Monthly Archives: August 2010

John Holdren: Science and Technology Czar

If I had to define John Holdren, I would call him a “Green Communist.”  However, President Obama has given him much different titles: Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. If I had to compare him to another person I’ve looked into previously, it would be Maurice Strong.

Lets take a stroll down memory lane and take a look at the man that advises our President in the fields of science and technology.

From Discover the Networks: John Holdren

John P. Holdren is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University‘s Kennedy School of Government. He also serves as Director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy program at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Holdren earned a bachelor’s degree from MIT in 1965 and a Ph.D. in plasma physics from Stanford University five years later. He taught at UC Berkeley for more than twenty years, and chaired the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science from February 2007 to February 2008. Today he directs the Woods Hole Research Center, whose mission is to “understand the causes and consequences of environmental change as a basis for policy solutions for a better world.”

In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.” That same year, he and professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: “If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”

In 1971 Holdren and Ehrlich warned that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.”

Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich (in their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutionscalled fora massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. “De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” The authors added:

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

On another occasion, Holdren, when asked whether Americans would “need to reduce their living standards,” said:

“I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous.”

The book he co-authored in 1973 titled: Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, from what I can determine is as radical as they come. I was not able to read the book at this time in it’s entirety, but luckily another blogger had a copy, and scanned many key pages providing a disturbing look into Holdren’s plans.


John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children


Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size

Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force

Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

More from Discover the Networks:

In 1977 Holdren and Ehrlich quantified their anti-capitalist philosophy in a mathematical equation, I=PAT, where a negative environmental impact (I) was the product of such undesirable factors as population growth (P), increasing affluence (A), and improving technology (T). In an effort to minimize environmental damage, they prescribed “organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than today’s, and movement toward some kind of world government.”

In the 1980s Holdren opposed the Reagan administration’s military buildup, warning that it would likely “increase the belligerency of the Soviet government.”

In 1984, Holdren served on the editorial board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a publication whose personnel were accused of providing vital nuclear information that helped the Soviet Union develop its first atomic bomb. Two of the magazine’s founding sponsors, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project, in which they were key participants, to the Soviets.

In 1986 Holdren predicted that “carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.”

In 2006 Holdren suggested that as a result of global warming, sea levels worldwide could rise by 13 feet by the end of the 21st century. A subsequent estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change placed the figure at 13 inches.

In 2006 he wrote an article for titled: “The Energy Innovation Imperative, Addressing Oil Dependence, Climate Change, and other 21st Century Energy Challenges.” Within the article he discusses, amongst other things, Carbon trading and population control, though not as bluntly as in the book discussed previously.

On Population Control:

Population. Lower is better for many reasons. If world population were 8 billion in 2100 rather than the mid-range UN forecast of about 10 billion, holding down the carbon emissions from the energy to make everybody prosperous would be that much easier. Fortunately, reduced population growth can be achieved by measures that are attractive in their own right (notably improving health care, reproductive rights, and educational opportunities for women).
On Cap & Trade:

Perhaps most importantly in the context of the character of energy challenges as elaborated in this article, companies are likely to continue to under-invest in developing and deploying low- and no-carbon energy options until there is a stronger marketplace incentive for such action, either in the form of a substantial carbon tax or its practical equivalent in the form of economy-wide emissions caps implemented through tradable permits.

More from Discover the Networks:

In the October 2008 issue of Scientific American, Holdren wrote: “The ongoing disruption of the Earth’s climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable.” “Carbon dioxide (CO2),” he added, “is the most important of civilization’s emissions and the most difficult to reduce. About 80 percent comes from burning coal, oil and natural gas; most of the rest comes from deforestation in the tropics.”

Today Holdren characterizes researchers who doubt whether human activity is responsible for global warming, or that global warming even poses a serious threat, as people who “infest” the public discourse with “dangerous” ideas that pose “a menace” to humanity.

Holdren is a longtome anti-nuclear activist. From 1987-97 he chaired the Executive Committee of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (PCSWA), an international group of scientists who promote arms control. In 1995 he delivered a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on behalf of the PCSWA. From 1993-2004 he chaired the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In 2005 he called on the U.S. to issue a “no first use” policy for nuclear weapons and to eliminate nuclear retaliation as a possible response to chemical or biological attacks.

