Agenda 21 Advocate Seeks 11th District State Senate Seat

Agenda 21 is a two decade old plan for global “Sustainable Development” put forth by the United Nations.  Two U.S. Presidents, one from each political party, adopted the measure via Executive Order and effectively removed any Congressional review.  The simple explanation of Agenda 21 is: Central planners from the UN to the Federal Government, to the State governments and even local municipal planners will be used to transform development as they decide is appropriate.  As defined by the UN, Agenda 21 is, “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment.”  This massive government central planner control scheme threatens to impact private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership, individual travel choices and privately owned farms.  In fact, the UN describes individuals owning land as follows:

Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.  Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.

Furthermore, billionaire Atheist and George Soros, a known currency destroyer and a vocal supporter of globally controlled central planning has given the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (who oversees the implementation of Agenda 21) more than $2.1 million through his Open Society Institute.  However, before you consider this a partisan issue, consider that even Liberal Democrat’s are arguing against ICLEI and Agenda 21.  Over 600 cities and towns currently are members of ICLEI (including Lewes, Delaware).  Do you support your local government agreeing to rules and regulations set up by a IN-based organization what wants private property transferred to government control?

Think your business is safe?  Agenda 21 is a disaster for private business as it prefers Private Public Partnerships where government decides which companies will receive tax breaks and are allowed to stay in business.  Need some evidence?  Consider the cozy relationship that GE (a company which paid NO TAX in 2010) has with the current administration and then consider the stance that the White House took in efforts to tell Boeing which state it could do business in.  Again, this is an issue that concerns both parties and individuals across the ideological spectrum.  Check out this website from a group of Democrats who stand in opposition to Agenda 21 to see even more information.

So why bring this up now?  Well, as some of you may know, I am running for the 11^th District State Senate seat formerly held by Senator Tony DeLuca who was beaten in the primary by Bryan Townsend.  Bryan is an up and coming progressive in the Delaware Democrat Party and he was recently asked about his thoughts on Agenda 21 and here is how he answered, in his own words:

• Rachael
  what are your views on agenda 21?
• Bryan Townsend
  Rachel: Agenda 21 is an important effort to address global challenges. It also is an example of how difficult it can be to forge multinational agreements. I applaud the efforts, though I worry the framework is not achieving results quickly enough. (I was in Johanessburg for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, and I'm not certain there has been significant improvement in the past 10 years.)
• Rachael
  so any questions thats kinds deals with agenda 21, do you think we as a country should or should not pull out of the UN? Its been on the board for so long im not sure where to stand. cause i know the UN is there for great reasons, but also in the same breath i worry for my country and my state if we stay apart of the UN........
• Bryan Townsend
  The US should lead by example, which I believe ultimately must include trying to use global institutions to overcome global challenges. There are reasonable concerns with the UN (for example, Security Council vetoes, and the relative financial contributions of different countries). Given its long history and laudable ideals, I'd like to think we can preserve the UN even if we need to modify some elements of it.

I would like to take a moment to answer Rachael’s question myself.  Agenda 21 is nothing short of a disaster for everything from family farms to private property rights and even business ownership. It allows massive government central planners to control the most basic of individual rights.  While my opponent believes that the results are not being achieved fast enough, I believe that the very results it seeks to achieve conflict with America’s core values of freedom and individual liberty. I do not believe that America should cede its sovereignty to a global body of central planners whose stated goals are to destroy private property rights as a means to redistribute wealth.  As to the question of the UN and whether we should pull out of the group of nations.  My answer is an unequivocal YES.  The UN’s basic philosophy conflicts with America’s own basic fundamental values.  While our Declaration of Independence proclaims the “self-evident” truth that individuals “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, the UN’s Covenant on Civil and Political Rights implies that it grants rights and claims the power “as provided by law” to restrict rights as fundamental as the freedom of speech, religion, the right to bear arms, freedom of the press and even the freedom of movement.  Next, the credibility of the entire organization is at best in question and at worst completely gone when you consider that the U.S. was voted out of the Human Rights Commission while Libya and Sudan were voted in.  The usefulness of the UN is in serious doubt as it has been surprisingly unsuccessful at adhering to its grand commitment to end threats to human security, such as interstate war, genocide, famine, internal war, disease and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  The UN seeks to become the authority in the world, forsaking the sovereignty of all other nations and resides in New York practically for free.  In fact, a new UN building is being built and the U.S. taxpayers are footing 22% of the costs!  Not to mention the fact that the U.S. is the largest donor to UN causes by far.  Why should U.S. taxpayers be forced to pay for buildings, contribute to causes and support agendas that harm American sovereignty? 

This issue illustrates the differences and the importance of the 11^th District Senate race.  On the one side you have Bryan Townsend, a progressive Democrat who supports central planning, global control and Agenda 21.  He is a young man who has spent the bulk of his life in various educational pursuits and still resides at home with his parents and who is shaped by the agenda of the liberal progressive professors that have surrounded him for the last decade.  On the other hand I am a former Marine who served in the Iraq War, a tireless advocate of America’s founding principles and an opponent of those big government schemes promoted by the UN and ICLEI through Agenda 21.  I’m a father of 4 children who has spent the last 12 years serving my country, raising a family and making a living in the private sector.  If you want to stop Agenda 21, you want to make sure that Bryan Townsend does not make it into the Delaware General Assembly.  Help put me in Dover so that I can make sure that Delaware doesn’t cow to the whims of global planners.

