Someone in the comment box to a Tundra Tabloids post recently stated that the TT was overblowing, or hyping the rise of radical socialists in the US, in a video of Marxists planning to target young Americans in Jr.High school. Well here’s another example by way of Breitbart, which shows Marxist professors offering courses in how to muscle the public to cave in to union demands.
These Marxists are serious folks, knowing full well that they can’t have as much an effect against the older generation who have been schooled on American exceptionalism, free market capitalism, constitutional republicanism etc. etc., they are busy targeting your young, plying their young brains with all kinds of marxist clap-trap crap.
That is where constitutional conservatives should (also) be focusing their sights on, not just on the political, which is of major importance for the present day short term (overturning socialist gains in government) but also for the long term. The Marxists are going for the gold, subverting the young in both lower and higher learning institutions. Wizen up and take back your schools before it’s too late. KGS
Big Government: Earlier today, Big Government brought you video footage of a disturbing college course from University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) and University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC). In the course, Professors Judy Ancel and David Giljam instruct students on how fear, intimidation and, even, industrial sabotage are important and, often, necessary tools for union activists.
In this new video, the professors make clear that they aren’t just speaking in theoretical terms. Union official David Giljum recounts several anecdotes where he, or other union officials, used threats to strengthen their negotiating positions (or simply get two-weeks paid time off work). Professor Ancel recounts favorably a tactic used by a friend of hers in a union protest in Peru. (Her story will be particularly interesting to any cat lovers out there.)
As the one you referred to, I will reiterate that this is nonsense in my opinion. This is small potatoes, yet must be used to inflame the “virtuous” conservatives that only want what’s best for all. As if CEOs use a level playing field when dealing with their employees? As if conservatives, when in power, are not as abusive in the way they pursue policies.
Of course, it depends a lot on the issues involved, but I don’t think either side has anything to be proud about in US politics, as they play a game of diversion where they pretend to care while helping only themselves and those who are like minded.
Listen Eric, no one is saying conservatives are “virtuous” in the market place, especially those who are married to the government teat as Democrats sure are. Also, why do you automatically assume CEO’s are Republicans? Big business pours more cash into the coffers of the Democrats than they do Republicans, it’s one of the biggest scams of all times that the Dems “are for the little guy”. They get both Wall Street and the Unions on their payroll.
RINO Republicans can be as abusive as their Democrat colleagues due to their penchant for heavy handed “statist” policies. Free the private sector of governmental abuse and heavy handedness, and you’ll see an economy resurge.
The bottom line here is, do you want individual freedom and liberty, or big government sticking every which way into your private affairs, taking more and more out of your pocketbook while it spends you into oblivion? Which is it, the way the Framers intended, or European socialist democracy where the elite rules and bequeaths rights to the favored group at the time?
I did not say that all CEOs are Republican. Did I? However, I think your claim that big business is more enamored with Democrats is pure nonsense.
Respectfully, you seem the one tossing all the blame in one direction only, and I am saying that it’s not so black and white, not by any stretch.
Moreover, the Framers had different ways of seeing things, it was not the monolith you make it to be.
In the end, there are important liberty and communitarian interests, and the system needs both to function well, especially as it’s not 1791 any longer.
The way you framed your earlier comment Rick, one could only assume you were talking about CEO’s being republican. But of course I believe you when you say that that’s not what you meant. In short, the Framers devised a system of government where it would limit itself, that in itself is revolutionary. That is what the Bill of Rights’ negative rights, is all about, limiting the Federal Government’s reach into the affairs of the states and subsequently individual affairs.
The country needs to return to its constitution, which means a limited form of government, not the bloated, nanny state version that we see in Europe.
NOTE: Top ten spent approximately 168.1 million on Democrats and only 72 million to Republicans.
Also: in 2008: Big business prefers Dems over Repubs.
First, my name is not Rick.
What you say is correct, but that is not the whole story.
The Constitution says:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
It is on that basis, to promote the general welfare, that the whole document rests, not only negative rights.
It’s as old as the debates between Jefferson and Hamilton, and we all know what Washington decided in the end, which is not the singular interpretation you have suggested.
Eric, sorry for the mishap in the name. You are going to have to make swiss cheese out of the constitution in order to make it read like a recipe for a nanny state. Once again, the Framers constructed a document (on the heels of a devastating war with a tyrannical government) to limit any kind of repeat of what they just departed from. Your argumentation is illogical in light of that very big fact.
