It's now crystal clear that Kagan was nominated for one reason: to rubber-stamp Obama's radical agenda, including an individual mandate for socialized medicine.
She is a radical. She is a socialist. And she must be blocked at all costs.
Acknowledgements ...I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas...
...most historians have looked everywhere but to the American socialist movement itself for explanations of U.S. socialism's failure...
...the American socialists· "failure to build a movement that even resembled Sombart's idealized notion of a class-conscious party--a failure which they shared with most of their European counterparts--did not render their party any less significant. Nor did such a failure render their party any less successful...
[To explain why the] American socialist movement of the Progressive Era suddenly fell apart... we must turn to the internal workings and problems of the socialist movement itself.
...the dissolution of the Socialist Party resulted not from the walkout of the syndicalists in 1912 but from the infinitely more disastrous departure of the communists seven years later...
...[Early on] the [American] socialists divided into two camps: those of "constructive" and "revolutionary" socialism.
...the Russian Revolution set the spark to their long-smoldering rebellion, and the Socialist Party burst into flames. In 1919, the SP split into two, and the New York City communist movement emerged... by the last 1920's, the socialist movement in New York City was dead.
...The SP's first priority was to prepare for revolution than to work for reforms -- to bring ultimate salvation rather than immediate relief.
Conservative craft unions could not develop the unity and class consciousness that alone would lead workers to vote the socialist ticket. They could not compel a resistant capitalist class to accept an SP electoral victory. Nor could they prepare the workers for the administration of industry in the cooperative commonwealth. According to such left-wing leaders as Boudin and Slobodin, then, the socialists needed to do all in their power to set New York's unions on a militant path. If that meant interfering with some other "arm", so be it.
...Most historians have viewed World War I as an unqualified disaster for the American socialist movement...
[During the war] both local and national socialist leaders had taken their stand: they would condemn the war in the strongest terms... having formulated their policies, the socialists turned with rekindled enthusiasm to active propaganda work...
Leon Trotsky, living in New York..., urged the Socialist Party to adopt more daring tactics in its fight against the war. In particular, he suggested that the socialists publicy declare their intention to transform the international conflict into a civil one...
Finally, the Socialists began to hold mass meetings in Madison Square Garden, with audiences that even non-socialist newspapers estimated at some 13,000. Most often, the socialists simply protested the war's continuation, using arguments and rhetoric similar to those employed before the U.S. became a belligerent...
We are told that we are in war to make the world safe for democracy. What a hollow phrase! We cannot ... " force democracy upon hostile countries by force of arms. Democracy must come from within not from without, through the light.of reason and not through the fire of guns.
Prior to April 1917, the socialists had enjoyed relative freedom to oppose the war... however, the situation [then] changed considerably. The government prosecuted socialists; the police harassed them; crowds of hysterical citizens lent federal and municipal officials a helping hand. [Ed: Racist tea-baggers, I'd surmise]
...On June 15, 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which prohibited an person from willfully helping the enemy, inciting rebellion in the armed forces or attempting to obstruct the government's recruiting efforts... [Ed: sounds like the modern Democrat Party]
...[In 1919] the intra-party dissension that had built up for almost two decades came to a climax. In the wake of this battle, American communism was born... [which advocated a revolution in America]
[However] ...Revolutionary socialism... had never suited the conditions of American life, conditions which demanded a program with a "realistic basis."
...[The radicals caused the Red Scare, in which massive raids were launched by the authorities on revolutionaries]... The effects of the Red Scare on the communist movement were' nothing short of cataclysmic. Nationally, membershipship in the two communist parties decreased from an estimated 70,000 in 1919 to 16,000 in 1920...
...In 1933, the [Socialist-inspired labor union].ILGWU, along with many other formerly left-wing unions joined the mainstream of American political life by jumping on the New Deal bandwagon. These unions viewed the NRA both as a means of withstanding the depression and as an opportunity to recoup the losses they had suffered as a result of their struggle with the communists. To be sure, the NRA did enable the vast majority of these labor organizations to expand at phenomenal rates...
...There was, however, a price. In the pl:ocess.of ·endorsing Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the ILGWU ceased to be a radical oppositional force, with deep links to socialist politics and ideology...
