Elana Kagan will be nominated in the morning to the open SCOTUS seat

theGringo said:
To The Final Conflict: Socialism In New York City, 1900 - 1933

PDF: http://www.redstate.com/erick/files/2010/05/kaganthesis.pdf

Draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...

I would love to. The link is broken so I went directly to RedState.com looking for it. It appears they demanded it be taken down. Check it out. This is from 4:46 today http://www.redstate.com/

Add:
This proves Elena Kagan is an open and avowed socialist. The woman declares that socialists must stick together instead of fracture in order to advance a socialist agenda, which Kagan advocates. 1

You can see for yourself right here (PDF). PULLED AT THE REQUEST OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY EXERCISING ITS COPYRIGHT RIGHTS.

Keep in mind that Kagan wrote her thesis at the height of the cold war praising a group that collaborated with our enemies


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.I’m getting blowback on this statement. When you couple Kagan’s thesis with her op-eds in the 80’s and her later work, I think it is a complete and fair statement. Look at the forest, not the trees.
↩
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yeah. Post it and I will host it on my servers. She's a public figure and that was academic work. The he'll she is going to hide behind copyright.[angry2][bs2]
 
Here are some pieces of it. The second to last one is the best.

...I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas...

...most historians have looked everywhere but to the American socialist movement itself for explanations of U.S. socialism's failure...

...the American socialists· "failure to build a movement that even resembled Sombart's idealized notion of a class-conscious party--a failure which they shared with most of their European counterparts--did not render their party any less significant. Nor did such a failure render their party any less successful...

[To explain why the] American socialist movement of the Progressive Era suddenly fell apart... we must turn to the internal workings and problems of the socialist movement itself.

...the dissolution of the Socialist Party resulted not from the walkout of the syndicalists in 1912 but from the infinitely more disastrous departure of the communists seven years later...

...[Early on] the [American] socialists divided into two camps: those of "constructive" and "revolutionary" socialism.

...the Russian Revolution set the spark to their long-smoldering rebellion, and the Socialist Party burst into flames. In 1919, the SP split into two, and the New York City communist movement emerged... by the last 1920's, the socialist movement in New York City was dead.

...The SP's first priority was to prepare for revolution than to work for reforms -- to bring ultimate salvation rather than immediate relief.

Conservative craft unions could not develop the unity and class consciousness that alone would lead workers to vote the socialist ticket. They could not compel a resistant capitalist class to accept an SP electoral victory. Nor could they prepare the workers for the administration of industry in the cooperative commonwealth. According to such left-wing leaders as Boudin and Slobodin, then, the socialists needed to do all in their power to set New York's unions on a militant path. If that meant interfering with some other "arm", so be it.

...Most historians have viewed World War I as an unqualified disaster for the American socialist movement...

[During the war] both local and national socialist leaders had taken their stand: they would condemn the war in the strongest terms... having formulated their policies, the socialists turned with rekindled enthusiasm to active propaganda work...

Leon Trotsky, living in New York..., urged the Socialist Party to adopt more daring tactics in its fight against the war. In particular, he suggested that the socialists publicy declare their intention to transform the international conflict into a civil one...

Finally, the Socialists began to hold mass meetings in Madison Square Garden, with audiences that even non-socialist newspapers estimated at some 13,000. Most often, the socialists simply protested the war's continuation, using arguments and rhetoric similar to those employed before the U.S. became a belligerent...

We are told that we are in war to make the world safe for democracy. What a hollow phrase! We cannot ... " force democracy upon hostile countries by force of arms. Democracy must come from within not from without, through the light.of reason and not through the fire of guns.

Prior to April 1917, the socialists had enjoyed relative freedom to oppose the war... however, the situation [then] changed considerably. The government prosecuted socialists; the police harassed them; crowds of hysterical citizens lent federal and municipal officials a helping hand. [Ed: Racist tea-baggers, I'd surmise]

...On June 15, 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which prohibited an person from willfully helping the enemy, inciting rebellion in the armed forces or attempting to obstruct the government's recruiting efforts... [Ed: sounds like the modern Democrat Party]

...[In 1919] the intra-party dissension that had built up for almost two decades came to a climax. In the wake of this battle, American communism was born... [which advocated a revolution in America]

[However] ...Revolutionary socialism... had never suited the conditions of American life, conditions which demanded a program with a "realistic basis."