Evan Queitsch
Candidate for Delaware State Senate 11^th District
www.evanqforde.com

Chad Livengood: Lies Packed In with More Lies

If you've been reading over the last few days, it's not secret that Chad Livengood of the news journal is nothing more than a Democrat smear machine.  His latest blog piece, posted as though fact, is more evidence that journalism is dead.  Unfortunately, Livengood relies on the political stylings of the well travelled  Maria Evans, who, desperate to remain relevant, is writing a book about Christine O'Donnell.  It should be pointed out that Maria Evans doesn't know Christine O'Donnell and certainly doesn't know enough to write a book but if the rest of the Delaware political establishment are any means test, I imagine there will be fewer words than pictures.  The Delaware political establishment culture talking or writing about something they know nothing about is really just par for the course.

Chad Livengood, a once decent reporter whose story on timecards shed light on the dirty Democrats in Dover, now has a history of leaving facts out of stories, smearing candidates and now, flat out lying.  The crux of Livengood's latest piece is an audio tape provided by the same people who were found yesterday to have flat out LIED to the FEC about Christine O'Donnell.  I'm sure Chad didn't know that though, he takes their word for the gospel.  His argument for believing them?  Maria Evans provides audio...oh well, gee, audio has never ben doctored before, and because Maria Evans (who helped develop the failed strategy of attacking O'Donnell with lies during the 2010 election) provided it, well why not take it for the gospel right?  Well Chad might get a pass on this, he clearly doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.  In his blog, he cites a blog as "conservative" but for those of us who know "Hube", we know he is anything BUT conservative.  He's one of the Maria Evans, Mike Castle, Tom Ross RINO's.  In fact, here's video of one of their buddies, Mike Stafford, who was discredited during the 2010 campaign for being a liar and one of the most corrupt people in the party, siding with the liberal progressives.  For someone who calls themselves "conservative" I think this is pretty radically leftist.  I guess we should be wary of allowing people to define themselves huh?

The reality is that I would trust Christine O'Donnell's version of events over the establishment Republicans version 7 days a week and twice on Sunday but I don't have to do that.  Why?  Well because Haley Barbour's own words in print, back up O'Donnell's claims. 

The truth is that when O'Donnell says that it took Haley Barbour to introduce her, it's factual.  When she says she wasn't invited, DESPITE being the U.S. Senate candidate, it's TRUE.  When she says that Haley Barbour gave her accolades, well this letter proves that he's certainly done that.  Meanwhile, Maria Evans and the Delaware GOP leadership claimed that O'Donnell violated campaign finance laws and THAT was a lie, as the FEC reveals in their finding of NO WRONG DOING...I'd like to point out that I have not seen this reported by Mr. Chad Livengood at the News Journal.  Wonder why that is, maybe I should ask Maria Evans to send it to him.

Egyptian protests in danger of being co-opted

No doubt you are aware by now that the Middle East has erupted in protests in the last few weeks.  First, Progressive Democrats and the Workers Communist Party organized anti-government protesters in Tunisia who this week forced the RCD party out of power.  That regime change sparked a revolutionary fire in other Middle Eastern and North African countries.  As of today there are reports of protests from Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, and Jordan. 

Algeria
The Algerian protests were touched off by the success of the Tunisian demonstrations and while the first round appears to have been set off by pro-theocracy revolutionaries, a second round of protests is being planned by pro-democracy supporters.  Thousands of protesters marched through the city of Bejaia calling for "radical change".

Yemen
In Yemen the protest leaders are again cloudy.  The country is split between north and south as the terrorist group Al Qaeda has all but taken over the southern half of Yemen.  One of the lead organizing groups is the National Organization for Defending Rights and Freedom (HOOD).  HOOD has defended Yemeni Jews who family members were murdered or imprisoned by the government and have worked to repatriate former Guantanamo detainees back into the Yemeni population.  There work for human rights of ALL individuals suggests that they are not an Islamic theocracy based organization but it is yet to be determined if these protests are indeed pro-democracy.

Jordan
In Jordan the anti-government protests are being organized by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Jordanian Communist Party.  In the video below you will see thousands of protesters carrying the flags of the Muslim Brotherhood and those of the Jordanian Communist Party. 


The protests in Jordan are scary because Jordan is currently one of 2 Middle Eastern nations who have peace accords with Israel and one of a handful of real American allies.  The other nation in the Middle East with a true peace accord with Israel is Egypt which is also in turmoil (more on that below).  The Muslim Brotherhood is NOT currently on our list of state sponsored terrorist organizations but many believe they should be.  They are the forerunners to Al Qaeda and are quite active in trying to create pro-jihad Islamic theocracies around the world.  Hamas is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and is the second most successful MB attempt to hold power (the Sudan being the other).  The Muslim Brotherhood, through Hamas, has shown that they are no friends to Israel and by extension other western nations (like America).

