!!! Below The Basic Library is a Library for the Left (Progressives) and provides all one would ever want to know about them. We've added Hillary Clinton's thesis regarding Saul Alinsky and another article regarding Hillary. But first; This is very very strong and good - it destroys many Progressive myths. Please scroll down about halfway to 2/3's to see these fascinating articles!!
Our low-IQ elites strike again: our acting Atty Gen supports nullification!
By: Thomas Woods|Published on: Nov 14, 2018|Categories: Nullification, The Opposition|
Source; https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/our-low-iq-elites-strike-again-our-acting-atty-gen-supports-nullification/
Evidently the acting Attorney General believes, correctly, that the states have the power to nullify unconstitutional federal laws.
So the usual suspects went berserk, and trotted out the usual nonsense arguments.
I’m especially entertained when law professors speak against state nullification. Why, they didn’t learn this in law school! Which is why, as Kevin Gutzman says, one should never confuse legal training with an education.
What law school students learn are a series of cases, and implicitly the nationalist theory of the Union. The compact theory, developed in detail by the Jeffersonians and which makes far more sense of the historical record, is simply ignored.
Also ignored are the ratifying conventions, which is where James Madison told us the meaning of the Constitution was to be found. John Marshall, in nearly 35 years as Chief Justice, did not cite the ratifying conventions even once.
But there we find assurances that the federal government will have only the powers “expressly delegated” to it, and at the all-important Richmond ratification convention we read that Virginia will be “exonerated” if the federal government should reach beyond the delegated powers.
No wonder the so-called progressives prefer to ignore them.
The fact-free, comic-book version of history we get from the anti-nullification mainstream media and legal profession includes claims like:
— This idea was “discredited by the Civil War.” (As Bob Murphy says, this is like saying the claims of the Plains Indians were “discredited” by the U.S. Army.)
— The “Supremacy Clause” invalidates nullification — as if Jefferson hadn’t heard of the Supremacy Clause. (I’ll smash this one on the podcast.)
— Nullification was used by the southern states to defend slavery — even though (1) there were no antislavery laws for the southern states to nullify, (2) it was primarily northern states like Massachusetts and Connecticut that urged nullification — over unconstitutional searches and seizures, the prospect of military conscription, and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and (3) Jefferson Davis, in his farewell address to the U.S. Senate, made clear he was a foe of nullification: “I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory.”
One commentator breathlessly announced that our acting Attorney General was a “literal Calhounist.”
You know who else were “Calhounists”? Northern abolitionists who defied the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and who cited John C. Calhoun by name in so doing.
I’ll be doing a solo episode of the Tom Woods Show on all this in the coming days.
I’d be embarrassed for these people, but not enough Americans realize they’re full of it.
That’s where you come in.
Would you mind helping me spread the word about the Tom Woods Show, which is nearing its 1300th episode?
I think I put out a darn good and valuable program every weekday. That’s why tens of thousands of people have made the Tom Woods Show — which keeps folks entertained while filling their brains with knowledge no school taught them — part of their daily routine.
If you haven’t yet subscribed to the Tom Woods Show yourself (it’s free, of course), please head over right now and do that. You’ll become smarter and more formidable every day:
http://www.tomwoods.com/itunes
And please spread that link around to libertarians and other heterodox folk who have had it up to here with the 3×5 card of allowable opinion.
One last thing before I let you go: my business and marketing folks, not to mention plenty of other people, will get a kick out of my list of my 22 best headlines.
Copyright © 2018 Tom Woods
Tags: Establishment, Matthew Whitaker, Media, Nullification
By: Thomas Woods|Published on: Nov 14, 2018|Categories: Nullification, The Opposition|
Source; https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/our-low-iq-elites-strike-again-our-acting-atty-gen-supports-nullification/
Evidently the acting Attorney General believes, correctly, that the states have the power to nullify unconstitutional federal laws.
So the usual suspects went berserk, and trotted out the usual nonsense arguments.
I’m especially entertained when law professors speak against state nullification. Why, they didn’t learn this in law school! Which is why, as Kevin Gutzman says, one should never confuse legal training with an education.
What law school students learn are a series of cases, and implicitly the nationalist theory of the Union. The compact theory, developed in detail by the Jeffersonians and which makes far more sense of the historical record, is simply ignored.
Also ignored are the ratifying conventions, which is where James Madison told us the meaning of the Constitution was to be found. John Marshall, in nearly 35 years as Chief Justice, did not cite the ratifying conventions even once.
But there we find assurances that the federal government will have only the powers “expressly delegated” to it, and at the all-important Richmond ratification convention we read that Virginia will be “exonerated” if the federal government should reach beyond the delegated powers.
No wonder the so-called progressives prefer to ignore them.
The fact-free, comic-book version of history we get from the anti-nullification mainstream media and legal profession includes claims like:
— This idea was “discredited by the Civil War.” (As Bob Murphy says, this is like saying the claims of the Plains Indians were “discredited” by the U.S. Army.)
— The “Supremacy Clause” invalidates nullification — as if Jefferson hadn’t heard of the Supremacy Clause. (I’ll smash this one on the podcast.)
— Nullification was used by the southern states to defend slavery — even though (1) there were no antislavery laws for the southern states to nullify, (2) it was primarily northern states like Massachusetts and Connecticut that urged nullification — over unconstitutional searches and seizures, the prospect of military conscription, and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and (3) Jefferson Davis, in his farewell address to the U.S. Senate, made clear he was a foe of nullification: “I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory.”
One commentator breathlessly announced that our acting Attorney General was a “literal Calhounist.”
You know who else were “Calhounists”? Northern abolitionists who defied the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and who cited John C. Calhoun by name in so doing.
I’ll be doing a solo episode of the Tom Woods Show on all this in the coming days.
I’d be embarrassed for these people, but not enough Americans realize they’re full of it.
That’s where you come in.
Would you mind helping me spread the word about the Tom Woods Show, which is nearing its 1300th episode?
I think I put out a darn good and valuable program every weekday. That’s why tens of thousands of people have made the Tom Woods Show — which keeps folks entertained while filling their brains with knowledge no school taught them — part of their daily routine.
If you haven’t yet subscribed to the Tom Woods Show yourself (it’s free, of course), please head over right now and do that. You’ll become smarter and more formidable every day:
http://www.tomwoods.com/itunes
And please spread that link around to libertarians and other heterodox folk who have had it up to here with the 3×5 card of allowable opinion.
One last thing before I let you go: my business and marketing folks, not to mention plenty of other people, will get a kick out of my list of my 22 best headlines.
Copyright © 2018 Tom Woods
Tags: Establishment, Matthew Whitaker, Media, Nullification
Is the Constitution a Living and Breathing Document?
Living Constitution
https:// theconstitutionalconservatives .com/forum/topics/ constitution-101-living-and- breathing-is-the-same-as-dead
This is a great resource for Constitutional review.
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/
Supreme Court
http://www.libertylawsite.org/ 2017/06/21/the-living- constitution-on-the-supreme- courts-website/
Should the illegal aliens be counted in the census for voting purposes?
PDF from Minnesota University
https://babel.hathitrust.org/ cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d020923843; view=1up;seq=8
https:// theconstitutionalconservatives .com/forum/topics/ constitution-101-living-and- breathing-is-the-same-as-dead
This is a great resource for Constitutional review.
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/
Supreme Court
http://www.libertylawsite.org/ 2017/06/21/the-living- constitution-on-the-supreme- courts-website/
Should the illegal aliens be counted in the census for voting purposes?
PDF from Minnesota University
https://babel.hathitrust.org/ cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d020923843; view=1up;seq=8
With ALEC's Leadership, It's Time for the Article V Movement to
Unite in One Bill
The three major efforts to organize the states to advance constitutional
amendments have their policy and theoretical differences. Legislative
bandwidth constraints have forced us to emphasize those differences.
But did you know that we can all get along?
Did you know that each effort can make the other stronger?
It's true. As underscored by a recent open letter by the American
Legislative Exchange Council, all three efforts deserve your support.
You can read the open letter by ALEC here.
<https://www.alec.org/article/alec-reaffirms-support-for-article-v-initiatives/>
In the spirit of ALEC's effort to unite support among advocates for Compact
for America, Convention of States and the Balanced Budget Amendment Task
Force, Representative Lewis Moore and Senator AJ Griffin have offered in
Oklahoma to "piggy back" the Convention of States and Balanced Budget
Amendment Task Force resolutions on their bills advancing the Balanced
Budget Compact. This is part of an initiative suggested by former Alaska
Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell, also a Balanced Budget Compact Commissioner,
for deployment in Wyoming and West Virginia as well.
We can do this because the Compact is a bill, and bills can carry related
subject resolutions. "The larger can swallow the smaller." This gives the
three movements a huge opportunity to underscore the synergies between them.
With one vote, legislators in Oklahoma could advance the three most
powerful efforts to check and balance Washington!
We believe that including the BBATF and COS Article V applications in the
same bill as the Compact for a Balanced Budget could be hugely powerful in
states where we are being forced to vie for legislative bandwidth.
The reason is that all three efforts reflect a “common, closely akin theme
or purpose,” in seeking the organization of a convention of states at least
in substantial part for the shared purpose of proposing and ultimately
ratifying a federal Balanced Budget Amendment.
Additionally, the three efforts are mutually reinforcing.
For example, the CBB’s Balanced Budget Amendment could furnish a
ready-made, poll-tested, expert-vetted amendment to be proposed by a
convention organized under the COS application or, depending on the
aggregation theory, even under the BBATF application.
Further, those who want to maximize the chances of a balanced budget
amendment being proposed would want to hedge the litigation risks that are
uniquely associated with the aggregation theory utilized by the BBATF
application approach by having a fallback in the CBB or COS approach.
Likewise, the CBB and BBATF approaches could furnish synergy for the COS
approach by proving the concept of an Article V convention for more limited
and cost efficient purposes and thereby make it more politically plausible
that a broad agenda convention would garner sufficient support.
Finally, in the event that courts wrongly derail both the CBB and BBATF,
the movement can fall back on the COS approach.
For these reasons, it would be natural for a legislative supporter of one
of the three components to want to support all three components. There
would be nothing misleading about including all three approaches in the
same bill; and no one could claim they were forced into a binary choice
about a package of unrelated matters.
In the spirit of ALEC's leadership, the Article V movement could unite.
All legislative leadership needs to do is allow all three efforts to unite
in one piece of legislation, instead of forcing a binary choice among them
that is completely unnecessary and counterproductive.
Very truly yours,
________________________________________
Nick Dranias
President & Executive Director
*Compact for America Educational Foundation, Inc.*
Mobile: 602-228-2582
Office: 602-539-2703
Fax: 602-483-1658
Email: Nick.Dranias@CompactforAmerica.org
Website: www.CompactforAmerica.org
amendments have their policy and theoretical differences. Legislative
bandwidth constraints have forced us to emphasize those differences.
But did you know that we can all get along?
Did you know that each effort can make the other stronger?
It's true. As underscored by a recent open letter by the American
Legislative Exchange Council, all three efforts deserve your support.
You can read the open letter by ALEC here.
<https://www.alec.org/article/alec-reaffirms-support-for-article-v-initiatives/>
In the spirit of ALEC's effort to unite support among advocates for Compact
for America, Convention of States and the Balanced Budget Amendment Task
Force, Representative Lewis Moore and Senator AJ Griffin have offered in
Oklahoma to "piggy back" the Convention of States and Balanced Budget
Amendment Task Force resolutions on their bills advancing the Balanced
Budget Compact. This is part of an initiative suggested by former Alaska
Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell, also a Balanced Budget Compact Commissioner,
for deployment in Wyoming and West Virginia as well.
We can do this because the Compact is a bill, and bills can carry related
subject resolutions. "The larger can swallow the smaller." This gives the
three movements a huge opportunity to underscore the synergies between them.
With one vote, legislators in Oklahoma could advance the three most
powerful efforts to check and balance Washington!
We believe that including the BBATF and COS Article V applications in the
same bill as the Compact for a Balanced Budget could be hugely powerful in
states where we are being forced to vie for legislative bandwidth.
The reason is that all three efforts reflect a “common, closely akin theme
or purpose,” in seeking the organization of a convention of states at least
in substantial part for the shared purpose of proposing and ultimately
ratifying a federal Balanced Budget Amendment.