I must note that Holdren’s office issued a denial to Fox News:

Holdren’s office issued a statement to denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.

“Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth,” the statement said.

“Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake.”

The denial doesn’t really hold much water since his 2006 article subtly steers toward population control. Just the standard Obama Admin, “Deny, deny, deny” followed by the Alinsky ridicule, (Straining to conclude otherwise is a mistake).

So I’d say he learned to tone down the extremist rhetoric but has the same views and the same goals. You can see Holdren in many of the current policies of the Obama Administration, and why Obama picked him, their similiar goals. The nuclear disarmament, pending START treaty with Russia, Cap & Trade by Legislation or through EPA, and the Health Care Law to name a few.

Holder is a dangerous man with the dangerous view that men are killing this planet and must be forced to stop doing so, and the ends justify the means….

Federal Reserve Struggling to Create Inflation

The specter of deflation is looming.  Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke, the President’s economic advisor Paul Volcker (remember him from the Carter years?), and Treasury’s Timmy Giehtner are all worried that the inflation they have been trying so hard to elicit isn’t coming fast enough – or at all.

While inflation is what happens when too many dollars are chasing too few goods, deflation is the opposite.

According to, inflation is caused by:

  1. The supply of money goes up.
  2. The supply of other goods goes down.
  3. Demand for money goes down.
  4. Demand for other goods goes up.

So one could draw a conclusion about the inverse – that deflation is caused by (parenthesis mine):

  1. The supply of money goes down (hmm, let’s talk about this one).
  2. The supply of other goods goes up (inventory growth – CHECK!).
  3. Demand for money goes up (people want more money than is available – credit crunch – CHECK!).
  4. Demand for other goods goes down (commodity implosion, consumers not spending, etc – CHECK!).

Let’s break down the criteria:

Money Supply Declines While Demand for Money Increases

With all the money the government has been printing, shouldn’t it all have come out in the wash? Sure, except Obama’s financial reform has put lenders and creditors in the mood to just hang on to their money.  This post in the Telegraph illustrates just how quickly the money supply is being depleted:

The stock of money fell from $14.2 trillion to $13.9 trillion in the three months to April, amounting to an annual rate of contraction of 9.6pc. The assets of insitutional money market funds fell at a 37pc rate, the sharpest drop ever.

“It’s frightening,” said Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research. “The plunge in M3 has no precedent since the Great Depression. The dominant reason for this is that regulators across the world are pressing banks to raise capital asset ratios and to shrink their risk assets. This is why the US is not recovering properly,” he said.

The U.S. government has stopped tracking M3, they say because it’s too volatile (which the next graph will disprove).  I believe they just don’t want to have to address the fear that having to report on it would create.  Since they don’t track it, they don’t have to talk about or react to it.  At Now and Futures, they decided to track it themselves and the chart they produced shows that the pace at which the money supply is dropping is alarming at best:

M3 Money Supply

M3 Money Supply

There is also the issue of the availability of credit.  The sweeping regulations that the Obama administration has pushed for and gotten have paralyzed the credit markets.  Banks will only lend to the most credit-worthy and are being forced to hold historically high asset-to-credit ratios.  Small businesses and consumers can’t borrow even if they want to – in the case of small and medium businesses, they need to.  It just plain is getting harder to get the money we need.

Demand for money: up, supply down.

Supply of other Goods Rising vs. Demand for Goods Stays Low

There are both supply side and buy-side issues that are causing the over-supply issue.  Manufacturers built up inventories anticipating the “Recovery Summer” that the White House promised them and consumers aren’t buying.  According to Economic Populist, the consumer confidence index is taking a nosedive:

The Index now stands at 52.9 (1985=100), down from 62.7 in May. The Present Situation Index decreased to 25.5 from 29.8. The Expectations Index declined to 71.2 from 84.6 last month.