You added to your comment, that’s not fair. 🙂
Political parties in power often get the most in contributions. Now that the balance of power is in question, and after Citizens United, where corporations now get all the rights of people without the responsibilities, who knows where the money will go.
As this recent LA Times article suggests: “Much corporate political spending stays hidden”
Despite mounting calls for greater transparency, only a few of the country’s 75 leading energy, healthcare and financial services corporations fully disclose political spending, according to a review of company records and state and federal campaign finance reports.
While complying with legal requirements to report direct donations to candidates, the vast majority of these companies — many of which are seeking legislative favors from the new Congress — do not reveal information even to their shareholders about support for politically active trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Groups such as the chamber, some of which spend millions of dollars on elections, are not required to reveal their financial supporters. And companies are not required to report their donations to those groups.
The money fuels a parallel, opaque system of political giving that plays a growing role in national elections and is emerging as a 2012 campaign issue. President Obama is considering an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose political donations, and congressional Democrats have filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission demanding more disclosure.
What information is publicly available suggests that substantial corporate political spending remains in the dark, leading to an incomplete, and at times misleading, picture of companies’ efforts to influence legislation and elections, the Times review indicates.
In other words, both get far too much for my liking. And Democrats are no less corrupt than the Republicans in DC so far as I am concerned.
At least I admit that BOTH sides are corrupt.
My point has been all along that Dems play a ruse of a game by stating that they are for the little guy, all the while getting the big bucks from big business, (and always from big unions). I am not wrong in that. Yes you are right, they are in power and the money flows to those who are, but you don’t seen them rejecting the extra bucks now do we?
RINO repubs are as corrupt, that I am in agreement with you, and Tea Party constitutionalists are trying to remedy that. Adhering to the Constitution will be the remedy for most of the ills that ails Washington.
But adhering to the Constitution as you say is completely vague. That is the point. It cannot be the sole negative rights interpretation that the Tea Party advocates because that ignores a equal and co-existing positive rights interpretation that underlies the very document and purpose of the Union in the first place.
As to the political parties, I’ll leave it to you to draw distinctions. I believe they are both corrupt, but Republicans moreso. Do you suggest that Republicans really care about the little man? Maybe that’s why 50 million Americans go without health coverage while industry the industry that creates the problems sails along without a glitch. That is but one example of many.
As for the Tea Party, when I see the members give up their government benefits, then maybe I will be more convinced. They do not have a monopoly on the ideas of limited government. And there are the darker sides that some in the movement possess.
In the end, there are a myriad of factors, and to think it’s just one side is to miss the boat from my perspective.
Enjoyed the exchange!
Lets face it Eric, you’re a statist. Don’t be shy, just come out with it, embrace it, pound your chest with pride because of it. The US Constitution rests upon the idea/philosophy of natural law. The only rights understood by the Framers of that document, come from natural law, life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are rights that cannot be bought or sold, nor bequeathed by man, but come from the Creator. That is what was in the thinking of the Framers at the time it was written. You however, would like for us to buy into the (now) Democrat way of thinking (statist) that man bequeaths to man what are rights, and what man gives, than man can take away.
You exhibit a statist mentality when trying to discern a document that runs contrary to statism in every way. You are really wrestling agaist reality here. The Bill of (negative) Rights that restricts government, is in fact positive rights for the individual that it protects.
Health care reform is needed, but transforming the relationship between the citizen and the state by making the citizen a subject of the state goes against everything the US constitution stands for. You still fail to point out exactly where the that document supports statism. I’ll save you the time looking, it doesn’t exist.
What government benefits are you talking about? Are you talking about people on social security, welfare and the like? Not even Milton Freidman was for unilaterally stripping every citizen from every entitlement program, programs mind you that Democrats show case as their pride and joy, and yet who have stolen all the money from these very same programs they point to. They are all bankrupt, they are now being funded out of general operating funds.
No, what needs to be done is to allow people who have already been promised by the government (read Dems & RINO Repubs) that these were great programs, to have the older generation sustained by them, but with the younger generations being weened off, and eventually on free market savings programs. Same with health care.
You don’t throw out the 75% what’s good with the present system in health care, and replace it with something that we here in Europe are desperately trying to scale back. You have no idea what you’re setting yourself up for.
The more government controls the private sector, the more control it exerts over you. Don’t be a drone.