“William Ayers’ forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire”

Here is the link.

You can buy it on Amazon.com.

“They presented themselves not as socialists, but as left-leaning and progressive”

I like Ann Althouse’s blog It is one of the first blog I read. I liked the connection to Wisconsin and Madison and especially the photos of my old campus.

But this is silly:

In any case, I don’t think it’s right to call the New Party “socialist.” I remember this party. One of the founders was UW lawprof Joel Rogers. They presented themselves not as socialists, but as left-leaning and progressive. I realize that for right wingers that counts as “socialist,” but let’s not be inflammatory.

In Milwaukee, the party was filled with people from various Marxists parties and the Socialist Party USA. Basically, they wanted to have more of an impact then the Marxist and Socialist. Hence the “New”.

Her readers call her out on it in the comments:

Unfair only if one changes what the word socialist means.
[…]
I don’t see what that article does other than confirm that the New Party was, in fact, socialist. They want socialism, but the founder’s defense against being called socialist is that they don’t give the state as much weight as socialists. You can’t enact all of that progressive garbage without the force of the state, so his defense is an empty one.
[…]
“international workers right” come on Ann. Especially you should see through the lingo here.
[…]
What are the policy and social positions that -Socialists- have that Progressives and The New Party don’t?
[…]
A progressive tax system based on the ability to pay. “

From each according to their means.

“A Bill of Rights for America’s Children, guaranteeing true equality of opportunity by providing equal access to comparable education, health care, nutrition, housing, and safety…. Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal “social wage” to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity.”

To each according to their needs.

“The New Party believes that the social, economic, and political progress of the United States requires a democratic revolution in America — the return of power to the people. Our basic purpose — reflected both in our own governance and in our aspirations for the nation — is to make that revolution happen.”

Viva la revolucion!
[…]
In fact, I think the only way that would be more accurate to describe the New Party than socialist would be to call them Marxist.
[…]
I’ve researched the NP, and I believe it to be entirely fair to describe them as socialist at best. The Chicago chapter, in particular, was a hotbed of outright communists, the type of people for whom “socialist” was a conservative tag.
[…]
At the very least, Obama does not hold capitalist views or ideals.

And so on.

Update: The Powerline blog has recovered scrubbed early web pages where the New Party claims him from 1996.

Anti-Americans

In Which I defend Rev. Wright (only a little bit)…

There has been a bit made (e.g. here) about recent written comments of Obama‘s Rev. Wright – though the original seems to have since been removed.

I strangely feel compelled two defend Wright on two points:

1) By saying “Italians“, he was clearly referring to Romans of the time of Jesus.

2) Metaphorically linking lynching (rather, the popular image of a dead lynched person handing from a tree for all to see) to crucifixion (giving it a more contemporaneous spin) is quite clever.

Note, I do find “black liberation theology” to be crap and have ever since I ran into it in college.

Hmm…reading his wikipedia entry…how does an enlisted PFC in his his first hitch transfer from the Marines to the Navy? That’s sounds odd.

Link: Tracking Obama-as-Messiah

Here is the link.