The latest GDP number showed a disconcerting decline in consumption.  The 2.4% overall number isn’t something that indicates much more than the economy treading water and certainly demonstrates weakening demand for our goods.  As the New York Times put it

Recent data suggests that consumers are using any extra cash they have to pay down debt or put into savings. That places a strain on an American economy that has become hugely dependent on consumer spending.

On Tuesday, the Commerce Department reported that Americans saved 6.4 percent of their after-tax income in June, in contrast to the years before the recession, when savings rates stood at 1 to 2 percent.

Last month, the Federal Reserve reported that consumer debt dropped by 4.5 percent in May, a $9 billion decline. It was the 20th consecutive month that figure has dropped. In 2007, consumer debt jumped by 5.7 percent or nearly $40 billion.

The weakening demand works its way down the supply chain down to even the most basic of commodities.  Gasoline stockpiles are rising because refiners ramped up production without an increase in demand.

Supply of goods: Up, demand: down.

So manufacturers have produced goods thinking the recovery has come (it didn’t), consumers have either decided to hang on to their cash or been unable to obtain credit from banks that want to hang on to theirs.  With our fractional reserve economy, lending creates money – if no one borrows, less money is created.  We now have too many goods with too few dollars chasing them: Deflation.

Why would the government want to create and grow inflation?  As Rand Paul puts it, “The government wants inflation because they can never pay this debt, so they look for a devalued currency because you pay back ten cents on the dollar it’s not as big a difficulty in paying off the debt.”  In Obama-speak, this gives the socialist-progressives more space within which they can enact huge government programs.  If the deficit gets too ridiculous, they get voted out and the progressive drunk-fest comes to an end.

Obviously, deflation does the opposite – our debt becomes impossible to pay back and the progressive elitists won’t have the money or political capital to complete the final crisis that would “fundamentally transform” America.

We know why the government is doing what they do.  Now.. what do we do?

Run, hide.  Ok.. none of those unless you’re being chased by a large carnivore.  During inflation, holding debt isn’t bad.  You have an asset that is holding its value while your money becomes worth less (hopefully not worthless).  So you’re house is worth $100,000, during the inflationary period, money becomes less worthy.  Your house does not.  If things level out with 10% inflation, you are the owner of a $110,000 dollar house the next year. You could sell the house and even though each dollar is worth 10% less, your house maintained it’s relative value so you get 10% more for it. The decline of the currency did not affect your house at all, just any cash you hold or things you purchase as new with it.

During deflation the opposite is true, debt is terrible (and even worse on depreciating assets: cars, electronics, etc).  You have a $100,000 house, you pay on it over time.  Once things level out.. you have a house worth $50,000 house but still have a $100,000 mortgage.  They have a cool term for that now: under water.  50% of your wealth has just drowned in your under water mortgage, and that’s the best situation.  Now you have to pay $100,000 (plus interest) for a $50,000 asset.  The real kicker is it will become much harder to get the dollars you will need to pay your mortgage in a deflationary environment (remember, money supply = down).   When deflation is on the horizon, get rid of debt.

Some will tell you gold is a hedge against deflation.. the same people that said it was a hedge against inflation: those who want you to help keep its price high while they sell it.  Gold is a terrible play during deflation.  You are buying a $100 coin at $100 today, in 6 months, it will be worth $50, but there won’t be very many dollars out there looking to buy your gold.  Now you’re stuck with something you can’t sell, can’t eat, and can’t use.. how does that work for you?  This holds true for any commodity.  Deflation means the buying power of cash is strengthened and the price of commodities and other goods drops.

As this post points out, deflation will put upward price pressure on bonds.  To keep borrowing costs low, they have to keep yields down and the Treasury has few tools left.  This will drive bond prices up and there interest rates lower.

“The U.S. is closer to a Japanese-style outcome today than at any time in recent history,” Bullard said, warning in a research paper released yesterday about the possibility of deflation. “A better policy response to a negative shock is to expand the quantitative easing program through the purchase of Treasury securities.”