Conclusion In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness... Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force?
...[America's] societal traits... a relatively fluid class structure, an economy which allowed at least some workers to enjoy [prosperity]... prevented the early twentieth century socialists from attracting an immediate mass following. Such conditions did not, however, completely checkmate American socialism...
...Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism... to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America.
...if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.
Their only hope for change, if you get my drift.
How anyone could perform this level of navel-gazing -- longingly pining for the joys of socialism -- after the utter failures of Marxism, is beyond me. It's not like 1910, Elena -- we know this crap doesn't work and has never worked!
Republicans: are you sick of being punched in the face by leftist Democrats yet? Are you sick of having sand kicked in your face? Then stand up and block Elena Kagan. A lifetime appointment for a self-described radical?
Call your Senators and demand they filibuster Elena Kagan. Call the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and demand they block Kagan's nomination.
A lifetime appointment for a crypto-Marxist is beyond the pale.
Linked by: Hot Air. Thanks!
Prepare for the following attempted rebuttal by her defenders:
Oh, that was written when she was in college. She's softened her views since then.
"RedState's invaluable Erick Erickson has published the full text of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's thesis. I have "
Invaluable? If he were valuable, he'd already have Obama's college thesis!
I say that in jest. I hope Erickson can one day dig it up. Good work in finding this one, Erickson!!
This link, which talks about Kagan's course on "Presidential Lawmaking", is quite relevant:
You saw Blart, I saw Pat.
P.S. do you know any place I can find a battery for my laptop?
I say this jokingly. Hopefully one day, Erickson can unearth. Good work to find it, Erickson
portable media player
I would call my Senators but they are Bill Nelson and Charlie Crist's "place holder". November can't come soon enough.
The GOP try to block her nomination? Don't make me laugh. These people couldn't identify socialism or leftism with a distionary, and wouldn't dare challenge it even if they could. Not the kind of thing you do in polite company, you know. What kind of stirring defenses of freedom and capitalism have you heard from these republican weaklings and pissmires over the past 18 months, during this sustained assault on our liberties? Maybe a few dry lectures on "fiscal restraint." Forget it. They're pathetic.
See the web's most expansive research on the Socialists, Communists, Marxists and Maoists in US Government here: http://www.commieblaster.com
you have to a FOOKING moron to think that this rpoves Kagan's is a Socialist
Talking about WHY socialism failed does not PROVE one is a socialist.
Dr Thomas Sowell and George Will have written Many many essays and books on this very topic. Are they now Socialists?
We're going to get a socialist anyway - at least Kagan isn't as legally competent as others might be.
The only other option would be to hold out until November...think that's possible?
Edmund Burke wrote an entire book about the history of the French Revolution. By your reasoning, we must assume that Edmund Burke was a sans-culotte and a supporter of Robespierre. Similarly, William Shirer was clearly a Nazi.
@johnny benzadrine -
shirer didn't write wistfully for the thousand year reich that didn't make it to 1946...
...wondering what went wrong.
"Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism... to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America."
The "those" could just as well refer to Republicans as Socialists, if one were to bother to THINK ABOUT IT. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot - the American Right is too busy with Purity Tests & purges of the "infidels" who fail them to be led astray by such decadent socialist activities as critical thinking or logic. My bad.
"It's not like 1910, Elena -- we know this crap doesn't work and has never worked!"
Damn straight - uh, I mean, as long as you don't look at much of South America right now (a bit of selective blindness which the "liberal" MSM has been doing a fine job of for several years now, BTW) ... or Northern Europe ... or for that matter the history of Russia in the 20th Century - a place which was basically a barbarian monarchy living in the Dark Ages as recently as 1915, yet somehow - perhaps via Leprechauns or Magic Unicorns - became the second nuclear superpower & the first nation to send a satellite (or a person) into orbit by the end of the 1950s.
"Dr Thomas Sowell and George Will have written Many many essays and books on this very topic. Are they now Socialists?"
