Saturday, June 21, 2008


How many times does Barack Obama have to lie before people start realizing that this guy isn't the man that he ,or the press, claims to be. How many lies does he have to tell before someone , somewhere calls him on it? I therefore present to you what I consider to be a major lie in regards to his relationship with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the '60s. In a debate on ABC he was asked about this and his response was :
George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow - somehow their ideas could be attributed to me - I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

First a little reminder of who William Ayers is. In the late '60's he was a founder of the radical group Weathermen who set over 20 bombs including one that went off in the Pentagon. No one was hurt but many important computers were destroyed. He and his wife and fellow member, Berardine Dohrn, were never charged in the bombings due to government misconduct. However Dohrn did recieve probation for aggravated battery and bail jumping. She also served a year for refusing to testify against another member of the Weatherman who was charged in an armed robbery. In an interview with the New York Times he was quoted as saying ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' The interview appeared on September 11, 2001. Yes,really. And here he is on the posing on the cover of a local Chicago magazine ..standing on the American flag: Kinda makes you all feel warm and fuzzy doesn't it?

Now back to what Obama said. His statement is entirely misleading. Barack Obama would have you believe that he and Ayers were simply neighborhood acquaintances. The Politico reported that Barack Obama went to the home of Ayers in 1995:

I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress," said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. "[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor." Obama and Palmer "were both there," he said.

Indeed, the relationship between Obama and Ayers runs deeper. In 1993 Philanthropist Walter H. Annenberg pledged 500 million dollars to a school reform initiative called the Annenberg Challenge . This is where William Ayers comes in:

When three of Chicago's most prominent education reform leaders met for lunch at a Thai restaurant six years ago to discuss the just-announced $500 million Annenberg Challenge, their main goal was to figure out how to ensure that any Annenberg money awarded to Chicago "didn't go down the drain," said William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers, who was at that lunch table in late 1993, helped write the successful Chicago grant application.

So in 1995 The Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund was created. They received 49.2 million dollars. Ayers and his two colleagues went on the form a "working group" that soon comprised over 70 members. But Ayers was a main figure in this working group as he himself says on his website:

Co-Founder and Co-Chair, Chicago School Reform Collaborative (The Annenberg Challenge), 1995-2000. Want to guess who the working group, which morphed into the Chicago School Reform Collaborative , picked to lead the the fund? That's right..Barack Obama was tapped to be the first Chairman of the Board of the newly created Chicago Annenberg Challenge fund. The working group went on to form the CSRC which acted as amongst other things a consultant to the fund.

Now , does Obama really expect us to believe that while serving as the chairman of the board of the CACF he had no contact with William Ayers? And what exactly did Ayers see in Obama to have selected him for this important role? Look at it this way..would Ayers have picked someone who holds MY views..or someone who hold views closer to his own?.If you know anything about these far-left radicals it's that they have very little tolerance for people who don't think like them. For example in 2006 Ayers traveled to Caracas, Venezuela to give a speech guessed here's some choice excerpts:

President Hugo Chavez, Vice-President Vicente Rangel, Ministers Moncada and Isturiz, invited guests,comrades. I'm honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout Northamerica. Welcome to the World Education Forum! Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana!

I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position-and from that day until this I've thought of myself as a teacher, but I've also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice. After all, the fundamental message of the teacher is this: you can change your life-whoever you are, wherever you've been, whatever you've done, another world is possible. As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!

Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and militarism - turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.

Despite being under constant attack from within and from abroad, the Bolivarian revolution has made astonishing strides in a brief period: from the Mission Simoncito to the Mission Robinson to the Mission Ribas to the Mission Sucre, to the Bolivarian schools and the UBV, Venezuelans have shown the world that with full participation, full inclusion, and popular empowerment, the failings of capitalist schooling can be resisted and overcome. Venezuela is a beacon to the world in its accomplishment of eliminating illiteracy in record time, and engaging virtually the entire population in the ongoing project of education.

Viva Mission Sucre!
Viva Presidente Chavez!
Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana!
Hasta La Victoria Siempre!

Is it not a legitimate question to ask whether the man who wants to be the next President of the United States shares these views?..Or is this simply the William Ayers that Obama didn't the Rev. Wright that he didn't know..or the Tony Rezko that Obama didn't know? I'm sure he'll have some excuse that his simpleton supporters will take on face value- But, not me!