If you agree that a bout of deflation is in the cards, and you want to invest some of it, put your money in .. well.. money: U.S. Treasuries.  The yields are terrible, but the price pressure will be dramatic and the U.S. government will create money if it has to in order to pay you.  If it hits, commodities (gold, oil, gasoline, wheat, etc) will take a serious hit – stay away from those.  Other than that, emerging market stock funds may be a play in anything other than a serious global deflationary trend.

If you are betting on the outright collapse of the currency, gold gets no better.  You can’t eat it, the supply of it is controlled under suspicious conditions  and it’s worthless in a barter system.  Look at the Confederate states during and after the civil war.. barter.. not gold was the method of exchange.

Being cash-rich and debt-free is the way to ride out a deflationary period.  You’ll have what everyone else needs – dollars.  Law of supply and demand puts you in the driver’s seat.

Obama’s Socialist Endorsements and Support

In my last post I showed that Obama was a member of  the Socialist “New Party” in the 1990’s. That membership came with privileges.

During his Presidential Campaign Obama had no shortage of aid from Socialist organizations. I have their support and aid to him below, in their own words.

The Social Democrats USA Socialist Party openly endorsed Barack Obama:

September 17, 2008     The Endorsement of Candidates for Political Office

This is directed to anyone interested in the process by which we, the Committee to Revive the Social Democrats, USA-Socialist Party of America, endorse candidates for public office. We do not formally endorse candidates nationally. We have made no filings with the Federal Election Committee or the Secretary of State of any state other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We have voted to allow local parties to endorse candidates for local public office and to allow them, if they choose, to use a Social Democratic Party or Socialist Party ballot line. We currently have no provision for formally endorsing the candidacies of any minor political party.

Our endorsement of the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama is aimed solely at our own members and supporters. We hope that our members can work locally to support the Obama campaign by filling in the gaps that the Democratic Party is leaving open. Obama’s platform calls for re-industrialization but is vague as to specifics. In coalition with trade unions and community groups we hope to draft local plans on re-industrialization and publicize them through the League for Industrial Democracy.

The Democratic Socialists of America actively promoted Obama and were proud to state every way they helped him get elected throughout the campaign. The DSA even reprinted an article by Francis Fox Piven hoping for an Obama victory. Francis Fox Piven is the mother of the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” of manufactured crisis and also an Honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.

From: Democratic Left “The magazine of the Democratic Socialists of America”   Vol XXXVI, No. 1 Summer 2008 Excerpts from:

Resolution on the 2008 Presidential Election

Thus, DSA has no illusion that a Democratic presidential victory, combined with bulked-up Democratic majorities in both houses of the Congress, will in itself bring about significant democratic reform. We do believe that such a political landscape would provide the most favorable terrain upon which mobilized, assertive social movements can pressure the government to appoint decent federal judges and agency administrators and enact desperately needed universal health care legislation, labor law reform, and a federally funded Mar-shall Plan to develop green technologies and green jobs.

An Obama presidency will not on its own force legislation facilitating single-payer health care (at least at the federal level) or truly progressive taxation and major cuts in wasteful and unneeded defense spending. But if DSA and other democratic forces can work in the fall elections to increase the ranks of the Congressional Progressive and Black and La-tino caucuses, progressive legislation (backed by strong social movement mobilization) might well pass the next Congress.

Senator Barack Obama has attracted considerable support as a presidential candidate who promises to end “politics as usual.” He has invigorated a significant youthful, multiracial cadre of supporters, as well as gained considerable support from liberal activists. The massive outpouring of small contributions in support of his campaign signals the potential power of his message, and his recent call for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies is encouraging.

In this issue you see the Democratic Socialists of America somewhat backing Obama, not for who he is, but for the agenda they can make him stick to. One key word you see is “Progressive.” Socialists work with Progressives continously because “Socialist” was a dirty word and we had forgotten the meaning of Progressive. You’ll see this word alot through the next 2 issues of “The Left.”