...[The radicals caused the Red Scare, in which massive raids were launched by the authorities on revolutionaries]... The effects of the Red Scare on the communist movement were' nothing short of cataclysmic. Nationally, membershipship in the two communist parties decreased from an estimated 70,000 in 1919 to 16,000 in 1920...

...In 1933, the [Socialist-inspired labor union].ILGWU, along with many other formerly left-wing unions joined the mainstream of American political life by jumping on the New Deal bandwagon. These unions viewed the NRA both as a means of withstanding the depression and as an opportunity to recoup the losses they had suffered as a result of their struggle with the communists. To be sure, the NRA did enable the vast majority of these labor organizations to expand at phenomenal rates...

...There was, however, a price. In the pl:eek:cess.of ·endorsing Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the ILGWU ceased to be a radical oppositional force, with deep links to socialist politics and ideology...

Conclusion In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness... Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force?

...[America's] societal traits... a relatively fluid class structure, an economy which allowed at least some workers to enjoy [prosperity]... prevented the early twentieth century socialists from attracting an immediate mass following. Such conditions did not, however, completely checkmate American socialism...

...Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism... to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America.

...if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.

Source
 
Marcus in the Darkus said:
Why exactly does the fact that she's Jewish matter one iota?
Click to expand...

It does because a person's religion affects their world view.

You need to read some more history - persons of the Jewish faith have been omnipresent in Marxist, Communist and socialist movements around the globe. Kibbutzes (a socialist living arrangment) were very popular in Israel. Some of the most prominent members of Obama's administration - self professed socialists - are Jewish.

If you live in Massachusetts and have been paying attention - you should know that Jews spend a LOT of money supporting liberal causes.

I don't mean this to be "racism" or "anti-semitism" or any other "ism" that somebody who wants to squash the comparison will make - but it is certainly more than a coincidence.
 
I respectfully disagree. It's stereotyping to state that her religious upbringing or sexual orientation has anything to do with what kind of a judge she will be. Yes, I've read a lot of history, and I know that Jews tend to lean left, but she needs to be evaluated on her merits (or lack thereof), not on the basis that she's a Jew or (maybe) a lesbian.
 
I thought that Glenn Beck was getting a little "tinfoily" yesterday or the day before but I guess I was wrong. He was asking people to save (burn to cd's or any other means of saving digital media) all sound clips, vids, papers, etc. having to do with what's going on these days as far as anyone and thing to do with the .gov and the people that they associate with BEFORE it "gets scrubbed" from the net/web and send it to him. It's bad enough that the administration has blocked ALL media outlets from being able to interview Kagan (or anyone in her family). Even the a$$ kissing msm can't get to her. Something is very very WRONG with all of this. [hmmm] [puke]
 
Bill Katt said:
I thought that Glenn Beck was getting a little "tinfoily" yesterday or the day before but I guess I was wrong. He was asking people to save (burn to cd's or any other means of saving digital media) all sound clips, vids, papers, etc. having to do with what's going on these days as far as anyone and thing to do with the .gov and the people that they associate with BEFORE it "gets scrubbed" from the net/web and send it to him. It's bad enough that the administration has blocked ALL media outlets from being able to interview Kagan (or anyone in her family). Even the a$$ kissing msm can't get to her. Something is very very WRONG with all of this. [hmmm] [puke]
Click to expand...

It's got to be like teleprompter-boy....they fear what she'll say in open ended interviews.
 
calsdad said:
It does because a person's religion affects their world view.

You need to read some more history - persons of the Jewish faith have been omnipresent in Marxist, Communist and socialist movements around the globe. Kibbutzes (a socialist living arrangment) were very popular in Israel. Some of the most prominent members of Obama's administration - self professed socialists - are Jewish.