Egypt

Finally we will discuss Egypt.  The protests in Egypt appear to be what we in America call "grassroots".  They were inspired by the results in Tunisia and pro-democracy leaders who are tired of 30 yr incumbent "President" Hosni Mubarak.  Mubarak has suggested that he would be President for life and is suspected of grooming his sons to replace him.  Only in the last 24-36 hours have the Muslim Brotherhood become vocal supporters. The MB is banned in Egypt largely because of their support of terrorism and its use as a political weapon.  The movement in Egypt should be described as a pro-democracy uprising and not co-opted by the MB and their Islamic theocracy goals.  Former IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and his support of the protests are cause for some concern.  ElBaradei was handed a Nobel Peace Prize for ALMOST inspecting Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.  He ALMOST helped the world avoid the Iraq War and in the world of the UN that is enough to deserve a Nobel Prize.  Evidence of the pro-democracy slant can be seen in the people who are both Coptic Christians and Muslims and who have guarded each others houses of worship while the other prayed during the protests last week.  All reports from the ground have been that these protests are mostly peaceful and that men, women AND children are involved.  Babies and young children are part of the protests as well.  I would call them Egyptian TEA Parties. 
The government in Egypt has released prisoners from jail in an attempt to create chaos and blame it on the protesters and they have furthered the false premise that the Muslim Brotherhood is behind these protests and enjoys enough support to takeover the country.  All reports about the MB in Egypt are that it is in fact a player but that it would not enjoy enough support to become a majority government.  American TEA Party groups have seen this before.  Government officials and supporters of the government in the media and on the American left rushed to claim Jarrod Loughner as a right wing TEA Party member when he shot Gabrielle Giffords in Washington just a few weeks ago.  Loughner of course, turned out to be a lunatic who was closer to the left than the right but it didn't stop the media and the American left from attacking the TEA Party as the cause of the shooting.  The same thing is happening to the Egyptians.  Their movement is one of young and old, Muslim and Christian and men and women who are pretesting forcefully but peacefully.  The violence should be denounced and is by the protesters but we cannot attribute it to the majority of the protests.

Support in America

Protests and demonstrations in support of the Egyptian people took place all across America this weekend.  Fox News covered the events which drew tens of thousands across the country and thousands alone at the UN in New York City.  Most of the protesters and demonstrators are showing support for the Egyptian people without another agenda but the Egyptian people must be careful not to allow their peaceful pro-democracy movement to be co opted by Communist revolutionaries.  On Saturday we had the following image from FoxNews' coverage of a rally in support of the protesters in Egypt:

The demonstrators are holding anti-Mubarak signs but it's the banners that tell the real story.  These are groups with major questions.  The banner on the far right (only a small part is visible to the right of the JC Peace Movement banner) is from a group called Veterans for Peace:

VFP's name is benign but the group is full of anti-military protesters and radicals who have served in our military.  Here is the bio of the organizations Treasurer:

Treasurer:  Nate Goldshlag

I became a radical political activist in college in 1968 and was kicked out in 1969 for accidentally getting my picture plastered on the front page of the New York Times, Life, etc. as we escorted a dean out of a building we occupied at Harvard while protesting ROTC and the Vietnam War.  I was drafted in late 1970.  I didn't do things to avoid the draft and went into the army to organize against the war.  The fact that I avoided the stockade probably meant I wasn't that effective, but we started a GI paper in Germany.  They had just stopped sending grunts like me to Vietnam a few months before, although I would not have gone.  I went back to school and had two kids who I helped raise as a half-time single parent.  I worked as an electronics engineer and retired a few years ago.  I do volunteer and VFP work now.

I was active in the Smedley Butler brigade in Boston in the 1980's around Central America issues, but then lapsed until 2005.  I'll never make that mistake again.  As Smedley coordinator, I helped plan the event that got 18 of us arrested on Veterans Day 2007 for being excluded from the American Legion event, and was one of those arrested.  I coordinated the effort that raised $70,000 nationally for Winter Soldier.  I hope to make a difference in VFP by serving on the Board.  

This guy is proud to have been arrested and to have raised money for an event and a documentary film that portrays a group of military disruptor's as martyrs.  VFP is full of these same types of individuals and their alliances are questionable.

The middle banner is from the Jersey City Peace Movement (JC Peace Movement) which is an anti-war protest group in north Jersey.  The JCPM is a radical progressive group that protests wars across the world, has given awards to members of the Gaza Flotilla and is a member of  the United National Anti-War Committee (UNAC).  Endorsers of their marches on April 9th in San Francisco and New York include: Code Pink, The New Black Panther Party, a number of Socialist/Communist groups around the world (including Socialist Party USA), the Free Mumia movement (cop killer supporters) and other radical groups.  UNAC says:


THE PEACEMAKERS DEMAND a better world. Only a massive, united, inclusive and independent movement has the power to bring it into being.

WE DEMAND Bring U.S. Troops, Mercenaries and War Contractors Home Now: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan! End the sanctions and stop the threats of war against the people of Iran, North Korea and Yemen. No to war and plunder of the people of Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and Native People! End U.S. Aid to Israel! End U.S. Support to the Israeli Occupation of Palestine and the Siege of Gaza!

WE DEMAND trillions for jobs, education, social services, an end to all foreclosures, quality single-payer healthcare for all, a massive conversion to sustainable and planet-saving energy systems and public transportation and reparations to the victims of U.S. terror at home and abroad.

WE DEMAND an end to FBI raids on antiwar, social justice, and international solidarity activists, an end to the racist persecution and prosecutions that ravage Muslim communities, an end to police terror in Black and Latino communities, full rights and legality for immigrants and an end to all efforts to repress and punish Wikileaks and its contributors and founders.

WE DEMAND the immediate end to torture, rendition, secret trials, drone bombings and death squads.

