back to the American worker, that this is the best way to prosperity. At least Hitler was a human being, capable of changing for the better (which didn’t happen). Corporations don’t even have a soul. They are Godless entities concerned only with profit and power, and you want to empower them even more! This is the idea that I fear the most.

  18. Tina says:

    Joe your perceptions and concerns are understandable but I think unfounded. I’m not certain you have rightly named the underlying cause for your concern. We can’t hope to address a problem unless we first identify the problem.

    You use the word control and convince. I can assure you that big corporations didn’t convince me that lowering taxes makes good economic sense. What convinced me was my own experience in business and even more important than low taxes (I say reasonable tax rates) is rates I can count on not to change next year. Constant change is very costly and time consuming.

    I think what most conservatives want is a simplified tax structure that would keep people honest. I think companies don’t mind paying taxes as long as they are reasonable (by reasonable I mean not so punishing that it makes it hard to satisfy customers and investors and move forward). What really drives me crazy as a business person is the uncertainty that comes because regulations and tax laws are constantly changing.

    The big organization or group that has been the most controlling and punishing from my perspective is the Democrat Party. In general terms, this is the party that seeks to control every aspect of our lives through regulations, laws, taxes, the courts, and redistribution.

    In general terms Republicans have been ineffective in communicating and implementing their ideas. They have been dupes and they have compromised to much to “get something done”. They have created new departments that were later “transformed” into something much more intrusive (EPA) than was first envisioned and created departments that bloomed into unworkable bureaucracies (Homeland Security). They have generally failed at holding to the principles and ideals of the party. However, the basic ideals of the party: compact federal government, strong defense, relegating more power to state and local governments, and simple and effective tax and regulation policy are the things that would make influence from corporations, unions, and all special interest groups less likely.

    Our big federal government is the problem. Corporations spend on lobbying to influence and gain advantage. Why? Because everyone else is and if they don’t they will likely lose something. If the government had less power, and the individual more, that need to influence would disappear.

    “You have this idea that if we give them everything, they will in return trickle it all back to the American worker, that this is the best way to prosperity.”

    I think you have totally misunderstood the position of most conservatives. Corporations should pay a reasonable tax and simplifying the tax code would ensure that they do. There isn’t any reason to choose winners and losers in this way. Simplifying the code and removing loop holes and subsidies would ensure that everyone pays what is due …including all those delinquent federal workers 😉

    Democrats are against simplifying the tax code because they want to maintain the power to manipulate through the tax code and to use it to redistribute wealth.

    Start from a simple premise: Americans pay taxes to support necessary functions of the government. This puts things into perspective. The Constitution called for the federal government to maintain a military to defend the nation and our federal courts should act as arbitor when disputes arise between the states so certainly these should be done under the federal government. It also makes sense for the federal government to maintain diplomatic relations in the world. Other than that the federal government could leave everything else to state and local governments. And if we did a better job at educating and maintaining a strong moral and civic fiber, state and local governments could also be less intrusive as people would take responsibility for meeting their own needs. Charities in America do outstanding work…I think they are a better place for the wealthy to invest from the overflow of their abundance.

    “At least Hitler was a human being, capable of changing for the better (which didn’t happen). Corporations don’t even have a soul. They are Godless entities concerned only with profit and power”

    Joe, corporations are things. You are in fear of a thing.

    Those people who run big companies do so to make products, or offer services, in order to make a profit. Corporate people have no interest or power to micromanage your life and they cannot force you to buy their products. They cannot arrest you or write laws to restrict you or fine you in any way.

    Small government and simplified tax and regulation codes would take away the need they feel to protect the viability of their companies. The people who run and administer these businesses will have no power other than what they can arrange among themselves. Ultimately they will fail in their endeavors if they don’t satisfy you the customer.

    Most people in America work for smaller businesses. Many of the laws that restrict and tax big corporations also effect these smaller companies. If we want plenty of jobs we must create an environment that gives all companies certainty.

    I hope you will continue to explore and consider the positions of conservatives. It’s clear to me that your perceptions about us are not accurate…in fact they are frightening. I’m of German decent. The idea that my values and party would, in any way, resemble those of Hitler is repugnant and insulting to me.

