In the beginning there was a contradiction...

Cross posted from The Weekly Standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/052qjwiv.asp?pg=2 Right about Obama The latest Jeremiah Wright episode tells us a lot about his former parishoner. by Matthew Continetti 05/12/2008, Volume 013, Issue 33 Last week's highly entertaining episode of the Jeremiah Wright Show didn't tell us anything new about the demagogic reverend. He stands by his sick notion that American foreign policy and jihadist terrorism are equivalent, his defense of Louis Farrakhan, and his wacky conspiracy theory that the AIDS virus was cooked up by the federal government. But we did gain a new perspective on Wright's former parishioner, Senator Barack Obama. And it's not flattering. It took the Democratic frontrunner 20 years--and 50 days since videos surfaced of Wright's incendiary sermons--to discover that the man who helped him become a Christian, officiated at his marriage, and baptized his two daughters is a conspiracy theory-loving self-publicizer. What does that say about Obama's "judgment," on which he largely bases his claim to the presidency? Worse, one of the main reasons for Obama's unequivocal split from Wright had nothing to do with the reverend's hateful ideology. You see, Wright had the temerity to suggest that Barack Obama is just another pol. "What I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciations of his remarks were somehow political posturing," Obama said. This only confirms Obama's reputation for being thin-skinned and self-absorbed. Go ahead and count the "I"s and "my"s in this passage from his news conference: In some ways, what Reverend Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything that I've done during my life. It contradicts how I was raised and the setting in which I was raised. It contradicts my decisions to pursue a career of public service. It contradicts the issues that I've worked on politically. It contradicts what I've said in my books. It contradicts what I said in my convention speech in 2004. It contradicts my announcement. It contradicts everything that I've been saying on the campaign trail. Obama's problem is that Reverend Wright is the same as he's always been. Indeed, during the first sermon Obama ever heard Wright deliver, the reverend spoke of a planet where "white folks' greed runs a world in need." Didn't that contradict how Obama was raised? Why wasn't he "outraged" then? In 2007 Reverend Wright referred to the "United States of White America" in one sermon and later presented a lifetime achievement award to Farrakhan. Didn't that run against "everything" that Obama had been saying on the campaign trail? Yet that year the Obamas gave more than $25,000 to Wright's church. Talk about contradictions. It's not Wright but Obama who has changed. He has changed his position on his former friend time and time again: *  "These days, [Obama] says, he attends the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity .  .  . every week. .  .  . His pastor, Wright, has become a close confidant." (Chicago Sun-Times, April 5, 2004) *  " 'Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church.' " (Obama campaign statement reported in the New York Times, April 30, 2007) *  "[Wright] is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things I don't agree with." (February 25, 2008) *  "I don't think that my church is actually particularly controversial." (March 2, 2008) *  "I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community." (March 18, 2008) *  "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday. .  .  . The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago." (April 29, 2008) What is going on here? There are only two possible answers. One is that Obama has had a revelation. He says he gave Wright the "benefit of the doubt" until he watched the April 28 performance at the National Press Club. That shocked his conscience. The scales fell from his eyes. But at the press club, Wright was simply repeating things that have been on cable news for weeks--statements that Obama said previously were a "caricature" of an otherwise impressive man. The difference between then and now is that Wright has "amplified" those statements--thus inconveniencing Obama. The other answer is that Wright is correct. Obama is doing whatever it takes to appeal to 51 percent of the population in any given place at any given time. Early on in Chicago, an association with Wright gave Obama cachet in the community. Now that association is undermining his presidential candidacy. Therefore it must end. Needless to say, this isn't the best message for someone running on a platform of "change." Which is why Obama has called the Wright affair a "distraction." It is anything but. In his own way, Wright has done his country a favor. He has deflated the balloon that was Obamamania. He has exploded the pretense that Barack Obama is somehow different from all the other talented, flawed, ambitious, vainglorious men and women who have sought the presidency. --Matthew Continetti, for theEditors © Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

multiculturalism ? How 'bout the big 'C' - Communism

Apr 21, 2008

Cross posted from http://www.churchillsparrot.com/

At Least Marx Had Integrity

Granted Karl Marx was a bitter, self-loathing, misanthrope, half-crazed with envy and his own depraved world view, but at least he had integrity. When advocating the implementation of his beloved communism, for instance, he made no attempt to sugar coat what would be required:

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property…”

While not quite promising the mass imprisonment, terror, and murder this process would necessitate, one can pretty much surmise as much from this and other such statements in Marx’s Communist Manifesto.