From: Democratic Left “The magazine of the Democratic Socialists of America” Vol XXXVI,No. 2 Fall 2008 Excerpts from:

“What’s Happening to America”

by Francis Fox Piven (emphasis  mine)

But wait! A glow of light is on the horizon. It is, of course, the approach of the 2008 election. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not making fun; in fact, I’m desperate for the 2008 election. I think the sheer scale of public disillusion with the Bush administration guarantees large margins of victory for the Democrats in the congressional contests. Of course, the Democratic majorities yielded by the 2006 election led to only feeble efforts to control the bellicose and delusional team in the White House. But larger majorities, especially a veto-proof majority in the Senate, would surely help. So, at the very least, the head-long rush over the cliffs of financial breakdown, spreading war, and ecological disaster may be cushioned and slowed. But our problems are truly serious, and we need a president to lead in reversing course and setting new directions, a strong president with good sense and democratic inclinations. Even more urgently, we need to get rid of the Bush administration, and as soon as possible before yet more harm is done. But public dismay with current policy directions notwithstanding, I don’t think Obama’s victory is by any means assured. I hope, of course, but I am worried about stolen votes and rigged computers, the right-wing rumor network, the formidable propaganda machine, and also the residual racism and xenophobia of lots of Americans that this apparatus will tap.

If turnout remains high, an Obama victory could mean a realignment of American electoral politics around a majority coalition similar to the one forged in the New Deal era, with African Americans and Latinos replacing the white South as the reliable core of the coalition. The composition of this new coalition would encourage presidential rhetoric that in turn could spur movement activism. It would simultaneously generate the hope that is always the fuel of movements from the bottom of society, and it would put in place a regime that is vulnerable to those movements. If there is political salvation in the American future, it can only be forged through the dynamic interplay between progressive social movements and elected politicians.

So here we have Francis Fox Piven “hoping” for an Obama win. This article was originally published in a different paper (The Advocate) but the Democratic Socialists of America felt the need to reprint it into their magazine. Mrs Piven is an Honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. Also you see her advocating for “Progressive” Social Movements to work with Politicians.

From the same issue of “Democratic Left” magazine

DSA Locals: from the Convention to the election ’08


Sacramento DSA worked intensely on the Obama campaign through Super Tuesday and continues electoral work with the Sacramento Progressive Alliance. The local held a Democratic Party platform event in July, highlighting DSA’s Renegotiate NAFTA campaign, fair trade, and immigration.
Here we can see the first sign of the Democratic Socialists of America actually moving beyond just lip service and actually working on the campaign of Barack Obama. After the election, in the next issue, they let us know everything their members did across the country to get Obama elected.
From: Democratic Left: “the magazine of the Democratic Socialists of America”
“What We Did in the Election”
compiled by Barbara Joye
As “the left wing of the possible,” DSA pursues a two-pronged strategy: building an independent progressive movement while encouraging our members to participate in electoral campaigns for candidates who will fight for policies that strengthen popular forces and weaken the grip of capital.For the past year, especially following the nomination of Barack Obama, many DSA members worked energetically on the presidential campaign, especially in swing states, as well as in behalf of an array of candidates for U.S. House and Senate, and state and local offices. Together with Democratic Party campaign staff or independent community groups, we registered voters, phone banked, knocked on doors, and helped organize other volunteers. We are now reflecting on that experience while gearing up for what we always knew would be the next, harder, step: working in coalitions to push the new administration to enact a progressive agenda.
I asked several DSA and YDS leaders to report on their electoral work this year and its significance for our organization. The response was quite positive, as most people had tasted victory, perhaps for the first time in a while. Even in Alaska, which went for McCain/Palin and barely managed to elect Democrat Mark Begich to the Senate, DSA Local Secretary/Treasurer Dick Ferris says that “overall,…progressive Democrats made gains” they can build on. They helped elect some members of the state legislature, and DSA members will be meeting with state representatives “to promote a progressive agenda for Alaska.”