JCPM and UNAC are radical anti-military pro-social justice organizations. Their affiliations with Socialists and Communists are tight and scary as is their support of cop killers like Mumia Abu-Jammal.

The final standard seen in the image above is as of yet unconfirmed. I've done some research and what I've found is that the symbol in the center of the flag is the Filipino symbol for Ka and the flag itself appears to be related to the Communist Party of the Philippines. I will admit that I have not yet been able to find the flag anywhere but I have found enough evidence to suggest that this flag is in fact related to the Philippine Communist movement.

http://knightsofrizalwa.com/joserizal/biography/chapter14.html

It appears to be related to the Communist Party of the Philippines:
http://revintcan.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/40-years-of-philippine-society-and-revolution/

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/cpp.cfm

People Power Revolution
http://newphilrevolution.blogspot.com/
If you find more information about these protesters and supporters please post here and let us know.

The group that led the protests in support of Egypt nationwide is the Egyptian Association for Change. EACUSA is a progressive social justice organization pushing pro-democracy reforms in Egypt. Here is their logo.

Media gets it wrong again on No Labels

As usual, the media flubs it. Linda Killian has a piece running on in the AOL political section today on No Labels, a new progressive front group founded by some of the top progressive establishment types in America (and Canada). Sadly, her piece misses the mark on so many levels. For one thing, she claims that there are “nearly 40 percent of American voters who consider themselves Independents”. Now, in reality, about 18% of Americans are registered Republicans, 23% are registered Democrats and about 14% are registered independents. Those who consider themselves “Independent” who are not registered, registered as another third party or even registered under one of the major parties bumps the number up to about 33%. However, a closer inspection of the American ideological spectrum through actual data shows a stark contrast between her context and the political realities. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt in claiming that 40% of the nation is “Independent”, the ideological breakdown done by Gallup way back in June of this year (2010 for you progressives out there) shows that the number of people calling themselves “Conservative” or “Very Conservative” has actually risen 2% from this time last year and the number stands at 42%. Another 20% consider themselves liberal or very liberal and political moderates are down to 35%. Additionally, of those registered Independents, 36% consider themselves politically conservative and disenfranchised with the parties while 41% consider themselves politically moderate.


None of this means that moderates aren’t important mind you. The TEA Party groups that sprang up across the nation tapped into the spirit of bipartisanship and reaching a MAJORITY of American voters by focusing on jobs, the economy and placing limits on the federal government. There is absolutely room for us to have discussions WELL across the political spectrum but that is not what progressive groups like No Labels see to do. These groups seek to stifle public debate and keeps the decision making process amongst an elite few. This group has been created by an army of progressive supporters of President Obama because these folks have decided that somehow America wants progressivism despite overwhelming data to the contrary. 51% now say they are worse off under Obama and 66% say the country is heading in the wrong direction under progressive leadership. Jobless claims are hovering just around the 10% mark and there is little urgency by the political class to do anything about it. The American people are not that stupid. That is why Americans rejected the founders of No Labels resoundingly in 2010. Mike Castle and Charlie Crist are founding politicians of the group and both were ousted in their own party primaries (Crist switched to the Independent line just before the primary he was clearly going to lose to Marco Rubio) and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh is stepping down from the Senate because his own reelection chances were slim. Kirsten Gillibrand from New York held on to her job in Washington and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg spent $85 million of his own vast fortune on changing the rules to run for a 3rd term.


All of this begs the question, If such an overwhelming majority of Americans want bi-partisanship and efficient government, why did they oust candidates like Castle and Crist who have a lengthy record of crossing the aisle to work with increasingly liberal Democrats? The answer may lie in a recent survey that was pointed out in The Hill back in April of this year (2010). The study found that 4 in 10 TEA Party members was either a Democrat or an Independent. 57% of the TEA Party members were Republicans while 41% were Democrat or Independent. With the media having spent a great deal of time painting the TEA Party as a vast right wing conspiracy and a group of far right wingnuts, you would expect the numbers to be a little more weighted than that right? Further evidence that political moderates by and large actually find the TEA Party more than palatable is found in the same study which saw 2/3rds of the TEA Party considering themselves conservatives, 26% moderate and 8% liberal. So, No Labels considers itself a counter to the TEA Party and a moderate progressive voice for a majority of Americans yet, 26% of moderates agree with the TEA Party and consider themselves a part of the movement? That makes no sense.


So who is No Labels really out to support? The political class (these are big government, progressive, establishment types). This group is out to support a full 14% of the American population. They see power slipping from their grasp and they won’t let it go gently into that good night. They see their backroom deals in smoke filled rooms dissipating before their eyes and it scares them because if they lose this, what else do they have? It’s sad to see people who began their careers with the best of intentions, slip into such dark and lonely places. Thank God the majority of the American people are too smart to fall for these kinds of tricks.

Background:
Peeling back the labels on "No Labels"
Castle joins other progressives in creating "No Labels"

Peeling back the labels on No Labels

Fans of this blog will recall that yesterdays post examined a new progressive group launched by Mike Castle and a host of other establishment political types.  For those of you who might be reading this blog for the first time and who may not be familiar with the term “Progressive” in politics, please begin your study here.  The term sounds benign, even wonderful, moving the country forward and progressing sounds appealing.  The problem is that along the way, as you evolve the government, individuals lose their personality and individuality.  You will need to understand Progressivism to understand the rest of this post.