Some good Obamology from Taranto today

Recycled below. See the original for links

Mrs. Obama and the Tuskegee Superstition

In February 2007, we noted a rare instance of agreement between this column and the New York Times editorial page. The topic was whether 11- and 12-year-old girls should be vaccinated for the human papillomavirus. HPV is sexually transmitted and is believed to cause 70% of all cases of cervical cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute, this year 11,070 new cases of cervical cancer are expected to be diagnosed, and 3,870 women are expected to die of the disease. Do the arithmetic: Had the HPV vaccine been administered to these women when they were girls, some 7,749 would have been spared cancer and 2,709 would have died later of some other cause.

"Social conservatives object that the vaccine will encourage promiscuity," the Times wrote last year, "but it seems farfetched to believe that protection from cervical cancer will change any girl's behavior." That seems right to us--and even if the vaccine has some marginal bad effect on sexual behavior, several thousand cancer deaths a year seems a high price to pay to avoid it. Even the Times editors thought cancer prevention an important enough goal to abandon their usual liberal keep-your-laws-off-my-body orthodoxy when it comes to matters gynecological.

Now, as blogger Tom Maguire notes, the subject of HPV vaccination has come up in a different context: yesterday's New York Times story about Michelle Obama's "subtle makeover." Maguire cites an anecdote from Mrs. Obama's work at the University of Chicago Medical Center, a story that, in Maguire's words, is "ludicrously presented as a sympathetic and positive story of her professional efforts":
She also altered the hospital's research agenda. When the human papillomavirus vaccine, which can prevent cervical cancer, became available, researchers proposed approaching local school principals about enlisting black teenage girls as research subjects.

Mrs. Obama stopped that. The prospect of white doctors performing a trial with black teenage girls summoned the specter of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment of the mid-20th century, when white doctors let hundreds of black men go untreated to study the disease.

"She'll talk about the elephant in the room," said Susan Sher, her boss at the hospital, where Mrs. Obama is on leave from her more-than-$300,000-a-year job.

This isn't the first time the Tuskegee experiment has come up during the presidential campaign. In April the Obamas' then-pastor, Jeremiah Wright, explained his belief that the U.S. government had invented AIDS as a tool of genocide against black people: "Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything."

The Tuskegee outrage was real. But the notion that the Tuskegee experiment--which began in the Jim Crow era (1932) and ended in 1972, eight years after the Civil Rights Act became law--reflects the attitudes of American governmental and medical institutions today is an urban legend, a superstition--and potentially a deadly one.

The Times's account suggests that girls in Chicago were denied potentially lifesaving vaccinations because Michelle Obama pandered to racial paranoia instead of standing up for the truth. Is that why they pay her the big bucks?

'Overheated and Amplified'

Fortune magazine reports that Barack Obama is publicly backing away from his stated opposition to Nafta, confirming the private assurances he reportedly offered Canadians that he didn't really mean it:
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Just words--just words!

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Just words!

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Just words!

"I have a dream." Just words!

"Only Barack Obama consistently opposed Nafta." Just words!

Obama as Bush's Heir--II

Barack Obama weighed in yesterday on the hunt for Osama bin Laden:
Obama said Wednesday he would bring Osama bin Laden to justice in a way that wouldn't allow the terrorist mastermind to become a martyr, but he may be killed if the U.S. government finds him.
"First of all, I think there is an executive order out on Osama bin Laden's head," the Illinois senator said at a news conference. "And if I'm president, and we have the opportunity to capture him, we may not be able to capture him alive."

There's an old poster out West, as we recall, that said, "Wanted: dead or alive."

Obama also complained about America's failure thus far to capture bin Laden:
"Osama bin Laden and his top leadership--the people who murdered 3,000 Americans--have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world," Obama said. "That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."

We're no fan of hate-filled audiotapes, but we prefer them to bombings and hijackings, which is what bin Laden and his cronies were doing before "the Bush-McCain approach."

Besides, those audiotapes are almost certainly protected by the First Amendment unless there is an imminent danger that they will incite someone to commit a crime. Doesn't Obama care about civil liberties?

Out of Wedlock, Into Lockup

The Chicago Defender notes a curious claim by Barack Obama in his Father's Day speech:
"We know that more than half of all Black children live in single-parent households. We know the statistics--that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison," he said, as his wife Michelle and two daughters listened from the front row.

We're certainly inclined to believe that the absence of a father makes a child likelier to run afoul of the law, but can it really be true that fatherless children are 20 times as likely to end up in prison but only five times as likely to commit crimes? That would mean criminals from intact families get away with their crimes three times as often as those raised by single mothers.


Obama hubris

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama: "I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States."

Whew. That's a relief. For a moment there, I thought Obama would embrace the policies of Jimmy Carter.