Today’s communists, however, are far more image savvy, realizing that having brought about the slaughter and ruin of millions upon millions of innocent human beings, collectivist ideologies can prove a tough sell. So a bit of Madison Avenue re-packaging has been done.

The sinister moniker of “communism” and the slightly less ominous “socialism” have been replaced with the sunny, “Progressivism.” Instead of wild-eyed ravings about the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, and oppressive class antagonisms, they opt for more lyrical terms such as “social justice”, and “multiculturalism.” Instead of Marx’ chilling but unmistakably clear rhetoric: “The theory of the communist can be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property”, Progressive’s prefer less confrontational terminology like “sustainable global community” and “promote the equitable distribution of wealth within and among nations.” And instead of presenting their collectivist demands to the world via a bellicose “Manifesto”, the Progressives are soft peddling theirs surreptitiously with the aid of the United Nations by means of a poetic and enchanting “Earth Charter.”

A masterpiece of abstruse, feel-good, New Age, leftist pappery, the seemingly innocuous Earth Charter is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or more accurately a Bear in dove’s feathers. In short, the Earth Charter is nothing less than a call for the establishment of a supranational governing authority to dictate the production and distribution of wealth according to ill-defined and arbitrary “principles of sustainability.” Indeed, at its crescendo, the charter declares:

“In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.”

Beyond this obedience, the nations of the world (but mostly the United States) are also to disarm themselves to the satisfaction of these same arbitrary principles:

* Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.
* Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration.
*Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
*Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.

Anyone possessing the slightest knowledge of human liberty, the brutal state-sponsored assaults upon it throughout the twentieth century, and the threats it faces in the twenty-first ought be chilled to the bone at such a statement. Yet, despite the best efforts of Conservative watchdogs and pundits (see excellent analyses here, here, here, and here) the Earth Charter continues to grow in both influence and endorsement. Numerous groups and organizations, from The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNESCO; to the U.S Conference of Mayors; to sweet little nuns across North America have thrown their hats and habits into the ring in support of this insidious fraud.

This is due largely to the standard pathologies of contemporary society: “Go-Green” bandwagonism, mindless pacifism, lack of serious consideration of what implementation of the Earth Charter would actually require, and – of course – ignorance of history. But more than all this, the Earth Charter’s advance is due primarily to the shrewd advocacy and network building of its weighty founders.

The Earth Charter is the brainchild (i.e. Frankenstein) of he-of-the-unfortunate-birthmark: former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. He is not alone. Joining Gorby in creating and infusing this doctrine is Canadian billionaire socialist Maurice Strong , and American socialist billionaire Steven Rockefeller of the inimitable Rockefeller Brothers Fund, (Mr. Rockefeller also serves on the Board of billionaire socialist, George Soros’, the Soros Economic Development Fund. It is difficult to imagine Mr. Soros does not have his slimy hands all over this initiative as well.)

But unfortunate bed fellows and ominous warnings from wingnut neo-con reactionaries such as ourselves are insufficient to counter the somnambulistic effects of the Earth Charter’s Phil Collins-meets-Walt Disney language. Very well then. We encourage one and all to read the essays of the Earth Charter’s founders and supporters themselves, for no more damning evidence can be found that this movement is a very real threat to human dignity, liberty, and well-being. (Well actually it can. But this is a good place to start.)

For our own part, we provide the following analysis, which brings us back to our friend Karl Marx.

Echoes of Marx

In the Marxist tradition, we have taken it upon ourselves to confiscate the intellectual property of the Earth Charter and reorganize it as we bloody well please; in this case according to Marx’s "Ten Measures" by which the communists will “wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie” and “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.” We believe, even a brief perusal of the following will make clear the chilling degree to which the Earth Charter “principles” resonate with Marx’s vision and his prescription for implementing it. .