Today we will focus on some of the founders of No Labels and their affiliations.  No Labels lists 11 founding members on their website and while each of these founding leaders is indeed linked to Progressive or liberal causes, we’ll examine 6 of them in total and 2 in this post. 

David Frum

American progressives (as you know from the history lesson above) have learned that in America’s political structure, it is imperative that you work within BOTH major parties if you are going to accomplish any REAL lasting changes.  In a Republic built to allow laws to be written, removed and reinstated depending on how the  people feel, it is increasingly difficult (and rightfully so) to fundamentally transform America.  That is why progressives cannot be pigeon-holed into only the Democrat Party.  Look at Teddy Roosevelt, perhaps the biggest Progressive to every become President, who was a Republican!  In fact, today, the Republican Party is nearly as progressive as the Democrat Party.  John McCain, Mike Castle, Olympia Snowe and Lisa Murkowski are just a few examples of Republican progressives serving in Washington, D.C. right now. 

Progressives also understand the need to make their views appear mainstream and accepted across the political spectrum in order to build support on both sides of the issues.  That is why modern progressive Republicans have attempted to call themselves conservatives in order to provide a “conservative voice” who can champion their causes.  Frum is a so called “conservative voice” who is frequently called upon by liberal sources like the New York Times, MSNBC and the Washington Post to provide opinions from “the other side”.   

Frum grew up in Ontario, Canada and his first real political move at age 14 was to volunteer for a member of the Canadian “New Democrat Party”.   After attending Yale and working for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes he did work at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (a conservative think tank in NYC).  Once President Bush was elected in 2000, the Canadian citizen (he received his U.S. citizenship on 9-11-07) was appointed as a speechwriter for economics in the White House where he worked from 2001 to 2002. Beginning in 2003 he worked at the American Enterprise Institute but was let go in March of this year amid his criticism of Fox News and the conservative opposition to Obamacare. 

This is not the first time Frum had been discharged amid controversy.  In 2008, Frum broke with National Review Online when he started The New Majority which has become a centrist funding arm.  Frum has also categorized younger readers as “a generation often repelled by today's mainstream conservatism” and he has consistently attacked conservative positions that conflict with President Obama’s agenda.  Frum has supported Obama and progressives in feuds with other more conservative columnists like Stanley Kurtz.  In fact, Frum has increasingly bucked the ideas of conservatism in favor of more populist and progressive positions even to the point of being widely considered to be a progressive plant in the media who practices “pragmatic conservatism” which is little more than slower progressivism.  He has also consistently attacked the TEA Party as being “too conservative” or “lacking pragmatism”.  He has joined a slew of progressive Republicans who have rejected the ideas of reducing the deficit by using the principles of Reagan who lowered taxes to drive up revenue and cut spending to balance the budget. 

Frums conservative credentials are weak when viewed in the overall context of his writing and political viewpoints.  It certainly doesn’t help his cause that his wife, author Danielle Crittenden, is a long time Huffington Post contributor.  In the end it’s pretty clear that Frum is little more than a shill for the progressive movement in general and specifically for the Republican Establishment progressives who value remaining in power far more than retaining freedom and liberty for the people.

Holly Page

Holly Page’s credentials from the No Labels website describe her as having spent 13 years at the Democratic Leadership Council (with the last 5 spent as Executive VP).  The site glosses over her real job which is as a lobbyist with Fontheim International.  Let’s go back just a moment and introduce you to the DLC.  It was started in 1985 by Will Marshall and Al From in response to the dramatic losses by Democrats in the 1984 General election when Reagan conservatism paved the way for Republicans.  Reagan’s natural conservatism reached out to the American middle class, a group that had long been courted by and been loyal to the Democrat Party.  Democrats had lost the popular vote badly and From and Marshall founded the DLC and it’s think tank the “Progressive Policy Institute” in order to discover ways to win back the American middle class.  DLC, PPI and their latest initiative “The Third Way” are aimed at using the moderates and the concept of bi-partisanship to push through the progressive agenda and encourage an ever growing, ever more powerful government.

Mrs. Page has played a key role with the DLC and is responsible for “The National Conversation” which is the largest gathering of Democratic elected officials outside of the DNC.  She brokered a deal with Harvard and the Aspen Institute to provide leadership development training to progressive elected officials.  Holly is also responsible for setting up the first ever online town hall with President Clinton in 1998 and a World Leaders Summit for the Third Way.  She is a dedicated progressive who has worked for progressive political candidates for almost two decades. 

This concludes today’s look at the leaders of “No Labels” and gives you an idea of what you will find in the weeks to come as we begin to peel back the label on the people behind the organization.  You will see the progressive roots in each leader and the connections to other progressive organizations.  The media has called this group “MSNBC’s TEA Party” and to prove its effectiveness the leaders spent the last 12 months preparing a launch event that drew 1,100 people to Columbia University in NYC.  By contrast, the 1^st ever April 15^th TEA Party in Wilmington, Delaware drew nearly 1,500 in the cold and driving rain.  Outdoor events across the state drew nearly 2,500 participants.  New York City is 9 times the size of Delaware in terms of population.  I’m just sayin’.