    Freedom and personal responsibility are the two ideals I value most. I want everyone to value them because they are the basics that make societies healthy and strong. Freedom cannot be maintained when government gets too overpowering and intrusive. The health of society cannot be maintained without each individual having a strong sense of personal responsibility (this of course assumes a moral element as well).

    I want everyone to prosper because of their own efforts and direction. I think when we Americans are set free we are naturally entrepreneurial and innovative. What we produce works for the betterment of all people.

    For the life of me I can’t see how people, free to participate and create, can be bad for America…can you?

  19. Pie Guevara says:

    Corporations are just like any other human organization, they are made up of human beings. They are no more Godless, soulless entities than humans grouping together in any organization.

    Be it humans beings forming a fraternity, sorority, church, mosque, synagogue, union, government, charity, school, university, tribe, mask clan, long ear lobe society, or any other group.

    Just because humans form corporations does not mean those humans participating have no soul. Far from it.

    Corporations are no more capable of evil or good than humans grouping together in any other organization.

    Corporations, like any human endeavor, follow divergent and various philosophies. And like any group of humans, with the possible exception of suicide cults, the bottom line is survival.

    It is part and parcel of the depthless narcissism of the left to identify themselves as knights in shining armor or concerned citizens valiantly working to stave off the hordes of “Godless entities concerned only with profit and power”.

    It is also part and parcel of the left’s view that government is, somehow, the great solution, even while the left is doing its best to fashion our own government into some sort of godless and soulless entity.

    Frankly, that world view and narrative about corporations and government is so narrow, focused, ignorant and prejudiced as to be reprehensible. It shows a great lack of understanding of how complex the world of business and corporate entities is and non-corporate social groups including government.

    I blame our education system. I too had to take those those sociology classes run by left wing liberals who assigned us to read unrealistic utopian socialist novels and preached incessantly about how the evil corporations were “Godless entities concerned only with profit and power”. Frankly, I didn’t buy that nonsense but many did. I also noticed that there was no required course that balanced the left wing sociologist view.

    There was an excellent study done on just two corporations with different philosophies who made steel pipe and had competitive markets. The contrast between the two was remarkable. How the boards who ran the corporations treated their employees, how they ran their yards, how they integrated in their communities, and how they treated the environment was like day and night. As I recall, the more successful enterprise was whose philosophy focused their concerns on their people, their community, and their environment.

    This study was aired as a documentary on PBS. I wish I could remember the name of it and share it with Joe. It just might open his eyes a bit.

  20. Chris says:

    Tina: “You proved nothing with your comical craft. In fact you’ve proved only that you are naive, Chris.”

    It was just a joke, Tina. I didn’t feel like arguing at the time, so I thought I’d go for humor. Lighten up.

    “Finally, and for the record, the man who studied “Dreams From My Father” and determined that it was probably not written by Obama, or at least heavily edited, is a highly regarded expert in analyzing the authorship of literary works.”

    You’ve GOT to be kidding. Jack Cashill? The guy who has claimed that Obama’s real father may be Malcom X or Jimi Hendrix? Just who is he “highly regarded” by, other than the discredited birther community?

    Cashill doesn’t have the literary expertise to analyze “See Spot Run.”

    And the American Thinker should be branded a hate site after posting a defense of white nationalism only a week after a white nationalist went on a killing spree in Norway.

    But thank you for yet again demonstrating that you get your news directly from crazy people.

  21. joe shaw says:

    Tina, I wasn’t comparing Hitler to the republican party. I was using an example of what can happen when too much power is given to a single entity. Let me set you and Pie straight on something….I don’t believe corporations are necessarily evil. In fact most of them probably fall under the category of small businesses. I remember back in 1981 I bought one of the first home computers from a local owned appliance store called “Filco”, right here in Chico. The computer wires would not make a connection from the screen to the base so I returned it. They gave me a bad time about taking it back and I remember saying to them that this is one reason why corporate stores are putting you mom and pop folks out of business. I told them that if I had bought the same product at K-mart that they would refund my money, no questions asked. So yes, corporations not only offer better service than many private owned companies, they have made our lives much easier in many ways. Yes, there are many good corporate companies pout there that offer good service and treat their employees right. Corporations become a bad idea when they start gobbling each other up and become so big that they no longer have to compete. Is it fair that they can buy influence in Washington when you and I have none? Tell me Tina and Pie, what is the name of your personal lobbyist, the person who you have sent to Washington to not only influence your congressmen but to write bills that benefit you personally? Do you have one? Of course you don’t! You don’t see any problem with this?