Additionally, the three efforts are mutually reinforcing.
For example, the CBB’s Balanced Budget Amendment could furnish a
ready-made, poll-tested, expert-vetted amendment to be proposed by a
convention organized under the COS application or, depending on the
aggregation theory, even under the BBATF application.
Further, those who want to maximize the chances of a balanced budget
amendment being proposed would want to hedge the litigation risks that are
uniquely associated with the aggregation theory utilized by the BBATF
application approach by having a fallback in the CBB or COS approach.
Likewise, the CBB and BBATF approaches could furnish synergy for the COS
approach by proving the concept of an Article V convention for more limited
and cost efficient purposes and thereby make it more politically plausible
that a broad agenda convention would garner sufficient support.
Finally, in the event that courts wrongly derail both the CBB and BBATF,
the movement can fall back on the COS approach.
For these reasons, it would be natural for a legislative supporter of one
of the three components to want to support all three components. There
would be nothing misleading about including all three approaches in the
same bill; and no one could claim they were forced into a binary choice
about a package of unrelated matters.
In the spirit of ALEC's leadership, the Article V movement could unite.
All legislative leadership needs to do is allow all three efforts to unite
in one piece of legislation, instead of forcing a binary choice among them
that is completely unnecessary and counterproductive.
Very truly yours,
________________________________________
Nick Dranias
President & Executive Director
*Compact for America Educational Foundation, Inc.*
Mobile: 602-228-2582
Office: 602-539-2703
Fax: 602-483-1658
Email: Nick.Dranias@CompactforAmerica.org
Website: www.CompactforAmerica.org
The Basic Library
Why the Founding Fathers Despised Democracy
https://finance.townhall.com/columnists/jimhuntzinger/2018/12/07/why-the-founding-fathers-despised-democracy-n2537155?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=&bcid=c4f4984f427d135063a0311f0af07751&recip=5535478
The Art of War - Free Book
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgbDRTE8-vs
"Full text of "Cloward– Piven Strategy Ultimate Collection"
https://archive.org/stream/Cloward-PivenStrategy1/FrancesFoxPiven-4_djvu.txt
AP takes on Texas and 10th Amendment Nullification
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/25921-ap-takes-on-texas-and-nullification
National Constitution Center;
http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution
You can use Twitter, FB etc., to contact the House & Senate below: FANTASTIC SITE!!
http://patriotjournalist.com/usSenate.php?src=Home
http://patriotjournalist.com/usHouse.php?src=Home
Complete Primer on the United States Constitution:
https://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
VOICE YOUR OPINION! This is where you go to voice your opinion over pending rules and regulations by the many government agencies. This is real citizen involvement! The E=GREENS use it to death and they pay people to post so we the people have our work cut out if we are to protect ourselves. http://www.regulations.gov/#!home
ANNOUNCING WEBSTER'S 1828 AMERICAN DICTIONARY! (http://webstersdictionary1828.com/) and
1755 DICTIONARY (http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/)
National Digital Newspaper Program Now to Include Newspapers from the Earliest Days of America’s Founding; http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2016/16-145.html?loclr=ealn and https://www.loc.gov/search?new=true&q=old%20colonial%20news%20papers
A Dictionary of the English Language - A Digital Edition of the 1755 Classic by Samuel Johnson (http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com)
British Library puts literary treasures online:
http://news.yahoo.com/british-library-puts-literary-treasures-online-120232678.htmlS. History http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/c-01.htm
100 Milestone Documents http://www.ourdocuments.gov/content.php?flash=false&page=milestone
Milestones: Chronicling America Now Provides Access to More Than 8 Million Digitized Pages from Historic U.S. Newspapers (1836 -1922) http://www.infodocket.com/2014/08/08/milestones-chronicling-america-now-provides-access-to-more-than-8-million-digitized-pages-from-historic-newspapers/
Pike's 1871 Plan For The Three World Wars http://www.libertyforlife.com/nwo/albert_pike.htm
The Writing and Ratification of the U.S. Constitution: A Bibliography
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/wrcbib.pdf/$file/wrcbib.pdf
James Madison http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-0243
America should have listened to these two men. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
This is the USA COMMON LAW Citizen Grand Jury etc. group http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/
British Library puts literary treasures online: http://news.yahoo.com/british-library-puts-literary-treasures-online-120232678.html
What The Left Can Learn From Alexander Hamilton - http://huff.to/1tHjlFq
Obama’s Favorite Court to Rehear Obamacare Federal Exchanges Case
http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/04/obamas-favorite-court-rehear-obamacare-federal-exchanges-case/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonvavAZKXonjHpfsX56%2BQpWqS%2BlMI%2
F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4DTcBkI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D
Republican National Lawyers Association
Vote Fraud News
https://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp
University of Cincinnati Collegeof Law and Harvard PDF on Article V
http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=fac_pubs
The Law by Frederic Bastiat: http://fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_TheLaw.pdf
library section more free books. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14811?msg=welcome_stranger
Property rights case in federal court vindicates rancher Wayne Hage - three years after he died
Media-Suppressed Nevada Case History Shines Truth on GovernmentRanch invaders
Some good info on the Courts using the "TAKING CLAUSE" of the 5th amendment against the government agencies. It is about time.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62362?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=a72cd94444-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-a72cd94444-291129801
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62362?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=a72cd94444-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-a72cd94444-291129801
Article V Applications
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/
Images of Article V Applications http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm
Article V Amendment Applications Tables
NOTE: This table is currently being updated. See this list for the most recent list.
TABLE 01: 743 Applications (NOTE: some are duplicates) by ALL 50 States (sorted by Year and/or Sequence)
TABLE 02: 744 Applications (NOTE: some are duplicates) by ALL 50 States and Total Applications Per Issue
TABLE 03: 171 Balanced Budget/General Amendments by 39 Different States
TABLE 04: 134 Apportionment/General Amendments by 35 Different States
TABLE 05: 744 Applications (NOTE: some are duplicates) by ALL 50 States (sorted by State)
TABLE 06: 167 Amendments by 36 Different States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1963 to 1969
TABLE 07: 122 Amendments by 38 Different States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1965 to 1971
Images of Article V Amendment Applications
http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/
Images of Article V Applications http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm
Article V Amendment Applications Tables
NOTE: This table is currently being updated. See this list for the most recent list.
TABLE 01: 743 Applications (NOTE: some are duplicates) by ALL 50 States (sorted by Year and/or Sequence)
TABLE 02: 744 Applications (NOTE: some are duplicates) by ALL 50 States and Total Applications Per Issue
TABLE 03: 171 Balanced Budget/General Amendments by 39 Different States
TABLE 04: 134 Apportionment/General Amendments by 35 Different States
TABLE 05: 744 Applications (NOTE: some are duplicates) by ALL 50 States (sorted by State)
TABLE 06: 167 Amendments by 36 Different States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1963 to 1969
TABLE 07: 122 Amendments by 38 Different States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1965 to 1971
Images of Article V Amendment Applications
http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm
Annotation 31 - Fourteenth Amendment
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation31.html
Video by Thomas Woods on the 14th
www.youtube.com/embed/P56ZeBotFeA
Video by Thomas Woods on the 14th
www.youtube.com/embed/P56ZeBotFeA
DO YOU KNOW YOUR STATE PREAMBLE?
Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..
Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...
Connecticut 1818, Preamble The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance .. Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..
Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
Montana 1889, Preamble We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for theblessings of liberty establish this Constitution .
Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
New Hampshire 1792 Preamble Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carol ina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
South Carolina 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carol ina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties .
Tennessee 1796 Preamble Art. XI..III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ....
Virginia 1776, Preamble Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility....
Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...
God is acknowledged in all 50 state constitutions.
'Food for thought' and may
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...
Connecticut 1818, Preamble The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance .. Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..
Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
Montana 1889, Preamble We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for theblessings of liberty establish this Constitution .
Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
New Hampshire 1792 Preamble Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carol ina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
South Carolina 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carol ina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties .
Tennessee 1796 Preamble Art. XI..III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ....
Virginia 1776, Preamble Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility....
Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...
God is acknowledged in all 50 state constitutions.
'Food for thought' and may
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Free Google Book Search
(360 B.C.) The Republic - Plato
(46 B.C.) Cicero's Brutus - Cicero
(1517) Discourses on Livy - Machiavelli
(1553) The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude - Étienne de La Boétie
(1690) Two Treatises of Government - John Locke
(1698) Discourses Concerning Government - Algernon Sydney
Sidney's Discourses and Locke's Second Treatise were recommended by Jefferson and Madison as containing the "general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and society"
(1748) The Spirit of Laws - Montesquieu
(1748) The Principles of Natural and Politic Law - Burlamaqui
(1755) Old Family Letters - John Adams
(1758) The Law of Nations- Vattel
(1764-1769) The Writings of Samuel Adams
(1765-1769) Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
(1766) The Declaratory Act
(1770) The Writings of John Adams V1-2
The Writings of John Adams V3-4
The Writings of John Adams V5-7
The Writings of John Adams V8-10
(1771-1788) The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
(1772) The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants
(1774) A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress - Hamilton
(1774) Novanglus - John Adams
Principle Controversy between Great Britain and Her Colonies
(1776) Common Sense- Thomas Paine
(360 B.C.) The Republic - Plato
(46 B.C.) Cicero's Brutus - Cicero
(1517) Discourses on Livy - Machiavelli
(1553) The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude - Étienne de La Boétie
(1690) Two Treatises of Government - John Locke
(1698) Discourses Concerning Government - Algernon Sydney
Sidney's Discourses and Locke's Second Treatise were recommended by Jefferson and Madison as containing the "general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and society"
(1748) The Spirit of Laws - Montesquieu
(1748) The Principles of Natural and Politic Law - Burlamaqui
(1755) Old Family Letters - John Adams
(1758) The Law of Nations- Vattel
(1764-1769) The Writings of Samuel Adams
(1765-1769) Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
(1766) The Declaratory Act
(1770) The Writings of John Adams V1-2
The Writings of John Adams V3-4
The Writings of John Adams V5-7
The Writings of John Adams V8-10
(1771-1788) The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
(1772) The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants
(1774) A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress - Hamilton
(1774) Novanglus - John Adams
Principle Controversy between Great Britain and Her Colonies
(1776) Common Sense- Thomas Paine
Martial law.
books.google.com >>> http://books.google.com/books?id=s7MFqwZQZcsC&lpg=PA7...
One Incident which gave a stimulus to the pamphlet Common Sense was, that it happened to appear on the very day that the King of England's speech reached the United States, in which the Americans were denounced as rebels and traitors, and in which speech it was asserted to be the right of the legislature of England to bind the Colonies in all cases whatsoever.