Next up: Jonathan Cowan and Mark McKinnon

American Progressivism

I.  Who were the Progressives, and why are they important?

R.J. Pestritto

Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College 

American Progressivism by Ronald J. Pestritto

In today’s piece, I’ll explain who the Progressives were and why they were important. 
Many on the left today call themselves “progressive,” and they do so not just because it’s a nicer way of saying “liberal,” but also because they very much intend to revive the political principles of America’s original Progressives, from the Progressive Era of the 1880s through World War I.  Why would leftist politicians, like Mrs. Clinton, purposely identify themselves with this Progressive movement?
The reason is that America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.  Most people point to the New Deal era as the source of big government and the welfare state that we have today.  While this is perfectly accurate, it is important to understand that the principles of the New Deal did not originate in the New Deal; rather, they came from the Progressives, who had dominated American politics and intellectual cultural a generation prior to the New Deal.
We have no less an authority on this connection than Franklin Roosevelt himself.  When FDR campaigned in 1932, he pointed to the Progressives – and in particular to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the source of his ideas about government. 
In terms of the personalities who made up the Progressive movement, some are familiar to us and others are less so.  The movement was comprised of well known politicians like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt; but it was also comprised of intellectuals and writers who are less well known but who have been very influential in America.  There were folks like John Dewey, who was America’s public philosopher for much of the early 20^th century.  Even less well known was Herbert Croly, but Croly was highly influential, since he founded and was the first editor of The New Republic – which became the main organ of Progressive opinion in the United States, and is still one of the most important journals on the Left today.  I should add here that Woodrow Wilson actually fell into both of these categories – he was both a well known politician and president, but also was, for decades prior to his entry into politics, a prominent intellectual (a college professor and president of Princeton) who wrote many books and influential articles.
As I’ll explain in my next piece, these Progressives wanted a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.  Here’s the order of the points we’ll consider in the pieces to follow:

1) What did Progressives think about the American founding, and why did they want to eradicate its principles? 

2) How did we get today’s excessively powerful presidency from the Progressives? 

3) What was the connection between Progressivism and Socialism?  Were the Progressives actually Socialists? 

4) What are some of the critical connections between Progressivism and what’s going on in our country today? 

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest:

1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

---

II.  The Progressives and their Attack on America’s Founding

As I mentioned in my last piece, America’s Progressives aimed for a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government.  While our founders understood that our national government must have the capacity to be strong and vigorous (this is why the Articles of Confederation were failing), they also were very clear that this strength must always be confined to very limited ends or areas of responsibility; government, in other words, while not weak or tiny, was to be strictly limited. 
The Progressive conception of government, on the other hand, was quite the opposite; Progressives had an “evolving” or a “living” notion of government (yes, we get the term “living constitution” from the Progressives), and thus wanted government to take on whatever role and scope the times demanded.  The Progressives reasoned that people of the founding era may have wanted a limited government, given their particular experience with George III, but they argued that people of their own time wanted a much more activist government, and that we should adjust accordingly.
Quite simply, the Progressives detested the bedrock principles of American government.  They detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult.  “Progressivism” was, for them, all about progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders. 
This is why the Progressives were the first generation of Americans to denounce openly our founding documents.  Woodrow Wilson, for example, once warned that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface” – i.e. that part of the Declaration which talks about securing individual natural rights as the only legitimate purpose of government.  And Theodore Roosevelt, when using the federal government to take over private businesses during the 1902 coal strike, is reported to have remarked, “To hell with the Constitution when people want coal!”  This remark may be apocryphal, but it is a fair representation of how TR viewed these matters. 
In the next piece, we’ll consider how the presidency was transformed under men like Wilson and TR.

---

III.  How the Progressives Originated the Modern Presidency 

As I explained in my last piece, the Progressives wanted to disregard the Constitution in order to enlarge vastly the scope of government.  As a practical matter, how was this to be done?  It happened in a variety of ways, but principal among them was a fundamental change in the American presidency.
Under the system of our founders, government was to have sufficient strength and energy to accomplish its ends, but those ends were strictly limited by the Constitution.  The principal way in which the Constitution keeps the government within its boundaries is through the separation of powers.  As readers of The Federalist and of Thomas Jefferson know, the point of separation of powers is to keep any one set of hands from wielding all of the power in national government.
The Progressives, especially Woodrow Wilson, hated the separation of powers for precisely this reason: it made government inefficient, and made it difficult, if not impossible, to expand the power of government so that it could take on all of the new tasks that Progressives had in mind.  So they looked to the presidency as a way of getting around this obstacle.
Under the original system, the president was merely leader of a single branch, or part, of the government, and thus could not provide leadership of the government as a whole.  In his book Constitutional Government, Wilson urged that “leadership and control must be lodged somewhere.” The president, Wilson pointed out, was the only politician who could claim to speak for the people as a whole, and thus he called upon the president to rise above the separation of powers – to consider himself not merely as chief of a single branch of government, but as the popular leader of the whole of national politics. Wilson even contrasted the “constitutional aspect” of the presidency – its constitutionally defined role as chief of one of the three co-equal branches of government – to the “political” function of the president, where he could use his connection to public opinion as a tool for moving all of the branches of government in the direction called for by the people.
It was in this way that Wilson believed the original intention of the separation of powers system could be circumvented, and the enhanced presidency could be a means energizing the kind of active national government that the progressive agenda required.
In the next piece, we’ll consider whether the principles of the Progressives made them socialists.