Oh wait. This fool - this naive twit - is talking about the Bush administration. How dare he? Obama has yet to make one important decision in his adult life. He coasted on good looks and charm. It helps to be connected to the Daley machine, the Loop radicals and the radical black church if you run for office in Chicago. He can eat at the adult table when he actually does something unpopular or even stands up for the rights of an opponent.

He does not want to be lectured? Few know-it-alls do.


Obama Regroups on Foreign Policy

Barack Obama, evidently stung by the fact that his statements on foreign policy have come across as naive at best, ignorant at worst, has gone looking for reinforcements in the form of a new team of national security advisers. The new team includes thirteen members, not counting the 41 retired admirals and generals with whom he also met today. Obama's media availability featuring the announcement of his "new team" took place before a backdrop of 17 American flags. That must be Obama's famous "nuance" at work.

Obama needed some new national security advisers, since he has had to distance himself from several of the original group. There are some good people among the thirteen--Sam Nunn, notably--but it is heavy on Clinton administration retreads and people with no foreign policy expertise at all, as far as I know, like Eric Holder.

The presence of the Clintonistas may account, in part, for Obama's determination to return to the failed policy of fighting terrorism with lawyers. Obama's most telling comment today was this:
Now, my approach is guided by a simple premise. I have confidence that our system of justice and that our traditions of rule of law are strong enough to deal with terrorists.

I have confidence that our system of justice is strong enough to indict terrorists, as we indicted Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and others. That's a far different matter from apprehending and punishing them, however, and--the important point--even when we succeed in punishing terrorists after the fact, law enforcement techniques are insufficient to prevent them from killing thousands of Americans. This isn't an opinion, it's fact proven by experience, as the September 11 Commission found.

Obama's prepared remarks consisted of a tirade against the "Bush/McCain" approach to counter-terrorism:
The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They're Osama bin Laden, Al Qaida, and their sponsors, the Taliban.

This is a strange thing to say. A number of those responsible for September 11 have been captured or killed, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh and others. Beyond that, the majority of al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured. As for the Taliban, they no longer control Afghanistan, and many hundreds or thousands of their fighters have been killed. So Obama, once again, has a very odd sense of what constitutes being "brought to justice." He appears to think that unless a terrorist has appeared before an American jury, he has gotten off scot-free. Obama's conclusion was the usual refrain:
[T]he record shows that George Bush and John McCain have been weak on terrorism. Their approach has failed. Because of their policies, we are less safe....

This is simply ignorant. As we argued here, it can't be denied that the Bush administration's policies have brought about a remarkable reduction in terrorist attacks against the United States. One can debate which of the administration's policies have been most instrumental in that success, but it can't be denied that, whether Obama and his new team of advisers like it or not, successful they have been.

It's going to take more than a photo-op with the likes of Madeleine Albright, a handful of retired military officers and seventeen flags to make Obama into a credible leader on foreign policy.


Barack Obama should swap Chicago for Phoenix

Obama was formed by the icy, socialist city. But the votes he needs are in John McCain's hot, conservative heartland in Arizona

The coming clash between Barack Obama and John McCain is, the pundits tell us, a struggle between two Americas: liberal and conservative; black and white; young and old. But it is also a confrontation between two very different cities - Obama's Chicago and McCain's Phoenix - and their richly opposing political traditions.

As Upton Sinclair so brutally, brilliantly chronicled in The Jungle, Chicago, Illinois - nicknamed the "Windy City" just as much for its politics as the icy blasts tearing off Lake Michigan - has long been a crucible for US socialism. Together with Philadelphia and Baltimore, it was the premier city of organised labour and radical activism in the late 19th century.

At times, this politics spilled over into violence: the origins of the labour movement's May Day celebrations are to be found not in Clerkenwell or the Left Bank, but in an 1886 riot in Haymarket Square that led to bombs being hurled, policemen killed and the execution of the left-wing ringleaders.

In the last century, Chicago became a bastion of the Democratic Party with its celebrated city boss, Mayor Richard J. Daley, securing the White House for John F. Kennedy with votes culled from the local cemeteries. As a city, it stands in the progressive European tradition - high-density living, mass public transport, strong public sector unions, a pioneering tradition of social work and an attractively cosmopolitan feel (with more Poles than Cracow). All of which has been masterfully chronicled by its unofficial laureate, Studs Terkel, the former communist blacklistee and godfather of American social history.

Yet modern Chicago's most famous resident is the talk-show goddess and Democrat stalwart Oprah Winfrey. For this is a city of stark racial polarities, thanks to Mayor Daley's 1960s zoning strategies that cordoned off the African-American community into vast "projects" to the west and south of downtown. And it was these wretched, ignored, unfunded ghettoes that provided the political base for Jesse Jackson, the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and then a young community organiser called Barack Obama.