  22. Tina says:

    Joe, I’m glad you don’t regard the Republican Party as Nazi-like…nothing could be further from the truth.

    “Corporations become a bad idea when they start gobbling each other up and become so big that they no longer have to compete.”

    We have laws to prevent this from happening. And, as we saw with ATT, when it does happen we have laws that force a break up into seperate smaller companies. These things can take time as all big deals do but it happens. The laws that govern mergers and acquisitions are too complex for me to be bothered about since it isn’t my job but I’ve seen it works most of the time.

    See examples of how laws are implemented:

    http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9403294722/justice-may-block-some-mergers

    http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/2361417/mergers-aid-consumer

    One thing that is important and does concern me is that we have ethical, responsible people installed in the DOJ.

    “Is it fair that they can buy influence in Washington when you and I have none?”

    I look at it a bit differently. I realize that people who hire lobbyists are often my fellow citizens. They are doing their best to conduct their business as best they can. One of their main goals is to bring products to the American people, and on the world market, that are safe, inexpensive and well made. Government can toss a big wrench into a companies plans as I described in my last comment. Those lobbyists are, in a very real way, working for me. I want good products at the lowest price. I want American companies and workers to make the best products in the world. I wnat them to be very successful and to be an example to others around the world. I want companies to do what they have to to make this possible.

    To answer your final questions I consider many of the lobbyists my personal lobbyists. I have a house that I may need to sell one day. The Real Estate lobby makes sure the critters in DC hear about the concerns of the real estate and housing markets, the building market, and lending institutions.

    I use and build electronics equipment. Any lobbyist that expresses concerns in this area is working for me.

    I purchase and wear clothing and buy food and prescriptions. Lobbyists that represent these companies also represent me.

    Problems arise when the politician has compromised his integrity and his obligation to the American people. The people we elect to high office should be of high ethical standing. Power is corrupting so only those who begin with the highest ethical standards should be elected. After that it is up to the people to hold them to that standard.

    I want ethical politicians who listen to the concerns of these company/industry/special interest lobbyists exactly as they would you or me or any of their constituents. None should have the power to bribe. The power is in the hands of the politician. I want them to be true representatives of the people and to listen with the intention of making informed decisions when writing and voting on bills. I don’t want them making deals.

    A smaller federal government would eliminate much of the opportunity for this to happen. Also letting our representatives know what we expect of them will make a big difference…and tossing them out if they are shown to be in breach of our trust.

    This is why the Tea Party is a good thing. These critters now know that a dedicated populace is watching and will not put up with unscrupulous activities from any of them.

  23. Tina says:

    Chris: “It was just a joke, Tina. I didn’t feel like arguing at the time, so I thought I’d go for humor. Lighten up.”

    I will do so, happily!

    “Just who is he “highly regarded” by, other than the discredited birther community?”

    The folks that awarded him an Emmy would be on the list and I imagine the editors of Time Magazine, The New York Times, Life Magazine, Vanity Fair and others regard him highly or they wouldn’t have published his work.

    Also as regards his allegation he has written a book that investigates similar frauds perpetrated through the written word:

    http://www.aim.org/podcast/take-aim-jack-cashill/

    ARONOFF: One more thing before we get into the current book. This is related, and that is another book you wrote called Hoodwinked.

    CASHILL: Yes.

    ARONOFF: So youve studied the subject of journalistic con jobs. Give usleading into our discussion of the Obama bookan illustrative example from Hoodwinked.

    CASHILL: Right. I would say that what I discovered in Hoodwinked is that if an intellectual or an author creates a book or some sort of study, and it serves the agenda of the Left, they will protect him, even ones who are accused of fraud. I would say the one fraudand I covered about twenty frauds from people of all different races, creeds, and colorsthat is pretty indicative of what Obama can expect is what happened to Alex Haley, the author of Roots. Two years after Roots came out in 1976, Haley was called into court by a white author, a novelist named Harold Courlander, who claimed that Haley had simply plagiarized page after page after page of a novel, and then turned it into a Pulitzer Prize-winning work of nonfiction! Halfway through the trial, the judge turned to Alex Haley, on the stand, and said, If you persist in this, Im going to have to charge you with perjury. It was so transparent, what Haley had done. It was the equivalent of, today, a $2 million judgment against Haley. The storytotally buried. Then, in 1993, The Village Voice, of all people, a Left-wing publication, came out with a comprehensive look at the Roots fraud. What they found out was that not only did he plagiarize huge portions of it, but that he fabricated his story.