MARX MEASURE #1: ABOLITION OF PROPERTY IN LAND AND APPLICATION OF ALL RENTS OF LAND TO PUBLIC PURPOSES.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

· Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.

· We affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.


MARX MEASURE #2: A HEAVY PROGRESSIVE OR GRADUATED INCOME TAX.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.

· Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.

· Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

· Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· Secure Earth's bounty and beauty for present and future generations.

· Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.

· Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

· Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm

· This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility.

· we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals

· Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

· We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.

· To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world.

· it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

· The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening.

· we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

· Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth's human and ecological communities.

· provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

MARX MEASURE #3: ABOLITION OF ALL RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

· Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world.

· Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.

· Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision.

MARX MEASURE #4: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

· Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

· To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world.

· a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

· Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.

· Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

· Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.

· Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.
· Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.

· Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.

· Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

· Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of sustainable livelihoods.

· Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.

· Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independent judicial procedures, including remedies and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such harm.

· Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

· Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged, or avoidable suffering.

· Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted species.

· This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally.

· This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play.

· In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

MARX MEASURE #5: CENTRALIZATION OF CREDIT IN THE BANKS OF THE STATE, BY MEANS OF A NATIONAL BANK WITH STATE CAPITAL AND AN EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY.
Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards

· Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.

· Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

· To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

· The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth's vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.

· The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

· The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life.

· Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.

· We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

· To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities.

· We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world.

· we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

· Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

· Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.

· Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies.

· Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

· Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.

· Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing nations.

· Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.

· Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.

· This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally.

· Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play.

MARX MEASURE #6: CENTRALIZATION OF THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORT IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community.

· Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth's human and ecological communities.

· Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.

· Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.

· Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.

· Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.

· Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing nations.

· Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom in all cultures that contribute to environmental protection and human well-being.

· Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection, including genetic information, remains available in the public domain.

· Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

· Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.

· Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information on environmental matters and all development plans and activities which are likely to affect them or in which they have an interest.

· Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.

· Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.

· Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.

· Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges.

· Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.

· Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.

· We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.

MARX MEASURE #7: EXTENSION OF FACTORIES AND INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTION OWNED BY THE STATE; THE BRINGING INTO CULTIVATION OF WASTE LANDS, AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE SOIL GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMMON PLAN.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

(See entire Earth Charter!)

· Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.

· Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

· Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.

· We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community.

· To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

· We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment.

· Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.

· Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations

· Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.

· Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

· Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative problem solving to manage and resolve environmental conflicts and other disputes.

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.

· Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

· Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.

· Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

· To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities.

· Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.

· Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage.

· Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.

· Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.

· Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.

· Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.

· Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.

· As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter.

MARX MEASURE #8: EQUAL OBLIGATION OF ALL TO WORK. ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ARMIES, ESPECIALLY FOR AGRICULTURE.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

· Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.

· Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.

· Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and enable them to develop their capacities and to pursue their aspirations.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.

· Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic, political, civil, social, and cultural life as full and equal partners, decision makers, leaders, and beneficiaries.

· Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfill their essential role in creating sustainable societies.

· Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.

· Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the meaningful participation of all interested individuals and organizations in decision making.

· Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

· We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

· The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air.

· The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.

· The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

· To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.

· We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

· We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally.

· Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.

· In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

· We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally.

· In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

MARX MEASURE #9: COMBINATION OF AGRICULTURE WITH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES; GRADUAL ABOLITION OF ALL THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TOWN AND COUNTRY BY A MORE EQUABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULACE OVER THE COUNTRY.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.

· Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

· Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.

· Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.

· Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.

· Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.

· Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

· Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

· Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.

· Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

· To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.

· The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

· Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part.

MARX MEASURE #10: FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. ABOLITION OF CHILDREN'S FACTORY LABOR IN ITS PRESENT FORM. COMBINATION OF EDUCATION WITH INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, ETC.

Corresponding Earth Charter Happy-Speak

· Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.

· Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

· Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.

· The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.