If you live in Massachusetts and have been paying attention - you should know that Jews spend a LOT of money supporting liberal causes.

I don't mean this to be "racism" or "anti-semitism" or any other "ism" that somebody who wants to squash the comparison will make - but it is certainly more than a coincidence.
Click to expand...

"A gangbanger who was Christian shot someone the other day. By God, we can't nominate any Christians to the Court." You're judging a person based on the actions of other people, which is absurd on the face of it.
 
zeppelinfromled said:
"A gangbanger who was Christian shot someone the other day. By God, we can't nominate any Christians to the Court." You're judging a person based on the actions of other people, which is absurd on the face of it.
Click to expand...


A gangbanger who shot somebody has an extremely tenous claim on being a Christian.


Sooo.....

"Muslim" terrorists - should now be called " terrorists from Yemen/Saudi Arabia/Iran/ et. al" ?? Because we can't equate their belief system with their advocacy of terrorism?

We shouldn't refer to people as "Nazis" any more , we should just call them "Germans"? Because their political (quasi-religious) belief system had nothing to do with their actions?

We shouldn't attribute the actions of the Khmer Rouge to their belief system? They were just a bunch of crazy Cambodians?

We shouldn't correlate a person's belief system with their actions in any way, shape, or form?


Is the belief system of a person an absolute indicator of their actions? NO.

Is the belief system of a person a potential "tell" of what their actions may be? Yes.



Socialism and Judaism has a long history - in this country and others:

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/12/29/tracing_socialisms_role_among_jewish_immigrants/

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history/Modern_History/1700-1914/Socialism/America.shtml

http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_left

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dw...CEwQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=jews socialism&f=false



Are there Christian socialists? Sure . Are there agnostic socialists? Sure. Jewish socialists seem to make a much bigger deal of their connection between Judaism and socialism however.

Then again - there are people of the Jewish faith on the other side of the coin too:

www.jpfo.org

I bet if you talked to most Jewish persons (in MA anyway ) - they would feel much more of an affinity for Kagan - then they would for the people who run JPFO.

And by JPFO I mean the pro-gun people NOT:

The JPFO is not to be confused with another JPFO, the Jewish People's Fraternal Organization, which was a section of the now defunct, pro-Communist International Workers Order.
Click to expand...
 
calsdad said:
We shouldn't correlate a person's belief system with their actions in any way, shape, or form?


Is the belief system of a person an absolute indicator of their actions? NO.

Is the belief system of a person a potential "tell" of what their actions may be? Yes.
Click to expand...



Describing a person based on their religion, and even saying that they did something because of their religion, is different than assuming that a person will do something because of their religion.

While I (obviously) agree that Jewish people in this country (and state) tend to be liberal, I think it's far from obvious that it's causation instead of correlation. My argument isn't with you assuming that she's liberal (as she obviously is). It's that I would say that she's liberal and she's Jewish, not that she's liberal because she's Jewish. Perhaps it's a minor point.
 
calsdad said:
It does because a person's religion affects their world view.

You need to read some more history - persons of the Jewish faith have been omnipresent in Marxist, Communist and socialist movements around the globe. Kibbutzes (a socialist living arrangment) were very popular in Israel. Some of the most prominent members of Obama's administration - self professed socialists - are Jewish.

If you live in Massachusetts and have been paying attention - you should know that Jews spend a LOT of money supporting liberal causes.

I don't mean this to be "racism" or "anti-semitism" or any other "ism" that somebody who wants to squash the comparison will make - but it is certainly more than a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Jews have also been on the receiving end of some of these *isms/*ist states so I am not sure the comparison holds water.

Marcus in the Darkus said:
I respectfully disagree. It's stereotyping to state that her religious upbringing or sexual orientation has anything to do with what kind of a judge she will be. Yes, I've read a lot of history, and I know that Jews tend to lean left, but she needs to be evaluated on her merits (or lack thereof), not on the basis that she's a Jew or (maybe) a lesbian.
Click to expand...