(1776-1783) The Crisis- Thomas Paine
(1780) Journal of the Convention for Framing the Massachusetts Bay Constitution
(1785) Remarks concerning the Government and Laws of the United States of America: in Four Letters addressed to Mr. Adams
(1787) The Anti-Federalist (audio)
(1787) The Federalist (text) The Federalist (audio)
(1781-1826) The Declaration of Independence and Letters by Thomas Jefferson
(1788) Speech delivered at the Virginia Convention debate of the ratification of the Constitution- Patrick Henry
(1789) James Madison Speech to the First Congress
Madison's proposed Amendments to the Constitution
(1791-92) The Rights of Man- Thomas Paine
(1792) A Letter Addressed to the Abbe Raynal - Thomas Paine
(1792) Madison on Property
(1792) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States of America- James Wilson , Thomas McKean
As far as I know this is the first legal treatise written on the Constitution. Wilson was a member of the Continental Congress, signer of the Declaration, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, signer of the Constitution and a Supreme Court Justice. T. McKean was a member of the Stamp-Act Congress, Continental Congress, signer of the Declaration and the only signer of the Declaration to be the chief executive of two States and a concurrent office-holder in two States. (Both of these men's accomplishments are only touched upon in brief)
(1794-95) Age of Reason Pt. I, II and III - Thomas Paine
(1796) Washington's Farewell Address
(1800) The Origin and Principles of the America and French Revolutions Compared
(1804) The Works of the Honourable James Wilson
(1807-1815) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_Part1
(1776-1783) The Crisis- Thomas Paine
(1780) Journal of the Convention for Framing the Massachusetts Bay Constitution
(1785) Remarks concerning the Government and Laws of the United States of America: in Four Letters addressed to Mr. Adams
(1787) The Anti-Federalist (audio)
(1787) The Federalist (text) The Federalist (audio)
(1781-1826) The Declaration of Independence and Letters by Thomas Jefferson
(1788) Speech delivered at the Virginia Convention debate of the ratification of the Constitution- Patrick Henry
(1789) James Madison Speech to the First Congress
Madison's proposed Amendments to the Constitution
(1791-92) The Rights of Man- Thomas Paine
(1792) A Letter Addressed to the Abbe Raynal - Thomas Paine
(1792) Madison on Property
(1792) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States of America- James Wilson , Thomas McKean
As far as I know this is the first legal treatise written on the Constitution. Wilson was a member of the Continental Congress, signer of the Declaration, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, signer of the Constitution and a Supreme Court Justice. T. McKean was a member of the Stamp-Act Congress, Continental Congress, signer of the Declaration and the only signer of the Declaration to be the chief executive of two States and a concurrent office-holder in two States. (Both of these men's accomplishments are only touched upon in brief)
(1794-95) Age of Reason Pt. I, II and III - Thomas Paine
(1796) Washington's Farewell Address
(1800) The Origin and Principles of the America and French Revolutions Compared
(1804) The Works of the Honourable James Wilson
(1807-1815) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_Part1
(1805) The Dangers of American Liberty- Fisher Ames
(1812) The Works of Adam Smith
Volume I
Volume II
Volume III
Volume IV
Volume V
(1820) The Republican Part I & II Part III - Wiliam Jarvis
“I thank you, Sir, for the copy of your Republican which you have been so kind as to send me… looking over it cursorily I see much in it to approve, and shall be glad if it shall lead our youth to the practice of thinking on such subjects and for themselves…” Thomas Jefferson, September 28, 1820
(1820) Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated - John Taylor
(1823) New Views of the Constitution of the United States
A treatise on what form of Federalism was constituted by the Framers
(1828) Elementary Catechism on the Constitution
(1829) The annals of America - Abiel Holmes
(1830) The Letters of Algernon Sydney, In Defense of Civil Liberty - Judge Spencer Roane's letters to the Richmond Enquirer, 1818-19
(1831) Essays on the American System its Principle and Object - Spencer Roane
(1833) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States - Joseph Story
* [see 1868 - A Brief Inquiry....]
(1835) Democracy in America - Volume I - De Tocqueville
(1837) Introduction to American law
Designed as a First Book for Students
(1839) The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse
John Quincy Adams
(1840) Democracy in America - Volume II - De Tocqueville
(1850) The Law- Frederick Bastiat
(1859) The Government Class Book Designed for the Instruction of Youth
(1860) Diary of the American Revolution. From Newspapers and Original Documents - Frank Moore
(1861) Ancient Law, its connection with the early history of society and its relation to modern ideas - Sir Henry Sumner Maine
(1861) The Direct Tax of 1861
(1861) Memoir, Letters, and Remains of Alexis de Tocqueville, 2 vols.
(1862) The Revenue Act of 1862 (History of Greenbacks)
(1862) Considerations on Representative Government - John Stuart Mill
*(published 1868) A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of our Federal Government
A critical review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.
(1872) A Manual of American Ideas
DESIGNED
For the Use of Schools
For the Instruction of Foreigners seeking Naturalization
For the Use of Voters
(1805) The Dangers of American Liberty- Fisher Ames
(1875) History of the United States of America: - George Bancroft
History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent
covers America in depth up to 1789.
(1885) Popular Government Sir Henry Sumner Maine
(1889) The Old South Leaflets Seventh Series
The Old South Lectures for Young People were instituted in the summer of 1883, as a means of promoting a more serious and intelligent attention to historical studies, especially studies in American history, among the young people of Boston.
(1890) The Unwritten Constitution of the United States - Christopher Tiedeman
(1890) Life of the Hon. Thomas McKean - Roberdeau Buchanan
(1891) The Theory of the Social Compact and its Influence upon the American Revolution
(published 1891) A Fragment on Government - Jeremy Bentham (first published in 1776)
(1892) Essays on the Constitution of the United States, published during its discussion by the people 1787-1788- Paul L. Ford
(1894) Sources of the Constitution - C. Ellis Stevens
(published 1903) The Complete ANAS of Thomas Jefferson
(1905) The John P. Branch historical papers of Randolph-Macon College - Collected works of Judge S. Roane
(1908) The Mystery of the Pinckney Draught
(1963) Burke, Paine, and the Rights of Man - R.R. Fennessy
(1812) The Works of Adam Smith
Volume I
Volume II
Volume III
Volume IV
Volume V
(1820) The Republican Part I & II Part III - Wiliam Jarvis
“I thank you, Sir, for the copy of your Republican which you have been so kind as to send me… looking over it cursorily I see much in it to approve, and shall be glad if it shall lead our youth to the practice of thinking on such subjects and for themselves…” Thomas Jefferson, September 28, 1820
(1820) Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated - John Taylor
(1823) New Views of the Constitution of the United States
A treatise on what form of Federalism was constituted by the Framers
(1828) Elementary Catechism on the Constitution
(1829) The annals of America - Abiel Holmes
(1830) The Letters of Algernon Sydney, In Defense of Civil Liberty - Judge Spencer Roane's letters to the Richmond Enquirer, 1818-19
(1831) Essays on the American System its Principle and Object - Spencer Roane
(1833) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States - Joseph Story
* [see 1868 - A Brief Inquiry....]
(1835) Democracy in America - Volume I - De Tocqueville
(1837) Introduction to American law
Designed as a First Book for Students
(1839) The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse
John Quincy Adams
(1840) Democracy in America - Volume II - De Tocqueville
(1850) The Law- Frederick Bastiat
(1859) The Government Class Book Designed for the Instruction of Youth
(1860) Diary of the American Revolution. From Newspapers and Original Documents - Frank Moore
(1861) Ancient Law, its connection with the early history of society and its relation to modern ideas - Sir Henry Sumner Maine
(1861) The Direct Tax of 1861
(1861) Memoir, Letters, and Remains of Alexis de Tocqueville, 2 vols.
(1862) The Revenue Act of 1862 (History of Greenbacks)
(1862) Considerations on Representative Government - John Stuart Mill
*(published 1868) A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of our Federal Government
A critical review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.
(1872) A Manual of American Ideas
DESIGNED
For the Use of Schools
For the Instruction of Foreigners seeking Naturalization
For the Use of Voters
(1805) The Dangers of American Liberty- Fisher Ames
(1875) History of the United States of America: - George Bancroft
History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent
covers America in depth up to 1789.
(1885) Popular Government Sir Henry Sumner Maine
(1889) The Old South Leaflets Seventh Series
The Old South Lectures for Young People were instituted in the summer of 1883, as a means of promoting a more serious and intelligent attention to historical studies, especially studies in American history, among the young people of Boston.
(1890) The Unwritten Constitution of the United States - Christopher Tiedeman
(1890) Life of the Hon. Thomas McKean - Roberdeau Buchanan
(1891) The Theory of the Social Compact and its Influence upon the American Revolution
(published 1891) A Fragment on Government - Jeremy Bentham (first published in 1776)
(1892) Essays on the Constitution of the United States, published during its discussion by the people 1787-1788- Paul L. Ford
(1894) Sources of the Constitution - C. Ellis Stevens
(published 1903) The Complete ANAS of Thomas Jefferson
(1905) The John P. Branch historical papers of Randolph-Macon College - Collected works of Judge S. Roane
(1908) The Mystery of the Pinckney Draught
(1963) Burke, Paine, and the Rights of Man - R.R. Fennessy
(1976) The American Ideal of 1776
(1981) 5000 YEAR LEAP - AUDIO VERSION
(2011) Promise Made - Promise Kept
The General Welfare Clause - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7Of4cap6nGGZmhQQTBvOHNET00/edit?usp=sharing
STATE BALANCING OF POWERS ACT - http://northamericanlawcenter.org/2013-state-balance-of-powers-act/
GOOD ARTICLES ON THE 10TH AMENDMENT and FEDERALISM - http://www.texaspolicy.com/experts/mario-loyola
What is Federalism
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/what-is-federalism-why-is-it-important/?doing_wp_cron=1389110572.7895879745483398437500#.UsxpYdJDuSo
Roosevelt's 'Man in the Arena Speech' Citizenship in a Republic http://www.leadershipnow.com/tr-citizenship.html
Constitutional Myth Busters
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2013/04/15/do-federal-regulations-violate-the-constitution/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2013/01/12/do-executive-orders-violate-the-constitution/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/08/22/does-obamacare-violate-the-us-constitution-article-2/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/08/07/how-did-the-framers-of-the-constitution-define-%E2%80%9Cstates%E2%80%99-rights%E2%80%9D/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/28/did-the-14th-amendment-really-incorporate-the-bill-of-rights/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/07/is-social-justice-compatible-with-our-constitution/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/25/does-obamacare-violate-the-us-constitution/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/18/what-does-the-supremacy-clause-mean/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/06/the-first-amendment-guarantees-you-freedom-of-religion-not-freedom-from-religion/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/02/is-collective-bargaining-a-fundamental-right-that-is-enshrined-in-the-us-constitution/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/28/did-the-us-constitution-create-a-national-government-or-a-federal-government/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/24/does-the-us-supreme-court-have-the-power-to-veto-state-laws-involving-our-most-fundamental-rights/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/20/if-someone-is-arrested-for-disrupting-an-event-is-that-a-violation-of-their-first-amendment-rights/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/18/are-supreme-court-decisions-really-the-law-of-the-land/
Main link . . . http://constitutionmythbuster.com/page/2/
(1981) 5000 YEAR LEAP - AUDIO VERSION
(2011) Promise Made - Promise Kept
The General Welfare Clause - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7Of4cap6nGGZmhQQTBvOHNET00/edit?usp=sharing
STATE BALANCING OF POWERS ACT - http://northamericanlawcenter.org/2013-state-balance-of-powers-act/
GOOD ARTICLES ON THE 10TH AMENDMENT and FEDERALISM - http://www.texaspolicy.com/experts/mario-loyola
What is Federalism
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/what-is-federalism-why-is-it-important/?doing_wp_cron=1389110572.7895879745483398437500#.UsxpYdJDuSo
Roosevelt's 'Man in the Arena Speech' Citizenship in a Republic http://www.leadershipnow.com/tr-citizenship.html
Constitutional Myth Busters
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2013/04/15/do-federal-regulations-violate-the-constitution/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2013/01/12/do-executive-orders-violate-the-constitution/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/08/22/does-obamacare-violate-the-us-constitution-article-2/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/08/07/how-did-the-framers-of-the-constitution-define-%E2%80%9Cstates%E2%80%99-rights%E2%80%9D/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/28/did-the-14th-amendment-really-incorporate-the-bill-of-rights/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/07/is-social-justice-compatible-with-our-constitution/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/25/does-obamacare-violate-the-us-constitution/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/18/what-does-the-supremacy-clause-mean/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/06/the-first-amendment-guarantees-you-freedom-of-religion-not-freedom-from-religion/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/02/is-collective-bargaining-a-fundamental-right-that-is-enshrined-in-the-us-constitution/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/28/did-the-us-constitution-create-a-national-government-or-a-federal-government/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/24/does-the-us-supreme-court-have-the-power-to-veto-state-laws-involving-our-most-fundamental-rights/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/20/if-someone-is-arrested-for-disrupting-an-event-is-that-a-violation-of-their-first-amendment-rights/
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/05/18/are-supreme-court-decisions-really-the-law-of-the-land/
Main link . . . http://constitutionmythbuster.com/page/2/
Hamilton's book on manufacturing - http://books.google.com/books?id=gCk5AAAAMAAJ&dq=report%20on%20manufactures&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Libertarianism - http://www.libertarianism.org/
Libertarianism - http://www.libertarianism.org/
!!! The "Left" Library !!!
Hillary’s senior thesis about activist Saul Alinsky.
By Donna Schaper with Rake Morgan and Frank Marafiote contributing.