For despite the Hawaiian upbringing and Harvard degree, it is the politics of Chicago that has dictated Mr Obama's thinking. His liberalism is not some East Coast effete affair, but a progressive, cosmopolitan street-savvy ideology that has emerged from his South Side activism: a belief in the power of the State; a strict adherence to racial, social and sexual equality; opposition to guns and the death penalty; a commitment to the capacity of church and community to change life chances; pro-Palestinian and, crucially, anti-war.

But Chicago is a complex, unexpected city. For not far from Obama's Hyde Park house stands the University of Chicago - a remarkable institution of terrifying academic rigour where I spent an industrious few terms as an exchange student. Once home to Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and the so-called "Chicago boys", it was the intellectual engine house of supply-side economics, free-market policies and what became the Reagan-Thatcher revolution. Every political principle the city of Chicago stood against roared forth from the university's iconoclastic economics faculty. And while such conservative nostrums were studiously ignored in Cook County, Illinois, they found a warm reception in John McCain's adopted state.

For in contrast to the unionised, left-wing milieu of Chicago, Arizona is the land of Barry Goldwater, less government is good government and a consciously Wild West, libertarian ethos. Joyfully, there are no motorcycle helmet laws in AZ. And if Chicago grew out of the European civic model, Arizona's capital, Phoenix, is a template for postwar US urbanism: born of the airline industry and air-conditioning (which made desert living possible), it is a sprawling megalopolis of low-density housing, car dependency, and monotonous strip-malls stretching into the xeriscape.

"There are no centres, no recognisable borders to shape a sense of geographic identity," writes the New York Times columnist David Brooks of Phoenix and its ilk. It is a polycentric universe where the rhythms of the day are orientated around drives to the shopping mall, gym, church or work. In contrast to the great railway stations and art galleries of Chicago, there isn't much downtown or inner city; few civic landmarks or historic signifiers. Through Phoenix's boomburbs, Wallgreen's follows Burger King follows K-Mart follows Starbucks. I lived for a year in this exurban terrain of freeways and drive-thrus and at least once a week I would get lost trying to find my home through the sprawling, anonymous cityscape.

As such, it is a profoundly individualistic terrain lacking Chicago's engrained social fabric of class, race or community. Instead, its churning cycle of new residents live out the American dream with no time for local taxes, planning laws or local activism (outside the often evangelical churches). Brooks celebrates Senator McCain's exurbia as "a conservative utopia" and it was these self-contained, often gated "communities" that delivered the White House for George W. Bush in 2004.

For if industrial cities such as Chicago were the breeding ground of progressive politics, exurbia represents the amorphous heartland of modern conservatism. A study by The Los Angeles Times revealed that 97 of the 100 fastest-growing communities in America supported President Bush, providing him with a decisive 1.72 million vote advantage over John Kerry. Unfortunately for Mr Obama, this conservative majority has grown, thanks to hundreds of thousands of Americans moving from the cold northern states to the southwest sunshine of Las Vegas, Arizona and Colorado - and bringing with them a remarkable fertility rate.

Those decamping to the zoomburbs are choosing to buck the US birthrate by consciously raising large families. Who then vote Republican. According to analysis by Steve Sailer in The American Conservative, the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates went Republican in 2004. John Kerry, on the other hand, carried the 16 states with the lowest rates of conception.

So here is Mr Obama's urban conundrum. For all his love of metropolitan, liberal Chicago, it is grumpy old John McCain's Phoenix that represents the psephological future. And sooner or later, Mr Obama will have to join those tens of thousands of his Illinois compatriots swapping the icy winds of downtown Chicago for the sprawling embrace of metropolitan Phoenix, "Valley of the Sun". His future job depends on it.


Change We Can Believe In

You'd better believe it. Senator Obama and his supporters dislike traditional Americanism, preferring the Darwinian doctrine of evolutionary change expressed in moral relativism. Senator Obama's army of followers are energized by inexperienced and immature students and by Baby Boomer anarchists eager to relive their activist days of the 1960s and 70s. They stand opposed to the historical traditions of the United States. Theirs is a world in which change is equated with sensual self-indulgence.

Underlying this vision of change is Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis, applied to politics and social interaction by John Dewey in the early 20th century. Dewey taught Columbia University students that Darwin's idea of evolution applied to morality as well as biology. This meant, said Dewey, that there can be no such thing as timeless principles of morality. Rules of social conduct are continually undergoing evolutionary change. All that matters is action that gets you what you want.

This is moral relativism, the rationalization for Senator Obama and his followers arrogating to themselves the right to change society's standards of acceptable behavior. "Bringing us together" in Senator Obama's terms means that traditionalists must conform to the ever-changing social standards of left-wing liberal-progressives.