Yeah, her religion and her sexual orientation are exactly what this administration wants people to focus on, because it takes the attention off of the substance of her past and future judicial rulings/philosophies. For those who insist on carping about two things she can't change, keep it up. The one thing she has actually chosen (her beliefs) and that which will mean the most to us will fly right under the radar.
 
terraformer said:
Yeah, her religion and her sexual orientation are exactly what this administration wants people to focus on, because it takes the attention off of the substance of her past and future judicial rulings/philosophies. For those who insist on carping about two things she can't change, keep it up. The one thing she has actually chosen (her beliefs) and that which will mean the most to us will fly right under the radar.
Click to expand...

Don't forget her lack of experience.

Lack of experience - seems to be a theme in the Obama administration.
 
That college thesis is a little scary! At the end, in her words in the last few lines of the "conclusion", after explaining how the socialist party never emerged as a dominant political force in the US:

"The story is a sad but also chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America.....Yet if the history of New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In Unity lies hope."

This shows that she had a pretty progressive or radical viewpoint when she was a college student. I hope the questioning over her confirmation centers on if she has mellowed that viewpoint, or is still a staunch progressive/socialist. The founding fathers, who wrote the constitution, did NOT have that viewpoint, so it would call into question her ability to interpret the contsitution as written.

BTW, I don't see what her religion has to do with anything. Just so long as she is not a radical muslim wahabist, who cares?
 
Last edited:
Spanz said:
That college thesis is a little scary! At the end, in her words in the last few lines of the "conclusion", after explaining how the socialist party never emerged as a dominant political force in the US:

"The story is a sad but also chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America.....Yet if the history of New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In Unity lies hope."

This shows that she had a pretty progressive or radical viewpoint when she was a college student. I hope the questioning over her confirmation centers on if she has mellowed that viewpoint, or is still a staunch progressive/socialist.
Click to expand...

Let's see:

She was a progressive/radical in college.

She currently works for Harvard.

She is being nominated by Obama.

What is there in just those few facts that would lead anybody to believe she would be anything but what she has already put down on paper that she believes in?

BTW, I don't see what her religion has to do with anything. Just so long as she is not a radical muslim wahabist, who cares?
Click to expand...


If religion doesn't matter - then why would it matter if somebody was a Muslim? The liberals have been telling me that for years - all the religions are the same. Am I supposed to believe that?
 
I'm sure she believes in the SCOTUS decision, but she probably also wants to restrict it to single shot revolvers or something. I wouldn't trust her any father than I could throw her.
 
Jose said:
I'm pretty much a single issue voter and her stance on the Second Amendment is, for me, telling about her stance on other issues affecting my freedom from government.

Her religion and sexuality are immaterial even if they are different than mine.
Click to expand...

I tend to use the single issue of gun rights as a litmus test also. I am hopeful about her stance on the 2nd Amendment, but talk is cheap. I'd be more comfortable with her stand on that issue if she had a trail of pro gun judicial decisions to back it up. I'll just have do a wait and see.
 
terraformer said:
You're doing it wrong. You should have just profiled her as a socialist without verifying it... [thinking]
In all seriousness, this was clear and compelling evidence this woman believes in things the vast majority in the US do not. She need to be borked.
Click to expand...

Porked?!! Kagan needs to be porked?!!! Good GAWD man, do your self! Blechhh ...


Oh. Borked. (Never mind)
 

Similar threads

state police nipped this one in the bud: wonder what the legal outcome will be?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
It must be the influence of the drugs that gives lefties the creative ability to come up with these terms.
Replies
5
Views
195
murphcc1
M
who hunts the big bears in the u.s. and canada?
Replies
26
Views
438
chris_1001
chris_1001
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
732
Zappa
Zappa
Bumpstocks Legal - SCOTUS smacks down ATF, AGAIN!
Replies
2
Views
234
CrackPot
CrackPot
Back
Top Bottom