Edited by Frank Marafiote for the Internet.
With Hillary Clinton likely to pursue the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, questions about her intellectual and moral education abound. One of the major intellectual influences – perhaps an emotional one was well – was radical social philosopher and activist Saul Alinsky. As this story shows, Alinsky was both the ladder Hillary climbed to gain new perspectives on society – specifically the poor – and then, once there, a ladder she tossed aside when she no longer needed it.
Americans who graduated from high school in 1965 and college in 1969 were not just part of a population bubble — the “baby boomers” — but a cultural one as well. The children of the Sixties combined the typical young adult developmental cycle with a unique cycle in the life of this nation. They were not only trying to learn about dating, but also about foreign policy, ethics, and racism.
Hillary Clinton was quintessentially one of these people — a Sixties person, although we would hardly have recognized her as such. That she didn’t buy her wedding dress until the night before her wedding is not just a coincidence. It was also commonplace. Her generation was mixing private rites of passage with public ones, and it seemed right to do so. Hillary Clinton was a conformist to the extent that she mixed these personal and political levels early, at a time when most of the people did likewise.
As we search for social influences on the First Lady, we have to begin in this context, in the unique mix of the public and private that served as her environment as a young woman. She was as marked by her chronological age and the Age of Aquarius as most Sixties people were — and she is probably where she is today because she was even more influenced by it than the rest of us.
It is no accident that she chose to write about Saul Alinsky for her senior thesis at Wellesley College . As a social activist, Alinsky was as much a part of the Sixties as was Kennedy and King. He was in the background creating the foreground of interpretation:
“Power to the people” is a phrase coined by him as much as by Stokeley Carmichael. Like the headband, Hillary abandoned much of what influenced her back then. But still this heavy identification with her age and THE age continued in bold form right after she completed her senior thesis.
That people stood to applaud Hillary Clinton’s commencement speech — the first one given by a student at Wellesley — is another mark of her generation that she wears in her psyche. It had to matter to her that the classes before 1960 remained in their seats, not quite sure of what had just happened. Classes before 1930 didn’t even clap. From ‘60 on people were on their feet clapping.
This literal order of approval is important to our understanding of Hillary Clinton. And surely it is one of the reasons she’s shifted from her Sixties image to a more up-to-date one. She learned early on that people interpret things by their age. No one needs the tag of the Sixties any more. Her repudiation of the tag is one of the reasons that Wellesley College , at her request, does not release her senior thesis to the public. She doesn’t want to be identified with Alinsky or the Sixties any more than is absolutely necessary. Hillary is socially and personally based in the Sixties, not in its cultural but in its political dimension.
Probably because she had enough ballast psychologically and religiously from her family and church, she did not “drug out” during the Sixties. She was not one of the period’s casualties. But most Americans, including the younger ones, don’t understand this distinction yet about the Sixties. Say Sixties, and people today think, “drugged out.” Say Sixties, they think unshowered. Perpetual bad hair days. Hillary can’t afford the negative image of the Sixties. Thus she needed to leave as much of the Sixties behind her as possible. This repudiation of the Sixties began early in her life.
It’s the confusion in the public’s mind — not hers — that accounts for the distance she’s put between herself and her formative period. Alinsky’s thought has been badgered at the image level since the sixties. Say Alinsky and people think radical, that American word that now has a bad reputation.
Alinsky thought of himself as a radical in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, Thomas Payne. He personified the American theory of pragmatism in his commitment to power. “Whatever works to get power to the people, use it.” That didn’t mean violence but rather serious attention to matters of power. Pact the meeting. Fill the streets. Flood the office with post cards. If that doesn’t work, find something that does, including humor.
At one point to gain attention from the Chicago city council, Alinsky threatened to flush all the toilets at O’Hare airport at once. Before the toilet flushing escapade ever had a chance to happen, the city council gave in and granted some demands. Another time, in Rochester , New York , Alinsky had a fart-in at the Eastman Kodak Board meeting. A baked bean supper had been organized for participants. Alinsky was irreverent, but that was his only real bow in the counter-cultural direction. Hillary acquired Alinsky’s pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
Hillary met Alinsky through the pastor at her high school church, the Park Ridge Methodist Church . Rev. Don Jones, then youth minister at the parish and running a youth program called “ University of Life ,” took his youth group to Chicago to meet not only Alinsky but also King and many of the other leaders of the Civil Rights movement.
To understand how Hillary developed her skills as an activist we have to first understand her religious back ground. One of 110 young people confirmed at the church at age 11, she had an unusually rigorous religious preparation. It was public instead of personal. That simple shift in perspective was the key foundation for her, as a Goldwater activist throughout high school and the daughter of a Republican. It allowed her to have an open heart to the suffering she saw in Chicago . Very few youth groups traveled as far as the South Side of Chicago to find God or religious formation.
Hillary acquired Alinsky ‘S pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
That she did, under the auspices of Rev. Jones, made not only the introduction to Alinsky possible, it also meant that she could hear firsthand what he had to say in a context that probably spoke louder than his words.
The poverty she saw in Chicago surely became part of the source of this person who is now running for president. Alinsky interpreted poverty with one point of view — that it is due to the lack of power of the poor. Hillary probably doesn’t believe that as much as a less sinister interpretation — that the poor are poor because of bad government policies. This tension became the tension of her senior thesis, the tension of her genuine suffering about the poor, and probably will remain the tension of her life.
In a sense, she’s still in a conversation with Alinsky, who believed that the poor could be organized on their own behalf. Hillary Clinton still seems to believe that the middle classes can do things to make life easier for the poor, and that is the lever she pulls most often. Her decision about the best way to create change ultimately led her down a path that made her a senator; had she made the other decision — to organize the poor — she would not be in government, but rather in that place where she learned so much — the “streets.”
Religion moderated the decisions she made, particularly since it was based in the suburban world of Park Ridge . Alinsky himself was not a religious man, though he depended heavily on organized religious constituencies. In Sanford Horwitt’s biography of Alinsky, Let Them Call Me A Rebel, Horwitt suggests that at many different levels Alinsky “used” religious constituencies like the Park Ridge church to legitimize serious political action. In this way, Hillary — even as a girl — was used by the movement. She added her consent later.
Alinsky’s manipulation of both the poor and the church is the most often repeated accusation against him. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton’s exposure to his ideas took place in a relatively open setting, as a by product of the University of Life . Rev. Jones arranged a trip to a Chicago ghetto so that his youth could meet with a group of black youths who hung around at a recreation center. There the program consisted of teenagers describing their reactions to Picasso’s Guernica . The youths met several times and also read Catcher in the Rye together. For the young, Republican Hillary, the difference in reaction between suburban and city youth was a major eye opener. Once eyes like hers were opened, it wouldn’t take them long in the Chicago of that day to find Alinsky.
Alinsky frequently used similar methods of experiential education — what Paolo Friere calls the”pedago – guey” of the oppressed. Here the oppressed were the teachers of those who were not oppressed. It was vintage Alinsky, borrowed by a young seminarian. Here we see the reason she eventually left behind both Alinsky and the Sixties. Her experience taught her to go other places. That the Sixties, Alinsky and religious faith taught her to learn from experience is the deeper and more enduring social source of her behavior.
Rev. Jones told Donnie Radcliffe in Hillary Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time that his goal with the youth group was “not just about personal salvation and pious escapism, but also about an authentic and deep quest for God and life’s meaning in the midst of worldly existence.” Thanks to Jones’ emphasis on the public aspect of religion, Hillary had the chance to meet Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as Alinsky. Jones made arrangements for his group to meet King after King preached at the Sunday Evening Club in Chicago . With 2,500 other people at Orchestra Hall in Chicago , April 15, 1962, 15 year-old Hillary heard King preach a sermon entitled “Remaining Awake Through a Revolution.” To accuse her of taking this message literally would not be going too far. She has remained steadily fixed on a simple public theology and an alertness about political experience.
We unfortunately know very little about Jones’ cohort at the church, Rosalie Benziger, the Christian Education director. Surely she had prepared even deeper ground for the encounter with Chicago, Alinsky, King and poverty in the curriculum used during Sunday School. What we do know about Benziger is that she was concerned about the students’ reaction to the Kennedy assassination, and that she sent a letter to the entire 3,000 member congregation hoping that they wouldn’t begin finding Communists under every rock. “We knew that the children would be traumatized….” she had said. Benziger was right. These children were traumatized for longer than a generation. What’s significant in terms of Hillary Clinton’s development is that few Christian Education directors at the time reacted in this way, with a both political point to protect and a pastoral concern for children. The childrens’ safe world had been invaded by a larger life, and it would continue to be throughout the Sixties.
Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary ‘s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. The University of Life focused on living and on under standing experience as it came. As we know, this emphasis on experience did not mean that Sixties people shared a single viewpoint. There were serious splits among political and cultural activists. Alinsky’s own pragmatism caused him to express great disdain for the Dionysian aspects of the Sixties. He made his organizers wear ties. He kept enormous distance from the politically flamboyant aspects of the flower child movement. He was widely known as a drinker and thought of drugs as counter-culture in a ridiculous way. Alinsky was very patriotic, very pro-culture, and never really did oppose the Vietnam War. He stuck to local and domestic issues like glue and had nothing but derision for those who did not.
Any Sixties person can see some of these tendencies in Hillary. Back then she would have been considered very serious, a “straight arrow.” Alinsky would have excited these serious tendencies with his own equally serious attention to matters of strategy and tactics, and by his own serious streak, which was a red hot concern for the poor. “Poverty is an embarrassment to the American soul,” he said over and over again. That was probably his only religious statement and it was enough to make him serious allies with the church in Chicago and beyond. Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary’s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. Still, their fundamental antipathy to poverty would connect them, and finally cause him to be the topic she chose for her senior thesis.
Hillary Clinton and Alinsky disagreed over the issue of localism. She did not believe the local was a large enough context for political action. For a suburban girl who already had a national candidate (Goldwater), that viewpoint was not surprising. For the poor that Alinsky loved, even a few blocks was too much. There were aspects of her middle class up bring that shaped her under standing of Slinky and his ideas.
According to Allan Schuster, professor of Political Science at Wellesley , she chose her senior thesis topic because she had met Alinsky in high school and had heard him speak at a meeting she had attended in Boston . That meeting resulted in her organizing a demonstration in the town of Wellesley — something slinky himself would have done. He thought campus issues, which Hillary had been working on for some time, were silly. They were about the middle class, not about the poor. Hillary responded to this guidance positively. But eventually she found the town of Wellesley and the city of Boston too ”small” to matter to the poor as sites for change.
Clifford Green, then professor of biblical history at Wellesley College and now a professor at Hartford Theological Seminary in Connecticut , taught the bible course she was required to take in her sophomore year. His classes confirmed for Hillary the religious view point inaugurated by Jones — that faith had to do with life, not just with personal matters. Green remembers the surprise of the Wellesley girls that religion could be so public in its real meaning.
Weighing the two major influences on Hillary — religion and community organizing — her biographer Donnie Radcliff has it about right: religion probably meant more to Hillary than organizing. It was public religion that integrated the Sixties context and Alinsky’s focus on the poor and their suffering. The principle of public religion was also ratified by the Wellesley motto: Non ministrar sed ministrare (we are not here to be ministered to, but to minister unto). Taught early by Don Jones, sustained by Benziger, excited by King, challenged by Alinsky, Hillary Clinton was nursed by the Sixties city and the Sixties college to become a political activist with enduring power.
Schecter says that Alinsky recognized her talents as an organizer during the Wellesley period and offered her a significant position after college. He didn’t offer these jobs to many women, nor did he offer them without a serious, often disturbing assessment of the person’s abilities. Caesar Chavez is a well-known example of an Alinsky disciple, chosen and hewn by the master. But whereas Chavez bought the localism of the Alinsky method, Hillary did not.
Schecter also confirms Donnie Radcliffe’s belief that Hillary turned Alinsky down because her senior thesis convinced her that his methods were not “large” enough. She believed, according to Schecter’s interpretation of the thesis, that Alinsky’s tactics and strategies were useful at the local level, but that even if an activist were successful in local organizing, systemic policy matters on the national level would prevent actual power from going to people. She chose to work at the macro-level of law rather than the micro-level of community because of this analysis. Many Alinsky disciples acknowledge that this is a serious and frequent argument made against him.