@jim - heh. pwnt. yeh.
that's why you couldn't actually name the south american country that's succeeding w/socialism.
venezuela? electricity shortages, blackouts, radio and tv stations shuttered, media personalities kidnapped... just the way you like it, eh?
socialism has never worked. ever.
we have the most magnificent society ever created here in the u.s.
pity you despicable loons haven't studied enough history to realize it.
now -- back into your mom's basement, jim.
The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America.
Yeah, this (sniff) expression of emotion on behalf of "those who still wish to change America" was (irony on)clearly talking about people other than herself.(irony off)
I suppose the acknowledgment to her brother for introducing her to radicalism was all about gratitude for providing her with a good research topic.
You'd have to be a FOOKING moron, D, Johnny, et al, to think her gushing affection for these people isn't crystal clear from her writing.
socialism has never worked. ever.
we have the most magnificent society ever created here in the u.s.
So what criteria are you using to measure success and magnificence?
In little more than two hundred years, Americans defeated slavery, Nazism, military Shintoism and Communism; refined mass production; invented human flight; created 75% of all medical innovations on the planet; put a man on the moon; invented the telephone, the Internet and the search engine; and advanced humankind in millions of other ways, in every field and endeavor.
Those who oppose me oppose my Constitution and my Declaration of Independence.
Those who oppose me refute the notion of God-given rights of man and carefully constructed limits on an all-powerful, centralized, authoritarian government.
Those who oppose me see the world as rigid classes of people that must be manipulated to advance a political agenda; whereas conservatives revel in the notion that America has no static class structure; that every day the rich become poor and the poor rich.
Those who oppose me oppose free markets and the power of any individual -- no matter the race, creed, religion or color -- to achieve greatness through hard work, study, inspiration and innovation.
I am a conservative, which is to say I believe in the founding principles of the United States of America. That is: limited government, a respect for individual liberty, free enterprise and private property.
Those who oppose me reject America's founding principles: the very tenets that led to the creation of the greatest country the world has ever seen.
It's so nice to be pigeon holed if I "oppose" you. And yes, it's nice to say that America defeated slavery. You can also say that the founding fathers supported slavery and it was only eliminated through the efforts of radicals.
"Opposing you" is really a belief in my freedom to view the world my way and to try to shape it according to my beliefs.
Reality check - Unless you're saying that your rights are superior to mine, we have to compromise. A willingness to compromise is a sign of maturity. Only babies have tantrums. PS I would amend your last sentence to read "the best country the world has seen [so far]". Social evolution isn't over.
no, the founding fathers did not support slavery. adams and franklin, in particular, argued strenuously against slavery. In order to secure the support of the southern states for the declaration of independence, however, they had to compromise. A few decades later, 600,000 Americans died to end slavery.
now our country is on the precipice of a fiscal catastrophe. you can see the precursors in europe.
in the midst of this economic insanity, the president and his sycophants in congress have proposed the most irresponsible budget in history -- BEFORE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE KICKS IN.
We must cut spending immediately to save our financial system.
You're either for liberty or you're for tyranny.
>In order to secure the support of the southern states for the declaration of independence, however, they had to compromise.
So the Southerners weren't also founding fathers? Just New Englander's? I don't think it's fair to pick and choose like that.
>You're either for liberty or you're for tyranny.
If the Founding Fathers, as you put it, felt that way they wouldn't have been able to compromise and accomplish what they did. The world is not black and white, either for or against. I'm for my liberty - are you trying to tyrannize me?
I created this illustrated tale just for you.
>I created this illustrated tale just for you.
Thank you, very interesting. But if the Constitution is NOT a living breathing document, how was it amended? Some people seem to treat the Constitution as a political Holy Bible or Ten Commandments. But it's not. It didn't consider every circumstance, every change that would happen for eternity.
So, liberty - I'm all for it. But No Man (or State) is an Island.
>>...if the Constitution is NOT a living breathing document, how was it amended?>>
It was amended by the process intended for it's amendments...by the people. Not by unelected judges.
You know...that old "government by consent of the governed" thing...
From Kagan's piece on cloning:
"NBAC unanimously concluded that it is morally unacceptable at this time to create a child by using
the technology that created Dolly the sheep."
Did they unanimously agree on that wiggly wording?
Human embryos on the other hand...
Post a Comment