---

IV.  Progressivism and Socialism 

Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism.  There are several things to consider in answering this question.  First, when considering the relationship of progressivism to socialism, we must be clear that we are talking about the similarity in the philosophy of government; we are not suggesting that America’s progressives were the kind of moral monsters that we see in the history of some socialist or fascist regimes (although it is the case that their racial views – particularly those of Woodrow Wilson – were indeed morally reprehensible).
Second, we must also bear in mind that there was an actual socialist movement during the Progressive Era, and prominent progressives such as Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were critics of it.  In fact, Wilson and Roosevelt both ran against a socialist candidate in the 1912 election (Eugene Debs).  The progressives were ambivalent about the socialist movement of their day not so much because they disagreed with it in principle, but because the American socialist movement was a movement of the lower classes.  The progressives were elitists; they looked down their noses at the socialists, considering them a kind of rabble.
Keeping these points in mind, it is, nonetheless, the case that the progressive conception of government closely coincided with the socialist conception.  Both progressivism and socialism champion the prerogatives of the state over the prerogatives of the individual.  Wilson himself made this connection very plain in a revealing essay he wrote in 1887 called “Socialism and Democracy.”  Wilson’s begins this essay by defining socialism, explaining that it stands for unfettered state power, which trumps any notion of individual rights. It “proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view,” Wilson wrote, and “that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.” After laying out this definition of socialism, Wilson explains that he finds nothing wrong with it in principle, since it was merely the logical extension of genuine democratic theory. It gives all power to the people, in their collective capacity, to carry out their will through the exercise of governmental power, unlimited by any undemocratic idea like individual rights. He elaborated:

“In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”

Roosevelt, too, argued for a new conception of government, where individual natural rights would no longer serve as a principled boundary that the state was prohibited from crossing.  He called in his New Nationalism program for the state to take an active role in effecting economic equality by way of superintending the use of private property. Private property rights, which had been serving as a brake on the more aggressive progressive policy proposals, were to be respected, Roosevelt argued, only insofar as the government approved of the property’s social usefulness.  He wrote:

“We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

In the next and final piece, we will consider the some of the most important connections between the original progressives and the resurgence of progressivism today.

---

V.  Progressivism and the Current Crisis 

There are important connections between America’s original Progressive Era and the crisis we are facing today, and it is useful to consider these connections on two levels.
The first connection is at a general level, and concerns our abandonment of the Constitution.  The present crisis did not appear out of nowhere, and didn’t simply begin with the election of Barack Obama.  Politicians of both parties spent the better part of the 20^th century disregarding the Constitution, as they looked to have government step up to solve every conceivable human problem.  Thus it ought to be no surprise that the Constitution’s limits on government aren’t even part of the conversation today as our politicians debate the new interventions in our economy and society that seem to come daily. 
Such a state of things would have greatly pleased America’s original progressives.  As I’ve endeavored to explain in these pieces for the newsletter, progressives believed that the role of government should be determined not by our Constitution, but by whatever the needs of the day happened to be.  This is why they sought to eradicate talk of the Constitution from our political discourse; today, that goal seems to have been realized.
The second connection between the original Progressive Era and our situation today has to do with policy.  The progressives knew that our original system of government was not capable of handling all of the new tasks that they had in mind for it.  So they envisioned creating a vast set of bureaucratic agencies.  They argued that Congress should enact very broad and vague laws for supervising more and more facets of the American economy and society, and then delegate to the bureaucratic agencies the power and discretion to enact specific policies.  Both Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt conceived of government in this way.
The New Deal certainly went a long way toward implementing this progressive vision, and what we have seen in our own situation with TARP and the various other interventions is simply greater steps toward the progressive plan.  Our Congress has simply said to the Treasury agencies: here’s a trillion dollars, here’s all the legal authority you need, now go out, determine what is in the public interest, and spend and regulate accordingly.  That is the progressive vision of government, in a nutshell.
For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest:

1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

Castle joins other Progressives in creating “No Labels”

Congressman Mike Castle has once again displayed the reason he was soundly rejected by the Delaware GOP electorate in his primary bid for U.S. Senate this past September. He has joined New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Evan Bayh from Indiana, former Florida Governor (and Republican turned Independent) Senate candidate Charlie Crist and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in helping to form the new activist group “No Labels”. The group is said to be “a counter to the T.E.A. Party movement” and the motto is “Not left. Not right. Forward”. The idea of the motto is to portray the group as a mixture of many different ideological perspectives all seeking the common goal of “doing what’s right for the people”. The group seeks to fill a perceived void between MoveOn.org on the left and the T.E.A. Party groups on the right. Sadly, the fact is that the group is built on the idea that THEY know what is best for “the people” and that THEY in turn need to make the decisions. It’s entire concept of a perceived void speaks to its roots in Progressivism and not a real need for Centrist movement.


The group is a concept hatched by political strategists Nancy Jacobson (Hillary Clinton campaign veteran) and Mark MicKinnon (John McCain/George Bush) and touted by MSNBC hosts. In fact, the launch event was moderated by Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Dylan Ratigan, and Michael Smerconish. Politicians like Crist and Castle jumped on the chance to get behind this new reincarnation of the Soros “Mainstreet Republicans”. Looking through the leadership of the group, it’s easy to spot the real purpose behind the facade. It’s a group intended to promote Progressive policies by using whatever direction the wind blows. Their idea of bipartisanship is little more than moving the country further to the left incrementally instead of all at one time.