Hillary Clinton went to law school in order to have an influence on these larger and more difficult issues. Her motivation may have been religious in that uniquely public way that Jones taught her. She was not satisfied with the “right personal faith” and was far more serious about finding a way to put that faith into action. The University of Life approach is what has remained. This way of learning from the street was also a fundamental aspect of Alinsky’s teaching. In this way, we can see that Hillary was influenced by a powerful mixture of experience and theory. Then the credentializing began. She may not have known just how much Alinsky hated lawyers, but he hated them with a severity that makes her career choice all the more interesting.
For a young woman to turn down this extremely macho man, and to stand against him in theory as well as in practice, is astonishing, particularly given the times and her young age. Her assertion to Alinsky that confrontational tactics would upset the kind of people she grew up with in Park Ridge , thus creating a backlash, was either naive or brilliant. He surely told her what he is reported to have said — “that won’t change anything.” It couldn’t have been said with respect. She apparently countered, “Well, Mr. Alinsky, I see a different way than you.”
Perhaps this exchange explains why so many people find Hillary too assertive and aloof. She emulates Alinsky in the seriousness with which she accepts her mission — thus embodying his best teaching — and at the same time she distinguishes herself with her own point of view. As Schecter pointed out, she understood early on that poor people needed not just participation, but also structure and leadership. That she thought Alinsky could not provide that is surprising, but that is what she thought at that time. To have much more political sophistication in an 18 year- old would have been scary. Her thesis concluded that “organizing the poor for community actions to improve their own lives may have, in certain circumstances, short-term benefits for the poor but would never solve their major problems. You need much more than that. You need leadership, programs, constitutional doctrines.”
That analysis ultimately led to law school and not back to the University of Life or to Alinsky’s streets. In extensive correspondence with Rev. Jones during college, she began the shift from Goldwater conservatism to a more liberal viewpoint. “Can one be a mental conservative but a heart liberal?” she asked him at one point.
One example in a real political context shows her legal and activist mind at work. Marshall Goldman, a Wellesley professor of Russian economics, suggested that students had mixed up tactics in boycotting classes. He wanted them to skip weekends because that was sacrificial. Hillary responded quickly in The Wellesley News, “I’ll give up my date Saturday night, Mr. Goldman, but I don’t think that’s the point. Individual consciences are fine, but individual con sciences have to be made manifest.” Not only do we see her rational and argumentative mind here, but also the nearly literal interpretation of public religion that has integrated her political action and her life.
In the speech she made at her Wellesley commencement, she quoted a poem by a fellow student, Nancy Scheibner, called ”The Art of Making Possible.” Hillary Clinton and Alinsky are fellow travelers here. The pragmatism of a politician joins the fundamentalism of a certain kind of true believer: this marriage is what has taken Hillary beyond her senior thesis. She does exactly what Alinsky would have taught her to do — to read, continuously, from experience. She also stays very close to what Jones and Wellesley would have her do — to express her faith in public action. Both politics and religion keep her safely in the Sixties realm and do so in unusual, personally appropriated ways. She moves beyond her senior thesis, but continues to put much of what she learned during that period into practice today.
http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/hillary-clintons-senior-thesis-about-activist-saul-alinsky/
Edited by Frank Marafiote for the Internet.
With Hillary Clinton likely to pursue the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, questions about her intellectual and moral education abound. One of the major intellectual influences – perhaps an emotional one was well – was radical social philosopher and activist Saul Alinsky. As this story shows, Alinsky was both the ladder Hillary climbed to gain new perspectives on society – specifically the poor – and then, once there, a ladder she tossed aside when she no longer needed it.
Americans who graduated from high school in 1965 and college in 1969 were not just part of a population bubble — the “baby boomers” — but a cultural one as well. The children of the Sixties combined the typical young adult developmental cycle with a unique cycle in the life of this nation. They were not only trying to learn about dating, but also about foreign policy, ethics, and racism.
Hillary Clinton was quintessentially one of these people — a Sixties person, although we would hardly have recognized her as such. That she didn’t buy her wedding dress until the night before her wedding is not just a coincidence. It was also commonplace. Her generation was mixing private rites of passage with public ones, and it seemed right to do so. Hillary Clinton was a conformist to the extent that she mixed these personal and political levels early, at a time when most of the people did likewise.
As we search for social influences on the First Lady, we have to begin in this context, in the unique mix of the public and private that served as her environment as a young woman. She was as marked by her chronological age and the Age of Aquarius as most Sixties people were — and she is probably where she is today because she was even more influenced by it than the rest of us.
It is no accident that she chose to write about Saul Alinsky for her senior thesis at Wellesley College . As a social activist, Alinsky was as much a part of the Sixties as was Kennedy and King. He was in the background creating the foreground of interpretation:
“Power to the people” is a phrase coined by him as much as by Stokeley Carmichael. Like the headband, Hillary abandoned much of what influenced her back then. But still this heavy identification with her age and THE age continued in bold form right after she completed her senior thesis.
That people stood to applaud Hillary Clinton’s commencement speech — the first one given by a student at Wellesley — is another mark of her generation that she wears in her psyche. It had to matter to her that the classes before 1960 remained in their seats, not quite sure of what had just happened. Classes before 1930 didn’t even clap. From ‘60 on people were on their feet clapping.
This literal order of approval is important to our understanding of Hillary Clinton. And surely it is one of the reasons she’s shifted from her Sixties image to a more up-to-date one. She learned early on that people interpret things by their age. No one needs the tag of the Sixties any more. Her repudiation of the tag is one of the reasons that Wellesley College , at her request, does not release her senior thesis to the public. She doesn’t want to be identified with Alinsky or the Sixties any more than is absolutely necessary. Hillary is socially and personally based in the Sixties, not in its cultural but in its political dimension.
Probably because she had enough ballast psychologically and religiously from her family and church, she did not “drug out” during the Sixties. She was not one of the period’s casualties. But most Americans, including the younger ones, don’t understand this distinction yet about the Sixties. Say Sixties, and people today think, “drugged out.” Say Sixties, they think unshowered. Perpetual bad hair days. Hillary can’t afford the negative image of the Sixties. Thus she needed to leave as much of the Sixties behind her as possible. This repudiation of the Sixties began early in her life.
It’s the confusion in the public’s mind — not hers — that accounts for the distance she’s put between herself and her formative period. Alinsky’s thought has been badgered at the image level since the sixties. Say Alinsky and people think radical, that American word that now has a bad reputation.
Alinsky thought of himself as a radical in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, Thomas Payne. He personified the American theory of pragmatism in his commitment to power. “Whatever works to get power to the people, use it.” That didn’t mean violence but rather serious attention to matters of power. Pact the meeting. Fill the streets. Flood the office with post cards. If that doesn’t work, find something that does, including humor.
At one point to gain attention from the Chicago city council, Alinsky threatened to flush all the toilets at O’Hare airport at once. Before the toilet flushing escapade ever had a chance to happen, the city council gave in and granted some demands. Another time, in Rochester , New York , Alinsky had a fart-in at the Eastman Kodak Board meeting. A baked bean supper had been organized for participants. Alinsky was irreverent, but that was his only real bow in the counter-cultural direction. Hillary acquired Alinsky’s pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
Hillary met Alinsky through the pastor at her high school church, the Park Ridge Methodist Church . Rev. Don Jones, then youth minister at the parish and running a youth program called “ University of Life ,” took his youth group to Chicago to meet not only Alinsky but also King and many of the other leaders of the Civil Rights movement.
To understand how Hillary developed her skills as an activist we have to first understand her religious back ground. One of 110 young people confirmed at the church at age 11, she had an unusually rigorous religious preparation. It was public instead of personal. That simple shift in perspective was the key foundation for her, as a Goldwater activist throughout high school and the daughter of a Republican. It allowed her to have an open heart to the suffering she saw in Chicago . Very few youth groups traveled as far as the South Side of Chicago to find God or religious formation.
Hillary acquired Alinsky ‘S pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
That she did, under the auspices of Rev. Jones, made not only the introduction to Alinsky possible, it also meant that she could hear firsthand what he had to say in a context that probably spoke louder than his words.
The poverty she saw in Chicago surely became part of the source of this person who is now running for president. Alinsky interpreted poverty with one point of view — that it is due to the lack of power of the poor. Hillary probably doesn’t believe that as much as a less sinister interpretation — that the poor are poor because of bad government policies. This tension became the tension of her senior thesis, the tension of her genuine suffering about the poor, and probably will remain the tension of her life.
In a sense, she’s still in a conversation with Alinsky, who believed that the poor could be organized on their own behalf. Hillary Clinton still seems to believe that the middle classes can do things to make life easier for the poor, and that is the lever she pulls most often. Her decision about the best way to create change ultimately led her down a path that made her a senator; had she made the other decision — to organize the poor — she would not be in government, but rather in that place where she learned so much — the “streets.”
Religion moderated the decisions she made, particularly since it was based in the suburban world of Park Ridge . Alinsky himself was not a religious man, though he depended heavily on organized religious constituencies. In Sanford Horwitt’s biography of Alinsky, Let Them Call Me A Rebel, Horwitt suggests that at many different levels Alinsky “used” religious constituencies like the Park Ridge church to legitimize serious political action. In this way, Hillary — even as a girl — was used by the movement. She added her consent later.
Alinsky’s manipulation of both the poor and the church is the most often repeated accusation against him. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton’s exposure to his ideas took place in a relatively open setting, as a by product of the University of Life . Rev. Jones arranged a trip to a Chicago ghetto so that his youth could meet with a group of black youths who hung around at a recreation center. There the program consisted of teenagers describing their reactions to Picasso’s Guernica . The youths met several times and also read Catcher in the Rye together. For the young, Republican Hillary, the difference in reaction between suburban and city youth was a major eye opener. Once eyes like hers were opened, it wouldn’t take them long in the Chicago of that day to find Alinsky.
Alinsky frequently used similar methods of experiential education — what Paolo Friere calls the”pedago – guey” of the oppressed. Here the oppressed were the teachers of those who were not oppressed. It was vintage Alinsky, borrowed by a young seminarian. Here we see the reason she eventually left behind both Alinsky and the Sixties. Her experience taught her to go other places. That the Sixties, Alinsky and religious faith taught her to learn from experience is the deeper and more enduring social source of her behavior.
Rev. Jones told Donnie Radcliffe in Hillary Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time that his goal with the youth group was “not just about personal salvation and pious escapism, but also about an authentic and deep quest for God and life’s meaning in the midst of worldly existence.” Thanks to Jones’ emphasis on the public aspect of religion, Hillary had the chance to meet Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as Alinsky. Jones made arrangements for his group to meet King after King preached at the Sunday Evening Club in Chicago . With 2,500 other people at Orchestra Hall in Chicago , April 15, 1962, 15 year-old Hillary heard King preach a sermon entitled “Remaining Awake Through a Revolution.” To accuse her of taking this message literally would not be going too far. She has remained steadily fixed on a simple public theology and an alertness about political experience.
We unfortunately know very little about Jones’ cohort at the church, Rosalie Benziger, the Christian Education director. Surely she had prepared even deeper ground for the encounter with Chicago, Alinsky, King and poverty in the curriculum used during Sunday School. What we do know about Benziger is that she was concerned about the students’ reaction to the Kennedy assassination, and that she sent a letter to the entire 3,000 member congregation hoping that they wouldn’t begin finding Communists under every rock. “We knew that the children would be traumatized….” she had said. Benziger was right. These children were traumatized for longer than a generation. What’s significant in terms of Hillary Clinton’s development is that few Christian Education directors at the time reacted in this way, with a both political point to protect and a pastoral concern for children. The childrens’ safe world had been invaded by a larger life, and it would continue to be throughout the Sixties.
Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary ‘s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. The University of Life focused on living and on under standing experience as it came. As we know, this emphasis on experience did not mean that Sixties people shared a single viewpoint. There were serious splits among political and cultural activists. Alinsky’s own pragmatism caused him to express great disdain for the Dionysian aspects of the Sixties. He made his organizers wear ties. He kept enormous distance from the politically flamboyant aspects of the flower child movement. He was widely known as a drinker and thought of drugs as counter-culture in a ridiculous way. Alinsky was very patriotic, very pro-culture, and never really did oppose the Vietnam War. He stuck to local and domestic issues like glue and had nothing but derision for those who did not.