Senator Obama's social change amounts to Hollywood's and mainstream media's beloved drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, marital infidelity, rampant divorce rates, fathering and abandoning children to single-parent upbringing, murder by abortion to facilitate sexual promiscuity, and same-sex marriage, all undermining the traditional family as the basic unit of society.

In this view, breakdown of traditional morality is liberation of the individual. It stands in contrast to the nation's founding Judeo-Christian understanding that such conduct is sinful defiance of God's Word and that sin is bondage and death.

In classic socialistic doctrine, we must abandon traditional loyalties and find our life's meaning in the collectivist society. We must become Lenin's New Soviet Man, taking only what we need and contributing whatever we have to the political state. Supporting that doctrine, Senator Obama stands firmly behind affirmative action, confiscatory taxes, and expansion of the welfare state to restructure society in conformity with the liberal-progressive-socialist vision of social justice.

Senator Obama's foreign policy rests upon an abstract intellectual concept called the community of nations. The Senator and his followers are eager to change our Constitution and to replace it with a one-world government under the UN, or some other subsidiary of the Socialist International. Hence the rejection of military power to protect our national interests and the naive vision of a changed world in which property and wealth are redistributed equally, a world in which everyone magically will thereafter have the same attitudes and aims, and a world in which Senator Obama's oratory will persuade lions to lie down in peace with lambs.

Those views descend from the 1960s Baby Boomers of Tom Hayden's Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the bomb-throwing bank robbers and murderers of the Weatherman underground, led in the 1970s by Senator Obama's friends and political backers Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. His fascination with those models led to the Senator's initial foray into politics as an SDS type of community organizer, working with Saul Alinsky to foment demands by welfare "clients" for increased handouts from taxpayers.

The bedrock of SDS and Weatherman belief was that ills of the world result from the twin evils of Judeo-Christian morality and economic laissez-faire. This paradigm derived from the 18th century French Revolutionary doctrine that saw private property rights, Christianity, and aristocratic privilege as the only things standing in the way of earthly social perfection.

French revolutionaries gave us the Reign of Terror: murder of more than 70,000 French citizens in the name of the Revolution. In the 1960s and 1970s, Baby Boomers took to the streets and college campuses, as Weatherman put it, to bring the Vietnam War home, ice a few pigs, kill their parents, and destroy Amerika. To that end they resorted to bank robberies, bombings, and murders of co-workers and innocent bystanders.

Liberal-progressive-socialists rationalized this violent destructiveness on a cold-blooded theoretical plane, as they had Stalin's mass murders in the 1930s. The perpetrators, they said, were driven to it by the criminal nature of traditional American society. Violence to combat the evils of spiritual religion, moral codes, and capitalist individualism was justified.

Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1962 issued the Port Huron Statement, its version of the Communist Manifesto. In language that would fit neatly into Senator Obama's standard stump speech, Tom Hayden, Hanoi Jane Fonda's first husband, wrote:
...can we live in a different and better way? if we wanted to change society, how would we do it?..."

The decline of utopia and hope is in fact one of the defining features of social life today..."

We would replace power rooted in possession, privilege, or circumstance by power and uniqueness rooted in love, reflectiveness, reason, and creativity...

In a participatory democracy, the political life would be based in several root principles: that decision-making of basic social consequence be carried on by public groupings;

that politics be seen positively, as the art of collectively creating an acceptable pattern of social relations;

The economic sphere would have as its basis the principles:

...that the economic experience is so personally decisive that the individual must share in its full determination;

that the economy itself is of such social importance that its major resources and means of production should be open to democratic participation and subject to democratic social regulation...

3. A new left must consist of younger people who matured in the postwar world, and partially be directed to the recruitment of younger people. The university is an obvious beginning point.

4. A new left must include liberals and socialists, the former for their relevance, the latter for their sense of thoroughgoing reforms in the system. The university is a more sensible place than a political party for these two traditions to begin to discuss their differences and look for political synthesis.

5. A new left must start controversy across the land, if national policies and national apathy are to be reversed. The ideal university is a community of controversy, within itself and in its effects on communities beyond...

The bridge to political power, though, will be built through genuine cooperation, locally, nationally, and internationally, between a new left of young people and an awakening community of allies...

Never lose sight of the historical fact, however, that this lovey-dovey world of SDS and Senator Obama, called participatory democracy by socialists, necessitates the subordination of individual rights to the collective good. And the collective good is always defined by liberal-progressive-socialist leaders. It is the sort of democracy in which the Soviet Politburo could be regarded as speaking for the democratic will of the people.