    Leftwingers find his work credible and some of his heroes are left wingers:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2008/11/the-other-day-i-mentioned-that-obamas-speech-didnt-show-any-of-the-openness-of-his-wonderful-first-book-dreams-from-my-fathe.html

    Last winter, I told my wife that I didn’t believe Obama had written the book by himself. She said she would divorce me/cut off my (bleep) if I tried to write that up. I cheated. I decided to look into a piece on Obama’s literary achievement, which after all was his rocket ship to the topthe keynote speech in ’04. My old friend Peter Kaplan at the Observer said I could make calls using the Observer’s name. The piece never ran because the Times did something like it right after I got going, but I spoke to both Peter Osnos, Obama’s erstwhile publisher (who has been critical of the “steely” way Obama conducted his book deals), and Henry Ferris, who was his editor. I’m not going to dig out the notes now, but Ferris said that Obama was a true writer, Ferris didn’t have to do very much at all with the prose, it came in remarkably clean. When I asked about the great pacing and structure of the book, Ferris said: That was Obama’s achievement. Ferris told me he’d already gotten some of these questions from reporters: after Obama borrowed lines from a Gov. Deval Patrick speech in Massachusetts last year, sans credit, reporters wondered about the book.

    I relate my narrative because it intrigues me that Cashill independently had a very similar response. He’s a writer too, and evidently a right wing nut, but he knows how books are made, and his investigation began with similar misgivings. One of the more inculpatory facts he’s come up with is his assertion that something like 3 percent of the sentences in Dreams From My Father are passive voice, but 8 percent of the sentences in Obama’s next book, The Audacity of Hope, are passive. Cashill and I agree that the more you write the less you use passive voice. You get better, you notice that kind of thing and overcome it. Obama took a big step backwards to his second book.

    I’m not going to go into Cashill’s evidence and computer modeling. Frankly, I don’t care that much. For what it’s worth, I find the Hudson River flowing north anecdote, which appears in both an Ayers book and Obama’s book, mildly suspicious, as I do a lefty lesson both books offer about education versus training. Some of the lush reflective passages in the two books have faint echoes. Judge for yourself. I’m just saying it’s plausible, and unprovable.

    http://www.cashill.com/hoodwinked.htm

    Many of Cashills heroes are leftists who refused to sell out truth for ideology. Mary McCarthy, for example, exposed Lillian Hellman as a Stalinist liar; in Homage to Catalonia, George Orwell exposed Soviet duplicity during the Spanish Civil War.

    My favorite debunker in the book is liberal New York University physics professor Alan Sokal. Disturbed by the postmodernist dogma that no truth is objective, he composed a send-up titled Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformational Hermeneutics of Quantum Physics. In this article, he contended that physics is a social construct whose purpose is to conceal power relationships: Scientific knowledge, far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it. The editors of the iconic post-modernist journal Social Text published the article, and expressed their pleasure at the work of a progressive physicist committed to the critique of science.

    “But thank you for yet again demonstrating that you get your news directly from crazy people.”

    And when challenged by you I usually come up withy evidence, even from liberals, to prove you are full of beans! But thanks for sharing!

  24. Tina says:

    Pie: “Frankly, that world view and narrative about corporations and government is so narrow, focused, ignorant and prejudiced as to be reprehensible. It shows a great lack of understanding of how complex the world of business and corporate entities is and non-corporate social groups including government.

    I blame our education system. I too had to take those those sociology classes run by left wing liberals who assigned us to read unrealistic utopian socialist novels and preached incessantly about how the evil corporations were “Godless entities concerned only with profit and power”.”

    Perfect and worth repeating! 😉

    If you do think of that PBS documentary I hope you will share it with our readers.

  25. Smithd659 says:

    Hi! Someone in Myspace group shared this website so I came to look it over. I’m definitely loving the information. I’m book marking and will be tweeting this to my followers! Great blog.

  26. Smithd236 says:

    Amazing things here. Im very glad to see your post. Thanks a lot and i’m looking forward to contact you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?

Comments are closed.