Any Sixties person can see some of these tendencies in Hillary. Back then she would have been considered very serious, a “straight arrow.” Alinsky would have excited these serious tendencies with his own equally serious attention to matters of strategy and tactics, and by his own serious streak, which was a red hot concern for the poor. “Poverty is an embarrassment to the American soul,” he said over and over again. That was probably his only religious statement and it was enough to make him serious allies with the church in Chicago and beyond. Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary’s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. Still, their fundamental antipathy to poverty would connect them, and finally cause him to be the topic she chose for her senior thesis.
Hillary Clinton and Alinsky disagreed over the issue of localism. She did not believe the local was a large enough context for political action. For a suburban girl who already had a national candidate (Goldwater), that viewpoint was not surprising. For the poor that Alinsky loved, even a few blocks was too much. There were aspects of her middle class up bring that shaped her under standing of Slinky and his ideas.
According to Allan Schuster, professor of Political Science at Wellesley , she chose her senior thesis topic because she had met Alinsky in high school and had heard him speak at a meeting she had attended in Boston . That meeting resulted in her organizing a demonstration in the town of Wellesley — something slinky himself would have done. He thought campus issues, which Hillary had been working on for some time, were silly. They were about the middle class, not about the poor. Hillary responded to this guidance positively. But eventually she found the town of Wellesley and the city of Boston too ”small” to matter to the poor as sites for change.
Clifford Green, then professor of biblical history at Wellesley College and now a professor at Hartford Theological Seminary in Connecticut , taught the bible course she was required to take in her sophomore year. His classes confirmed for Hillary the religious view point inaugurated by Jones — that faith had to do with life, not just with personal matters. Green remembers the surprise of the Wellesley girls that religion could be so public in its real meaning.
Weighing the two major influences on Hillary — religion and community organizing — her biographer Donnie Radcliff has it about right: religion probably meant more to Hillary than organizing. It was public religion that integrated the Sixties context and Alinsky’s focus on the poor and their suffering. The principle of public religion was also ratified by the Wellesley motto: Non ministrar sed ministrare (we are not here to be ministered to, but to minister unto). Taught early by Don Jones, sustained by Benziger, excited by King, challenged by Alinsky, Hillary Clinton was nursed by the Sixties city and the Sixties college to become a political activist with enduring power.
Schecter says that Alinsky recognized her talents as an organizer during the Wellesley period and offered her a significant position after college. He didn’t offer these jobs to many women, nor did he offer them without a serious, often disturbing assessment of the person’s abilities. Caesar Chavez is a well-known example of an Alinsky disciple, chosen and hewn by the master. But whereas Chavez bought the localism of the Alinsky method, Hillary did not.
Schecter also confirms Donnie Radcliffe’s belief that Hillary turned Alinsky down because her senior thesis convinced her that his methods were not “large” enough. She believed, according to Schecter’s interpretation of the thesis, that Alinsky’s tactics and strategies were useful at the local level, but that even if an activist were successful in local organizing, systemic policy matters on the national level would prevent actual power from going to people. She chose to work at the macro-level of law rather than the micro-level of community because of this analysis. Many Alinsky disciples acknowledge that this is a serious and frequent argument made against him.
Hillary Clinton went to law school in order to have an influence on these larger and more difficult issues. Her motivation may have been religious in that uniquely public way that Jones taught her. She was not satisfied with the “right personal faith” and was far more serious about finding a way to put that faith into action. The University of Life approach is what has remained. This way of learning from the street was also a fundamental aspect of Alinsky’s teaching. In this way, we can see that Hillary was influenced by a powerful mixture of experience and theory. Then the credentializing began. She may not have known just how much Alinsky hated lawyers, but he hated them with a severity that makes her career choice all the more interesting.
For a young woman to turn down this extremely macho man, and to stand against him in theory as well as in practice, is astonishing, particularly given the times and her young age. Her assertion to Alinsky that confrontational tactics would upset the kind of people she grew up with in Park Ridge , thus creating a backlash, was either naive or brilliant. He surely told her what he is reported to have said — “that won’t change anything.” It couldn’t have been said with respect. She apparently countered, “Well, Mr. Alinsky, I see a different way than you.”
Perhaps this exchange explains why so many people find Hillary too assertive and aloof. She emulates Alinsky in the seriousness with which she accepts her mission — thus embodying his best teaching — and at the same time she distinguishes herself with her own point of view. As Schecter pointed out, she understood early on that poor people needed not just participation, but also structure and leadership. That she thought Alinsky could not provide that is surprising, but that is what she thought at that time. To have much more political sophistication in an 18 year- old would have been scary. Her thesis concluded that “organizing the poor for community actions to improve their own lives may have, in certain circumstances, short-term benefits for the poor but would never solve their major problems. You need much more than that. You need leadership, programs, constitutional doctrines.”
That analysis ultimately led to law school and not back to the University of Life or to Alinsky’s streets. In extensive correspondence with Rev. Jones during college, she began the shift from Goldwater conservatism to a more liberal viewpoint. “Can one be a mental conservative but a heart liberal?” she asked him at one point.
One example in a real political context shows her legal and activist mind at work. Marshall Goldman, a Wellesley professor of Russian economics, suggested that students had mixed up tactics in boycotting classes. He wanted them to skip weekends because that was sacrificial. Hillary responded quickly in The Wellesley News, “I’ll give up my date Saturday night, Mr. Goldman, but I don’t think that’s the point. Individual consciences are fine, but individual con sciences have to be made manifest.” Not only do we see her rational and argumentative mind here, but also the nearly literal interpretation of public religion that has integrated her political action and her life.
In the speech she made at her Wellesley commencement, she quoted a poem by a fellow student, Nancy Scheibner, called ”The Art of Making Possible.” Hillary Clinton and Alinsky are fellow travelers here. The pragmatism of a politician joins the fundamentalism of a certain kind of true believer: this marriage is what has taken Hillary beyond her senior thesis. She does exactly what Alinsky would have taught her to do — to read, continuously, from experience. She also stays very close to what Jones and Wellesley would have her do — to express her faith in public action. Both politics and religion keep her safely in the Sixties realm and do so in unusual, personally appropriated ways. She moves beyond her senior thesis, but continues to put much of what she learned during that period into practice today.
http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/hillary-clintons-senior-thesis-about-activist-saul-alinsky/
The Hillary Letters: Clinton, Saul Alinsky correspondence revealed
BY: Alana Goodman
September 21, 2014 10:00 pm
NOTE: READ THE HILLARY CLINTON-SAUL ALINSKY LETTERS HERE.
Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.
Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.
Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beaconshow.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”
“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”
“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.
Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.
However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”
“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.
According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.
“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.
She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.
“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”
Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.
But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.
“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”
Harper told Clinton that Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals had been released. She enclosed several reviews of the book.
“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”
It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.
A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla tactics and civil disobedience to correct what he saw as an institutionalized power gap in poor communities. His philosophy divided the world into “haves”—middle class and wealthy people —and “have nots”—the poor. He took an ends-justify-the-means approach to power and wealth redistribution, and developed the theoretical basis of “community organizing.”
“The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” wrote Alinsky in his 1971 book. “Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when Wellsley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years. Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed “the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.” Clinton opponent turned Clinton defender David Brock referred to her as “Alinsky’s daughter” in 1996′s The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.
The paper was opened to the public in 2001. While the thesis is largely sympathetic to Alinsky, it is also critical of some of his tactics.
Clinton described the organizer as “a man of exceptional charm,” but also objected to some of the conflicts he provoked as “unrealistic,” noting that his model could be difficult for others to replicate.
“Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon suggest that Clinton experimented more with radical politics during her law school years than she has publicly acknowledged.
In Living History, she describes her views during that time as far more pragmatic than leftwing.
She “agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” Clinton wrote in her first memoir, but the two had a “fundamental disagreement” over his anti-establishment tactics.
She described how this disagreement led to her parting ways with Alinsky in the summer before law school in 1969.
“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote.
“Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”
A request for comment from the Clinton team was not returned.
Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/22/hillary-letters-clinton-saul-alinsky-correspondence-revealed/
Source: http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/
Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveal new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.
Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.
Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.” See Below!!
September 21, 2014 10:00 pm
NOTE: READ THE HILLARY CLINTON-SAUL ALINSKY LETTERS HERE.
Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.
Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.
Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beaconshow.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”
“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”
“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.
Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.
However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”
“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.
According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.
“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.
She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.
“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”
Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.
But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.
“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”
Harper told Clinton that Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals had been released. She enclosed several reviews of the book.
“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”
It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.
A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla tactics and civil disobedience to correct what he saw as an institutionalized power gap in poor communities. His philosophy divided the world into “haves”—middle class and wealthy people —and “have nots”—the poor. He took an ends-justify-the-means approach to power and wealth redistribution, and developed the theoretical basis of “community organizing.”
“The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” wrote Alinsky in his 1971 book. “Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when Wellsley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years. Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed “the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.” Clinton opponent turned Clinton defender David Brock referred to her as “Alinsky’s daughter” in 1996′s The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.
The paper was opened to the public in 2001. While the thesis is largely sympathetic to Alinsky, it is also critical of some of his tactics.
Clinton described the organizer as “a man of exceptional charm,” but also objected to some of the conflicts he provoked as “unrealistic,” noting that his model could be difficult for others to replicate.
“Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon suggest that Clinton experimented more with radical politics during her law school years than she has publicly acknowledged.
In Living History, she describes her views during that time as far more pragmatic than leftwing.
She “agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” Clinton wrote in her first memoir, but the two had a “fundamental disagreement” over his anti-establishment tactics.
She described how this disagreement led to her parting ways with Alinsky in the summer before law school in 1969.
“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote.
“Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”
A request for comment from the Clinton team was not returned.
Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/22/hillary-letters-clinton-saul-alinsky-correspondence-revealed/
Source: http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/
Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveal new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.
Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.
Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.” See Below!!
It's So Easy to be a Liberal
May 12, 2014
It would be the easiest thing in the world to come here one day and do what liberals do. You would be driven crazy. You would think about leaving this program. You would think I'd been co-opted. It would be the easiest thing in the world. The thing about liberalism I've always said is it's the most easiest, it's the most gutless thing you can do. It's so easy. You don't ever really have to do anything. You just have to act a certain way and say the right things and after that you can live any way you want.
You can be rich. You can mistreat people. You can fire your employees. You can deny them health care, but if you say the proper liberal things, you are inoculated. It's so easy. Victor Davis Hanson, you know, one of my favorite writers, National Review Online, has a very long piece that he published six days ago and I just found it. It was just brought to my attention over the weekend. None of this is gonna be new to you. You all know it. I just want to share with you the way Victor Davis Hanson says it. He's written about this before. He chronicles what he considers to be the eventual collapse of the left.
That's why I disagree with it. I don't see them collapsing. I see them living. I see liberalism expanding. I see it growing. I see it dominating more and more of our culture. I don't see it in decline at all. The country is, but liberalism isn't. But he believes that at some point it's all gonna collapse on itself, just like Reagan believed that the Soviet Union would collapse eventually of its own immorality. And what Reagan meant by that was that it was entirely possible the Soviet Union would cease to exist without having to fire a shot against it because it couldn't sustain itself.
Now, as a nation, he turned out to be right, but it required specific policy directions from this country to force that to happen. We just couldn't sit idly by and let it happen. Unfortunately now in our battle with the left, our elected leaders are just sitting around waiting for what they think will be the collapse of the left, either because of its own immorality or it can't sustain itself or what have you. But you have to force that. If you wait around for it to happen on its own... how long did it take for Rome to fall?
The Soviet Union would still be around if there hadn't been a Reagan doing what he had done with Star Wars, number of other things, and the pope, and Margaret Thatcher. It took a lot of effort to bring down the Soviet Union. It didn't take any shots being fired, but it took a lot of effort.
"Liberals: Exempt from Scrutiny." The piece is right on. And it ties in to much of what we have been discussing in the past couple of weeks of what liberals really believe. In fact, this was all started, the recent incarnation of this discussion was started by a very perceptive caller. I forget who. It was a young woman who made the point, and she went further than just pointing out they're hypocrites, 'cause of course they're hypocrites, but she said, you know, they do not live by their own -- her point was they don't really believe it. They don't really believe it, because they don't live it.