Duane Campbell of Sacramento DSA points out that Obama’s victory resulted from an unprecedented mobilization of progressive sectors of the electorate – blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, union members, antiwar and youth voters, many voting for the first time. “Sacramento DSA is proud to have played an active role in this campaign, working through the Sacramento Progressive Alliance…in cooperation with Progressives for Obama.” At Sacramento State University, DSA members tabled and conducted voter registration, raised funds, rallied. and sponsored a progressive forum with candidates for a variety of offices. One of the candidates for state Assembly won by a narrow margin. What’s more, says Campbell, “Because we were already up and tabling, we became a center for the ‘No on 8’ campaign [Proposition 8 prohibits gay marriage] on campus, distributing literature, bumper stickers, and signs when no one else had them.”
By contrast, DSA members in Atlanta worked separately with a variety of organizations on various aspects of the presidential and senatorial elections: canvassing with the Democratic Party, phone banking with the North Georgia Labor Council and True Majority, registering voters with Women’s Action for New Directions, dropping banners on expressway overpasses, and helping the NAACP monitor the voting process.
“The experience was good,” says Carol Coney, a poll monitor. “If I hadn’t been there when polls opened at 7 a.m. to report that the computers were all down, who knows how long it would have taken to get them on line? I had Election Protection at that precinct within 20 minutes. It was good teamwork, and I felt good that the computers were only down for the first hour.” Unfortunately, even with our help, neither Obama nor the liberal senatorial candidate Jim Martin – who could have helped the Democrats achieve a filibuster-proof majority – were able to overcome the superior Republican organization in the state. Jorge traveled twice to North Carolina during the primaries to organize Latino voter registration in Winston Salem and Charlotte and help deliver votes that proved key to the Obama campaign and later the governor’s and senatorial races in that state.

In Ithaca, New York, Teresa Alt reports that DSA and single-payer activists had first supported Eric Massa when he barely lost his first bid for Congress in 2006. In addition to being an advocate of single payer health care, Massa is a retired career Navy officer who wants to get out of Iraq and supports fair trade. This year a coalition of DSA, single-payer backers, PDA, and the peace movement mobilized early in the campaign, helping raise funds at a key point. “We are delighted to announce that he won by a little over 5,000 votes,” says Alt.
Detroit DSA members focused on local and state races in which a progressive Democrat was running for an open seat – a setting where the efforts of a small but disciplined group could provide the margin of victory and also contribute to turnout for the national races. After interviewing candidates to make sure their views on labor issues, health care, the environment, living wage, and progressive taxation ran parallel to ours, they voted to support four candidates for state representative. Their fundraising party that raised $6500 provided critical seed money, as most contributions from progressive sources had already gone to candidates for national office. With steady help from DSA campaign volunteers, all four candidates won, despite redbaiting of one by the Detroit Free Press (which accused her of being funded mainly by radical groups like DSA) and robo-calls accusing another candidate of being a socialist.
Detroit DSA also did statewide mailings and e-mail blasts to members, urging them to vote for three lesser-known candidates running for local offices, all three of whom won. Finally, in the last three weeks of the campaign, DSA was approached by a county commission candidate who needed money for one last mailing to the voters in his district. He promised to work for a countywide living wage ordinance if elected, so the chapter conducted an internet fundraiser which collected $500 for him in just one week. He won by a narrow margin.