Their cause sounds noble. Seeking to make government more efficient and more fluid sounds great but we have to stop and look at what our founders gave us. Is our government meant to be efficient and solve all of our problems? Well, let’s look at the quotes our founders gave us to find that answer:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” – George Washington

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry

“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” – Declaration of Independence
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." - Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare." - James Madison

It’s quite clear from these quotes that the founders intended a limited government based on rights possessed by the people and lent to government. It is a government rooted in individual liberty and natural law. What does that mean? Natural law is a law of nature that every person is entitled to from birth such as the right to self defence, the right to pursue happiness and the right to live. Ask yourself this question next time you read about a law the government wants to pass: “Do I have the natural right to do that?” If you don’t have the natural right to do it, government cannot do it either. Yes, that means that a great many of the laws government has created extend beyond the intended reach of government at many levels. Let’s look at an example:

If your friend Tom does not buy health insurance, do you have the power to force him to buy it? Of course not! Neither does the government.

So the Founders intended government to be restrained by the Constitution. There is little doubt of that. But what about the political class we have today? The founders intended the people to be involved in the process and in fact to control government. The founders themselves were not aristocrats; they were farmers, merchants, lawyers (not nearly the lucrative profession it is today), doctors and writers. George Washington is an example of the idea of the founders for government, he was elected President unanimously and could easily have been King for life but he chose to leave office after only 2 terms. The founders even built wording into America’s first laws “Government derives its power from the just consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence) and Thomas Jefferson was quite clear when he said, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." The American government is meant to be small, limited to a few powers defined in our founding document and controlled by the people.

Lastly, let’s talk about the founders intentions for efficiency of government. Washington called government “force” and said “Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” This is a common feeling throughout the origins of our nation. The founders distrusted a powerful government that was able to give the citizens everything they wanted. Ben Franklin said as much, when he intimated that a government large enough to give us all that we desire is large enough to take everything we have. A cursory look over the Constitution itself shows you that the document is meant to be a series of checks and balances. No branch of the federal government has complete control or can even accomplish anything without the others. The President may set the agenda but Congress must pass it and the Supreme Court can overturn it. Congress may control the writing of the budget but the President must sign it and the Supreme Court may strike portions that are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court may determine the constitutionality of a law but they are restricted from writing it or setting policy. Finally we have the issue of the people and the states. They are the final arbiters of federal law. The states were intended to retain more powers than the federal government and the people were left with the bulk of the power. The states, in conjunction with Congress, even have the ability to alter the Constitution which is a power that even Congress cannot do alone. The President has no role in this process at all. The two ways the Constitution can be amended are:

1.) Constitutional Convention (this method has never been used) called by 2/3rds of the state legislatures


2.) A proposal by Congress which is done so by obtaining 2/3rds majorities in both the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

As you can see, the process to change the Constitution and even to write and pass a law is intended to be an arduous process that is not undertaken lightly. We haven’t even touched the partisan divide and lest ye think the founders weren’t a partisan group, remember that from the very beginning there were debates and opinions. The party process has actually streamlined the legal process by uniting individual lawmakers around common party causes and even undercut the states by dividing the Senate along party lines. During the time of the founders, the factions included Federalists, Anti-Federalists and Loyalists. Imagine the gridlock that met the first Congress as the individual states, which had just fought a war against the most powerful army and government in the world, vied for their own piece of the federal pie! Gridlock in government is built into the Constitution and built into the federal government design from the founders.

Now back to our friends over at “No Labels” who claim that the TEA Party is an extremist movement that they stand to be a counter to. We’ve already discovered that their opinion that government should be efficient and solve all of our problems is not in keeping with the ideals of the founders. So let’s examine what the “No Labels” crowd has said in their own words, that they stand to counter. The Tea Party stands for:

So it begs the question, does “No Labels” stand against these things? The media and the political establishment have consistently fought to portray the TEA Party movement as a radical right wing group but I ask each of you who read this, do you see anything extreme in the points above? Do you disagree with the idea that taxes should be kept as low as possible? Do you disagree that individuals should be able to pursue the career of their choice in a market that is not controlled by the government(meaning we aren’t told what to do for a living, what to buy, how to make it and what to sell)? Do you disagree that the government should abide by the Constitution? Finally, does anyone disagree that our government should be ultimately accountable to the people? If you can’t disagree with these things, seek out a TEA Party group near you.

1.) Constitutionally Limited Government
2.) Low Taxes
3.) Free Markets
4.) Government Accountable to the people

The “No Labels” folks are little more than the Progressive political establishment who see the TEA Party movement as a threat to their current monopoly on power OVER the people. They see that it is educating more and more people and that the movement reaches across party lines while the common sense it preaches is refocusing the debate on the issues on their merits and taking nothing for granted. They’re frightened because people like Mike Castle, who long ago stopped listening to his constituents were badly beaten in primaries and general elections across the country. Charlie Crist is another example of a Progressive who was rejected by the people and who has joined “No Labels” in an effort to stick it to the citizens who had simply had enough of the failed Progressive policies. In the coming weeks and months we will look into each of the leaders of “No Labels” in an effort to find the true purpose behind the group. All appearances at this time point to a group of Progressives, largely political pundits, strategists and politicians who are turning on the people of America after being rejected by their constituents and the American public at large.