Now, their rank-and-file tries to live it, their nimrods, their bumpkins try to live it and force it on everybody else, but the powerful leftists do not live one shred of what they preach, was her point. And her point was they don't believe it. And I remember in talking with her, I said it was a little risky to say they don't believe it. I understood her point, and it's valid. And this is what Victor Davis Hanson addresses, exempting yourself from scrutiny by being liberal.
Here's some pull quotes: "Liberalism professes a leftwing ideology, but these days it has absolutely no effect on the lives of those who most vehemently embrace it. In other words, being liberal is professionally useful and psychologically better than Xanax, but we need not assume any more that it is a serious belief.
If I didn't know better I'd say Victor heard this woman on this program and got to thinking about it because it dovetails with her point. They don't really believe it. They just say it to inoculate themselves. And I think that's risky to think they don't really believe it.
"That rank-and-file liberals follow con men and women like Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren and Paul Krugman, turning a blind eye to their own extravagant, wasteful, high carbon living standards, while criticizing conservatives who live much more frugally has turned them from useful idiots to just plain idiots." Then he gets into the lie of the NAALCP because most of the abortions in this country are minority abortions, and yet some of the biggest pro-abortion supporters are African-American leftists.
But let's go back to this one paragraph. "The rank-and-file liberals follow con men and women like Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren and Paul Krugman, turning a blind eye to their own extravagant, wasteful, high carbon living standards while criticizing conservatives who live much more frugally has turned them from useful idiots to just plain idiots."
Well, they've always been idiots, useful or otherwise. The rank-and-file -- these nameless, faceless people that live on left-wing websites or these nameless, faceless people that are demanding that Condi Rice not be allowed to speak at Rutgers -- those are the people that he's talking about here. They're the blind-bat followers.
They believe it all.
Yet when they find out that Al Gore has three homes, two jets, and does not live one moment of his life in the way he prescribes, it doesn't matter. Al Gore is never held to the scrutiny. He's inoculated himself. He doesn't live what he believes. He lives quite the opposite. Elizabeth Warren is another case in point. She's not just in the 1%; she is in the top one-tenth of 1% in terms of wealth and income in this country.
She does not live the stuff she preaches. She's famous for the saying, "You didn't build that." But they don't live lives of austerity. They don't live lives saving the planet. They don't. I mean, they might have a Prius that they drive around in public on the way to the airport to get on the private jet. They might do things like that, but they don't live it.
They don't live in small, little houses using one roll of toilet paper a week. They don't have solar panels all over the place and only solar panels generating their utilities. But they're out there talking about it left and right. Now, he's got countless examples of this kind of thing. The point is that as long as you say the right things, you are inoculated. Inoculated by who?
Who has this power to inoculate people?
If liberalism is losing, like some people believe, where does the power come from to do away with Donald Sterling?
Where does the power come from to get rid of Condi Rice at Rutgers, if liberals are losing? Where does the power come from to get rid of Dr. Benjamin Carson as commencement speaker at Johns Hopkins of all places, the medical school graduating class? If liberalism is fading -- and if it's just these rank-and-file idiots who do not realize what their beloved leaders are doing -- where does this power come from?
Who are these idiots that are able to corrupt American culture?
Yeah, that caller was Jennifer in Lancaster, Ohio. I remember who it was. She was the one that got all this started, that they don't really believe all of this, but their rank-and-file do. The only reason Obama's talking about global warming today... It matters to like 8% of the country. Obama's talking about it because this big donor threatened to withhold $100 million.
His name is Steyer, S-t-e-y-e-r, Tom Steyer. He's a big Hollywood, hedge fund, movie, whatever, billionaire. Another pull quote from Victor Davis Hanson: "Both the Steyers and the Gores of our human comedy know that it is lucrative business to appear green, and that by doing so one can keep one’s personal life largely exempt from scrutiny in general and charges of hypocrisy in particular.
"For them, 21st-Century liberalism is a useful badge, a fashion not unlike wearing good shades or having the right sort of cell phone. ... Liberalism offers a wise investment for a politician, a celebrity, an academic, or a journalist, by letting him take out inexpensive insurance against a politically incorrect slip of the tongue.
"Donald Sterling almost achieved exemption by his donations to Democratic candidates and the NAACP and his trial-lawyer billions; he lost it by keeping his ossified Republican registration while being an old, sick white guy who said the sort of reprehensible racist things that one hears sometimes in bits and pieces from some NBA players."
So Sterling gets away with it for all that time. We've talked about that, but the question survives: Okay, well, who is it that's exempting these people? Okay, so Algore and Tom Steyer and whoever, all the rest of them, are buying insurance by saying liberal things. They are exempting themselves from scrutiny. Scrutiny from who?
Media? Okay, but who else?
Government? All right, but who else?
The government didn't get Condi Rice banned, or her invitation rescinded. Fifty irrelevant students at Rutgers made that happen, along with a compliant and probably frightened administration there. Now, my only point here again is that Victor Davis Hanson believes that all of this is so phony and so abnormal and dishonest that it is going to eventually collapse, and I wish that were true.
I've been waiting for that my whole life. I've been waiting for that for 25, 30 years. It doesn't seem to be happening. Liberalism seems to be winning. Every time you open your eyes, there is more cultural rot taking place. That's approved of, apparently, by these nameless, faceless, useful idiots who buy into all this. Be they low-information voters. Be they people that live on social media. I mean, who are these people?
Who started the Sterling thing, for example? I know TMZ played the video, but who was it that got mad about it? Really, I don't know. I'm asking, honestly. Did some individual do it? Where does the inertia for this stuff begin? And did Sterling step in it again with his interview with Anderson Cooper? They're not talking about this much.
But one of the things that Sterling said -- I don't know if you heard this -- was Magic Johnson is not a good example for children. While saying that he's not a racist, and while saying that all he wanted was some sex from this girl, he said, "Magic Johnson isn't a good example for children." Well, somebody is gonna get hold of that, a delayed reaction, and that's gonna offend somebody.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/05/12/it_s_so_easy_to_be_a_liberal
It would be the easiest thing in the world to come here one day and do what liberals do. You would be driven crazy. You would think about leaving this program. You would think I'd been co-opted. It would be the easiest thing in the world. The thing about liberalism I've always said is it's the most easiest, it's the most gutless thing you can do. It's so easy. You don't ever really have to do anything. You just have to act a certain way and say the right things and after that you can live any way you want.
You can be rich. You can mistreat people. You can fire your employees. You can deny them health care, but if you say the proper liberal things, you are inoculated. It's so easy. Victor Davis Hanson, you know, one of my favorite writers, National Review Online, has a very long piece that he published six days ago and I just found it. It was just brought to my attention over the weekend. None of this is gonna be new to you. You all know it. I just want to share with you the way Victor Davis Hanson says it. He's written about this before. He chronicles what he considers to be the eventual collapse of the left.
That's why I disagree with it. I don't see them collapsing. I see them living. I see liberalism expanding. I see it growing. I see it dominating more and more of our culture. I don't see it in decline at all. The country is, but liberalism isn't. But he believes that at some point it's all gonna collapse on itself, just like Reagan believed that the Soviet Union would collapse eventually of its own immorality. And what Reagan meant by that was that it was entirely possible the Soviet Union would cease to exist without having to fire a shot against it because it couldn't sustain itself.
Now, as a nation, he turned out to be right, but it required specific policy directions from this country to force that to happen. We just couldn't sit idly by and let it happen. Unfortunately now in our battle with the left, our elected leaders are just sitting around waiting for what they think will be the collapse of the left, either because of its own immorality or it can't sustain itself or what have you. But you have to force that. If you wait around for it to happen on its own... how long did it take for Rome to fall?
The Soviet Union would still be around if there hadn't been a Reagan doing what he had done with Star Wars, number of other things, and the pope, and Margaret Thatcher. It took a lot of effort to bring down the Soviet Union. It didn't take any shots being fired, but it took a lot of effort.
"Liberals: Exempt from Scrutiny." The piece is right on. And it ties in to much of what we have been discussing in the past couple of weeks of what liberals really believe. In fact, this was all started, the recent incarnation of this discussion was started by a very perceptive caller. I forget who. It was a young woman who made the point, and she went further than just pointing out they're hypocrites, 'cause of course they're hypocrites, but she said, you know, they do not live by their own -- her point was they don't really believe it. They don't really believe it, because they don't live it.
Now, their rank-and-file tries to live it, their nimrods, their bumpkins try to live it and force it on everybody else, but the powerful leftists do not live one shred of what they preach, was her point. And her point was they don't believe it. And I remember in talking with her, I said it was a little risky to say they don't believe it. I understood her point, and it's valid. And this is what Victor Davis Hanson addresses, exempting yourself from scrutiny by being liberal.
Here's some pull quotes: "Liberalism professes a leftwing ideology, but these days it has absolutely no effect on the lives of those who most vehemently embrace it. In other words, being liberal is professionally useful and psychologically better than Xanax, but we need not assume any more that it is a serious belief.
If I didn't know better I'd say Victor heard this woman on this program and got to thinking about it because it dovetails with her point. They don't really believe it. They just say it to inoculate themselves. And I think that's risky to think they don't really believe it.
"That rank-and-file liberals follow con men and women like Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren and Paul Krugman, turning a blind eye to their own extravagant, wasteful, high carbon living standards, while criticizing conservatives who live much more frugally has turned them from useful idiots to just plain idiots." Then he gets into the lie of the NAALCP because most of the abortions in this country are minority abortions, and yet some of the biggest pro-abortion supporters are African-American leftists.
But let's go back to this one paragraph. "The rank-and-file liberals follow con men and women like Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren and Paul Krugman, turning a blind eye to their own extravagant, wasteful, high carbon living standards while criticizing conservatives who live much more frugally has turned them from useful idiots to just plain idiots."
Well, they've always been idiots, useful or otherwise. The rank-and-file -- these nameless, faceless people that live on left-wing websites or these nameless, faceless people that are demanding that Condi Rice not be allowed to speak at Rutgers -- those are the people that he's talking about here. They're the blind-bat followers.
They believe it all.
Yet when they find out that Al Gore has three homes, two jets, and does not live one moment of his life in the way he prescribes, it doesn't matter. Al Gore is never held to the scrutiny. He's inoculated himself. He doesn't live what he believes. He lives quite the opposite. Elizabeth Warren is another case in point. She's not just in the 1%; she is in the top one-tenth of 1% in terms of wealth and income in this country.
She does not live the stuff she preaches. She's famous for the saying, "You didn't build that." But they don't live lives of austerity. They don't live lives saving the planet. They don't. I mean, they might have a Prius that they drive around in public on the way to the airport to get on the private jet. They might do things like that, but they don't live it.
They don't live in small, little houses using one roll of toilet paper a week. They don't have solar panels all over the place and only solar panels generating their utilities. But they're out there talking about it left and right. Now, he's got countless examples of this kind of thing. The point is that as long as you say the right things, you are inoculated. Inoculated by who?
Who has this power to inoculate people?
If liberalism is losing, like some people believe, where does the power come from to do away with Donald Sterling?
Where does the power come from to get rid of Condi Rice at Rutgers, if liberals are losing? Where does the power come from to get rid of Dr. Benjamin Carson as commencement speaker at Johns Hopkins of all places, the medical school graduating class? If liberalism is fading -- and if it's just these rank-and-file idiots who do not realize what their beloved leaders are doing -- where does this power come from?
Who are these idiots that are able to corrupt American culture?
Yeah, that caller was Jennifer in Lancaster, Ohio. I remember who it was. She was the one that got all this started, that they don't really believe all of this, but their rank-and-file do. The only reason Obama's talking about global warming today... It matters to like 8% of the country. Obama's talking about it because this big donor threatened to withhold $100 million.
His name is Steyer, S-t-e-y-e-r, Tom Steyer. He's a big Hollywood, hedge fund, movie, whatever, billionaire. Another pull quote from Victor Davis Hanson: "Both the Steyers and the Gores of our human comedy know that it is lucrative business to appear green, and that by doing so one can keep one’s personal life largely exempt from scrutiny in general and charges of hypocrisy in particular.