Dave Anderson played a significant role in Colorado, despite having no functioning local right now. He served as a precinct chair and on the steering committee of the local Progressive Democrats. They defeated two of three anti-labor initiatives that were on the ballot (including the first defeat of a right-to-work law since the 1970s) and expect the third to be struck down in court. “Maybe now we’re headed to a period where being a socialist publicly means more,” he comments. “Those big questions are being raised, like what do you do with the auto industry?”
In Columbus, Ohio, DSA members campaigned for both Obama and congressional candidate Mary Jo Kilroy, who, after a suspenseful count of provisional ballots was declared the winner in December, raising the Democrats’ majority in the House to 257. Another candidate supported by a DSA member but not by the national Democratic party lost in a different district.
Some YDS members were very active in their home states or elsewhere. In Rhode Island, Will Emmons of Brown University served as the volunteer organizer for a state representative’s re-election campaign. The representative, David Segal, had started his political career by getting elected to the Providence city council at age 22 as a Green Party member and, according to Emmons, “acts as a megaphone for progressive organizations around the state,” helping them accomplish their goals. “I thought working for Dave was a good use of my time because we need folks on the inside of the political system standing up to racist anti-immigrant legislation, fighting for renewable energy and green jobs, advocating for workers’ and union rights, and arguing for a robust public sphere,” says Emmons, although he acknowledges that most Democratic candidates are not as progressive as Segal.
New York DSA and YDS members were especially active. Some got up “at the crack of dawn,” says Jeff Gold, to take buses to support Obama in various locations in Pennsylvania, sometimes side by side with experienced trade unionists from Working America and at other times with first-time campaign volunteers. They also worked with the social democratic Working Families Party, which ran much of the New York Democrats’ field operations, to help the Democrats win their first majority in the state legislature since the mid-1960s (although at press time effective Democratic control of the state Senate is in doubt due to threatened defection by a group of conservative Democrats). DSA members living in rent-regulated housing in Queens and Long Island were especially active in behalf of pro-tenant Democrats on the WFP ballot line. Another member traveled all the way to south Florida to help turn out Jewish voters for Obama, especially during early voting, when it was easier to address problems at the polls.Many of the DSA members who reported their experiences said they enjoyed working with a wide variety of people and the opportunity to see the awesome Obama campaign machine in action. They were exhilarated by the unprecedented enthusiasm expressed by newly energized volunteers and voters. “I’m a seasoned volunteer of 25 years…, but it was different this time,” said one. They strengthened ties with local grassroots organizations, and helped to elect some progressives who, we hope, will support DSA’s Economic Justice Agenda. But to paraphrase FDR, now we have to get out and make them do it.
There you have it. The DSA not only campaigned for Obama but progressives as well. They wanted to get Obama elected and as many progressives as possible to keep him on their agenda. You can clearly see the relationship between Progressives and Socialists, and the lengths the DSA will go to to get them elected.
Now meet Bernie Sanders. According to Discover The Networks Bernie Sanders is:
  • a Self-identified socialist
  • Served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 2007
  • Founded the Progressive Caucus
  • Vocal critic of the Patriot Act
  • Was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006
  • Believes that global warming is caused, in large measure, by human industrial activity
  • Favors a single-payer, government run healthcare system
Amongst other things I bring him up because not only did he Campaign for Obama, but Obama, back in 2006, campaigned for Bernie Sanders. From NewsAlert:
When Vermont Congressman, self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, decided he’d run for Senate: Obama came to Vermont to endorse him. Obama could have endorsed the logical candidate the slated Democratic candidate,but he choose socialist Bernie Sanders. Here’s some of the quotes from the endorsement: Obama calls Bernie Sanders an “outstanding candidate”, Obama says “things can change”, Obama said “I want to make sure everybody is as enthusiastic as I am” concerning Bernie Sanders and “only a handful of wrong headed people don’t like him.” These amazing quotes are on this video the Obama campaign hopes you don’t see. Obama doesn’t seem to mind endorsing and hanging out with socialists.
From Discover The Networks
Also in 2006, with then-Senator Barack Obama campaigning for him, Sanders won election to the U.S. Senate. He referred to Obama as “one of the great leaders of the United States Senate,” and went on to become a member of Progressives for Obama.

It is clear to me that Progressives and Socialists are united for the same goals with the same agenda. They are working to together to carry out the “Fundamental Transformation” of our great country. They united behind Obama for the campaign. The Socialists work hand in hand with Progressives. Woe to the Republic.

Conservatives – Are We Crazy?

Conservative warningI tripped across a Los Angeles Times article by David Klinghoffer, entitled “From neocons to crazy-cons” that provoked some serious thought on my part.  Are we Conservatives out-of-our-minds?

The most thought-provoking statement in his article was, “Conservatism wasn’t just a policy agenda, a set of partisan gripes or a football team seeking victory on the electoral field. Above all, it was a satisfying, sophisticated critique of modern, materialist culture, pointing a way out and up from liberalism.”  Does one lead to the other or are they separable?

Early Conservative thought presented by the likes of Richard Weaver, William F. Buckley, and Frank Meyer shaped the tenets and platforms of Conservatism.  Klinghoffer seems to be saying that formulating the ideas and thoughts were enough – actions are crazy.  I could not disagree more.

For over sixty years Conservatives have remained mainly an intellectual group – no huge protests, no public events, no grass-roots movements.  Unfortunately, just talking-up the Conservative agenda has led to a vocal and active minority shaping the nation’s future – progressive liberals.  Should we go back to smoking jackets and libraries, writings and discussions?  Sure, but that does not need to be where it ends.

If we consider the pamphlets in the 18th century, we know that thoughts and words are indeed important – for inciting action.  Where would we be if  we had taken our understanding of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and just talked about it in gentlemanly circles?  While much contemplation should proceed any consequential action, sometimes events progress to a point where words and ideas are not enough – they become motivational.

I am not pushing for armed insurrection, a new violent revolution or anything of the sort.  My intent is a call to action, of the political activist kind and making the case that you aren’t a loony for doing so.

Conservatives have tolerated attacks from progressive groups.  We have been labelled old, white, men who care not for anyone.  We have been called racist, war-mongers.  Our ideas have been called backward.  When it remained an ideological debate, ideas and words fit as the weapons for battle.  They are no longer just debating, they’re taking action.  The ideology from the left is being realized at the cost of our ideals and liberties and they have misjudged the passivity of Conservatives.

Did the fundamental change of our way-of-life just start?  Of course not, but it is accelerating.  Let’s examine a small sampling of the actions of progressives, putting their ideology in-place while Conservatives take little or no action (we’ll save the debate on how problematic these actions have been for another post):

  • In 1933, The New Deal was implemented
    • A large government plan that funneled huge amounts of federal dollars to political swing-states (the impoverished south was neglected)
    • FDR convinced Americans that it was needed to prevent a repeat of that kind of financial crisis (oddly familiar)
    • FDR attacked investors and producers as, “Economic royalists or privileged princes” – effectively quelling debate from Conservatives who he knew wouldn’t do anything about it (Conservative shaming – deja-vu)
  • In 1935, Social Security was enacted
    • touted as a successful fix to the localized town-elder administrated poor laws
      • town elders determined who got assistance from the public coffers and who should be reprimanded for being lazy
    • The determination is no longer made, lazy is just fine and everyone can have it.
  • In 1965, adding disability to Social Security
  • In 2000, Social security was amended to allow eligible people that were employed to keep their benefits without reductions
  • In 2010 enacting health care reform
    • Including a mandate on citizens that everyone must buy insurance
    • Senate leadership is currently fashioning a bill to add in a government-run public option

There are many more actions that progressives have taken, but notice what inaction on the part of Conservatives brings – incremental increases to the size and power of the programs and the encroachment on personal liberties.  We can bend no more or we will be broken.

While many paint us as wingnuts, right-wing crazies, crazy-cons or what-have-you, it is simply that they are seeing something new, something effective, something angry.  The Tea Parties and FreedomWorks, Glen Beck’s and bloggers, marchers and protesters – Conservative activists all.  And that’s a relatively new term that was destined to be.

Enough is enough, talk isn’t enough, and we’ve had enough.  We aren’t crazy in the psychotic kind-of-way, just the angry “mongrel” kind-of-way.  A cornered animal might appear crazy, but in truth, it’s just pissed-off.

We didn’t become Conservative, we always were and needed an identity.  Even Klinghoffer realized this when he quoted Richard M. Weaver:

A life without real purpose is likely to be anxious, restless, prone to bitterness and suspicion. The goal of conservatism was to restore to men and women a metaphysical dream that allows for ultimate meaning in our existence.

These “crazy” actions are our purpose, our identity.

David closes the article stating that Conservative’s goals aren’t, “ defeat Democratic officeholders or humiliate left-wing activists. It was, and still is, with those who remember, to save civilization.”  I would take that one step further and say, our goal is to preserve the civilization our founding fathers put in-place and now, we’ll take whatever action is necessary to achieve that goal.

Register, Vote, Participate.

Follow Conservative Daily News on Twitter.

Recent Entries »