"For them, 21st-Century liberalism is a useful badge, a fashion not unlike wearing good shades or having the right sort of cell phone. ... Liberalism offers a wise investment for a politician, a celebrity, an academic, or a journalist, by letting him take out inexpensive insurance against a politically incorrect slip of the tongue.
"Donald Sterling almost achieved exemption by his donations to Democratic candidates and the NAACP and his trial-lawyer billions; he lost it by keeping his ossified Republican registration while being an old, sick white guy who said the sort of reprehensible racist things that one hears sometimes in bits and pieces from some NBA players."
So Sterling gets away with it for all that time. We've talked about that, but the question survives: Okay, well, who is it that's exempting these people? Okay, so Algore and Tom Steyer and whoever, all the rest of them, are buying insurance by saying liberal things. They are exempting themselves from scrutiny. Scrutiny from who?
Media? Okay, but who else?
Government? All right, but who else?
The government didn't get Condi Rice banned, or her invitation rescinded. Fifty irrelevant students at Rutgers made that happen, along with a compliant and probably frightened administration there. Now, my only point here again is that Victor Davis Hanson believes that all of this is so phony and so abnormal and dishonest that it is going to eventually collapse, and I wish that were true.
I've been waiting for that my whole life. I've been waiting for that for 25, 30 years. It doesn't seem to be happening. Liberalism seems to be winning. Every time you open your eyes, there is more cultural rot taking place. That's approved of, apparently, by these nameless, faceless, useful idiots who buy into all this. Be they low-information voters. Be they people that live on social media. I mean, who are these people?
Who started the Sterling thing, for example? I know TMZ played the video, but who was it that got mad about it? Really, I don't know. I'm asking, honestly. Did some individual do it? Where does the inertia for this stuff begin? And did Sterling step in it again with his interview with Anderson Cooper? They're not talking about this much.
But one of the things that Sterling said -- I don't know if you heard this -- was Magic Johnson is not a good example for children. While saying that he's not a racist, and while saying that all he wanted was some sex from this girl, he said, "Magic Johnson isn't a good example for children." Well, somebody is gonna get hold of that, a delayed reaction, and that's gonna offend somebody.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/05/12/it_s_so_easy_to_be_a_liberal
How the Progressives work the plan
Delphi Technique
The Delphi Technique — What Is It?
The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out." The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools.
A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.
The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".
Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.
The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process.
The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. S/He will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.
This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.
The Delphi Technique is based on the Hegelian Principle of achieving Oneness of Mind through a three step process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In thesis and antithesis, all present their opinion or views on a given subject, establishing views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their own views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, Oneness of Mind will supposedly occur.
The theory of the Delphi and the reality of the Delphi are, obviously, quite different — the reality being that Oneness of Mind does not occur but only the illusion of Oneness of Mind with those who refuse to be Delphi'd being alienated from participating in the process.
While proponents of education reform feel they are quite justified in this, the effect of this unethical manipulation of people is to create polarized camps. In an effort to maintain the process, advocates have marketed a plethora of publications (such as What's Left After the Right, No Right Turn and If You Don't, They Will) intended to label, castigate, and alienate anyone who does not go along with them. As a result, parents come to understand that their role in education reform is merely perfunctory; that the outcome is preset, that they are not but the rah-rah team so when opposition does arise, advocates of education reform can say, "we had community input."
To make sure that the situation is controlled, only those parents who agree with the process are allowed on the restructuring teams. New participants are carefully screened to ensure that education reform goes forward unquestioned.
If measurable opposition persists, advocates are told, get the local ministers on board. Take steps to neutralize, by whatever means necessary, the opposition. In some places, opponents have been harassed, both at home and on the job, personal property has been damaged and vandalized, people have lost their jobs. Anyone who does not go along with the restructuring of our society is susceptible to the totalitarian tactics of those promoting education reform – whether it be parents, teachers, principals, superintendents or board members. The need exists for advocates to maintain an iron grip on the process. They cannot, for instance, withstand open public debate of the issues. Therefore, they do not partake in public forums. They cannot withstand the criticism, so they close every avenue for parents to address the issues. They are rapidly creating, through their divisive tactics, a volatile situation. America is being torn apart.
Parents, citizens, teachers, principals, superintendents who are opposed to the new purpose being given our American education system need tools to withstand the process being used to bring it in — against the Delphi Technique and consensus which, through their basis in the Hegelian Principle, have Marxist connections and purposes.
First, no opportunity must be left untaken to expose this unethical, divisive process. Second, when this process is used, it can be disrupted. To do so, however, one must be able to recognize when the Delphi Technique is being used, and how to disrupt it.
With thanks to Sandy Vanderberg, Peg Luksik and others.
©March 1996; Lynn M Stuter
The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out." The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools.
A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.
The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".
Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.
The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process.
The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. S/He will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.
This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.
The Delphi Technique is based on the Hegelian Principle of achieving Oneness of Mind through a three step process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In thesis and antithesis, all present their opinion or views on a given subject, establishing views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their own views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, Oneness of Mind will supposedly occur.
The theory of the Delphi and the reality of the Delphi are, obviously, quite different — the reality being that Oneness of Mind does not occur but only the illusion of Oneness of Mind with those who refuse to be Delphi'd being alienated from participating in the process.
While proponents of education reform feel they are quite justified in this, the effect of this unethical manipulation of people is to create polarized camps. In an effort to maintain the process, advocates have marketed a plethora of publications (such as What's Left After the Right, No Right Turn and If You Don't, They Will) intended to label, castigate, and alienate anyone who does not go along with them. As a result, parents come to understand that their role in education reform is merely perfunctory; that the outcome is preset, that they are not but the rah-rah team so when opposition does arise, advocates of education reform can say, "we had community input."
To make sure that the situation is controlled, only those parents who agree with the process are allowed on the restructuring teams. New participants are carefully screened to ensure that education reform goes forward unquestioned.
If measurable opposition persists, advocates are told, get the local ministers on board. Take steps to neutralize, by whatever means necessary, the opposition. In some places, opponents have been harassed, both at home and on the job, personal property has been damaged and vandalized, people have lost their jobs. Anyone who does not go along with the restructuring of our society is susceptible to the totalitarian tactics of those promoting education reform – whether it be parents, teachers, principals, superintendents or board members. The need exists for advocates to maintain an iron grip on the process. They cannot, for instance, withstand open public debate of the issues. Therefore, they do not partake in public forums. They cannot withstand the criticism, so they close every avenue for parents to address the issues. They are rapidly creating, through their divisive tactics, a volatile situation. America is being torn apart.
Parents, citizens, teachers, principals, superintendents who are opposed to the new purpose being given our American education system need tools to withstand the process being used to bring it in — against the Delphi Technique and consensus which, through their basis in the Hegelian Principle, have Marxist connections and purposes.
First, no opportunity must be left untaken to expose this unethical, divisive process. Second, when this process is used, it can be disrupted. To do so, however, one must be able to recognize when the Delphi Technique is being used, and how to disrupt it.
With thanks to Sandy Vanderberg, Peg Luksik and others.
©March 1996; Lynn M Stuter
This is How the "LEFT" Thinks
Not to decide...is to decide. Friends we can no longer afford the time we spend to debate or not to act. Not to act, will surely mean the Constitution as we know and love it will die. The enemies of the document have absolutely chosen to decide that, they speak openly, publicly, and proudly of their intention.
THE 2020 CONSTITUTION
http://www.constitution2020.org/
http://www.constitution2020.org/sample_chapters
THE 2020 CONSTITUTION
http://www.constitution2020.org/
http://www.constitution2020.org/sample_chapters
Progressives Agenda http://teapartyhandbook.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-you-should-know-about.html
Liberal Activists at Work
Want to find out about some activist organizations? Here is a good link to look up Organizations, Foundations, Celebrities associated with them, and their Key Players. This site is a very complete reference site to do checks on most organizations and what they are actually doing.
http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/ http://www.activistcash.com/celebrities/
http://www.activistcash.com/foundations/ http://www.activistcash.com/key-players/
Guide to The Political Left - An Excellent Resource
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/
http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/ http://www.activistcash.com/celebrities/
http://www.activistcash.com/foundations/ http://www.activistcash.com/key-players/
Guide to The Political Left - An Excellent Resource
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/
Salvato: Progressives Rewrite Benghazi History in Real Time
About Progressives.....http://basicsproject.org/progressivism.htm
Read more http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1224
Read more http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1224
It is very important to read this section!! AND, this man below is WHY!
|
Backpack registrations and limits on sizes being recommended by Obama Administration. Also they want a backpack free zone around all high population centers like large cities schools and Universities.
“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing;everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.” — Saul D. Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, 1971 Take away the money and power from DC politicians. http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals |
Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.... Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.
"Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm ON THIS SITE: Hillary Clinton's 1969 Political Science Thesis ("There is Only the Fight") refers to an earlier version of Alinsky’s training manual. "In 1946,” she wrote, "Alinsky's first book, Reveille for Radicals, was published."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314 This link is full of very good info!
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/alinsky.htm
"Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm ON THIS SITE: Hillary Clinton's 1969 Political Science Thesis ("There is Only the Fight") refers to an earlier version of Alinsky’s training manual. "In 1946,” she wrote, "Alinsky's first book, Reveille for Radicals, was published."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314 This link is full of very good info!
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/alinsky.htm
http://www.wyomingwatchdogs.com/page24.html
http://www.redstate.com/drrobertowens/tag/progressive-agenda/
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL89C248F830C14BB2 video series . .
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20643434/obama-details-must-list-of-progressive-agendas-in-speech
http://contentcat.fhsu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/thesis/id/573/rec/46
http://www.juancole.com/2012/11/top-ten-wish-list-progressives-should-press-on-president-obama.html
http://www.slideshare.net/henrjt/the-progressive-movement
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/research/americanhistory/ap_progressive.php
http://www4.bluevalleyk12.org/bvhs/mklopfenstein/Apush_notes/Unit_VI/THE%20PROGRESSIVE%20ERA(post).pdf PDF book
http://www.freeessays123.com/essay18293/advanceoftheprogressive.html
http://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/the-progressives.html#.UW3DLaJ0WSo
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics
http://www.ushistory.org/us/42.asp
http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/progressive-era.cfm
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Progressivism-Roosevelt-and-Taft.topicArticleId-25238,articleId-25193.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1061.html
http://www.shmoop.com/progressive-era-politics/
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2013/04/communist-peace-movement-uses-their-friend-obamas-ecomonic-crisis-to-gut-us-military/
Declaring Dependence: Progressivism and Modern Liberalism http://wethepeoplehq.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/WTP_Vol1_Episode3.pdf
http://www.redstate.com/drrobertowens/tag/progressive-agenda/
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL89C248F830C14BB2 video series . .
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20643434/obama-details-must-list-of-progressive-agendas-in-speech
http://contentcat.fhsu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/thesis/id/573/rec/46
http://www.juancole.com/2012/11/top-ten-wish-list-progressives-should-press-on-president-obama.html
http://www.slideshare.net/henrjt/the-progressive-movement
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/research/americanhistory/ap_progressive.php
http://www4.bluevalleyk12.org/bvhs/mklopfenstein/Apush_notes/Unit_VI/THE%20PROGRESSIVE%20ERA(post).pdf PDF book
http://www.freeessays123.com/essay18293/advanceoftheprogressive.html
http://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/the-progressives.html#.UW3DLaJ0WSo
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics
http://www.ushistory.org/us/42.asp
http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/progressive-era.cfm
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Progressivism-Roosevelt-and-Taft.topicArticleId-25238,articleId-25193.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1061.html
http://www.shmoop.com/progressive-era-politics/
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2013/04/communist-peace-movement-uses-their-friend-obamas-ecomonic-crisis-to-gut-us-military/
Declaring Dependence: Progressivism and Modern Liberalism http://wethepeoplehq.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/WTP_Vol1_Episode3.pdf
http://www.pdfone.com/ebook/the-progressive-era.html PDF BOOKS Scroll Down the page to download books.
10Progressive Era.doc This link will download in a Word Document.
10Progressive Era.doc This link will download in a Word Document.
|
"There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court." ~Thomas Jefferson (letter to Wm. Johnson, 1823) |