-----------------
In conclusion, we call to your attention one particular Earth Charter “principle” - under Section II. Ecological Integrity – which, for its deliberate lack of specificity, we find especially distressing:

Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.

Given the tone and rhetoric of so many of this warmed-over manifesto’s chief advocates, is it preposterous to question whether or not this dictum might be applied to human organisms? Were the Europeans, after all, not a “harmful non-native organism” to the native Americans and to the Australian Aborigines? Is human population itself not a “non-native organism” in so many corners of the Earth to which it ventures and seeks to live?

Such questions will, of course, be laughed off as rabid paranoia. That is until such time as no one is laughing at all.

Cheers,

Charlie

Hillary's philosophy: Lets not talk about it, just do it! Take over America by any means necessary...

Hillary's philosophy: Lets not talk about it, just do it! Take over America by any means necessary...invent issues that do not matter and keep harping on it, the voters will believe it if you repeat it often enough...everything the opposition does speak only in negative terms...never say anything good about your opponent unless it gets you the votes need to win...look what we done in 06, we promised lower energy prices and the gullible voters gobbled it up...gas prices are up but so what, we won the 06 elections and we'll do the same again and again...

Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer
A Season of Love and Leftists

BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 26, 2007
URL: http://www2.nysun.com/article/66933

OAKLAND, Calif. — In a life marked largely by political caution, one entry on Senator Clinton's résumé stands out: her clerkship in 1971 at one of America's most radical law firms, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.

One partner at the firm, Doris Walker, was a Communist Party member at the time. Another partner, Robert Treuhaft, had left the party in 1958, several years after being called before the House Un-American Activities Committee and labeled as one of America's most "dangerously subversive" lawyers. The Oakland-based firm was renowned for taking clients others rejected as too controversial, including Communists, draft resisters, and members of the African-American militant group known as the Black Panthers.

To this day, Mrs. Clinton's decision to work at the unabashedly left-wing firm is surprising, even shocking, to some of her former colleagues there and to those supporting her bid for the presidency. To the former first lady's enemies and political opponents, her summer at the Treuhaft firm is yet another indication that radical ideology lurks beneath the patina of moderation she has adopted in public life.

RELATED: The Clintons' Berkeley Summer of Love Hillary Clinton's Left Hook

Through more than a dozen interviews, a review of law firm files and correspondence at two university archives, and an examination of previously published descriptions of Mrs. Clinton's California summer, The New York Sun has sought to compile a comprehensive account of the 23-year-old Yale law student's work for the Treuhaft firm, how she got there, and how acquaintances she made that summer surfaced from time to time as her political career unfolded.

The Sun's investigation found that:

• Republican opposition researchers working for President George H.W. Bush were aware of Mrs. Clinton's tie to the Treuhaft firm in 1992, before it was widely known, and apparently chose not to exploit it. They reasoned that she was the wife of the candidate rather than the candidate herself, a reasoning that no longer applies as Mrs. Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination. Lawyers involved with the firm were surprised that Republican operatives never moved to capitalize on Mrs. Clinton's connection.

• An oft-repeated and published anecdote about Mrs. Clinton's involvement in the firm's plea negotiations over an armed invasion of the California Legislature by Black Panthers seems to be apocryphal, though one of the attorneys directly involved has a "very distinct" memory of Mrs. Clinton's attendance at a Panthers-related meeting.

• The firm was involved in another volatile Black Panthers case the summer Mrs. Clinton worked there: the trial of Huey Newton for the 1967 killing of an Oakland police officer. Treuhaft represented a Newton associate whose role in the trial may have helped Newton win a series of mistrials and, eventually, the dismissal of all charges related to the officer's death.

• Partners at the firm said it was likely Mrs. Clinton also worked on politically sensitive cases involving a Berkeley student activist denied admission to the California bar over incendiary rhetoric, Stanford physician interns fighting a loyalty oath at the Veterans Administration, and men claiming conscientious objector status to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam. Mrs. Clinton's only public recollection of her work at the Treuhaft firm is that she handled a child custody matter.

• Mrs. Clinton's most vivid memories from that summer may be personal ones that have nothing to do with the law firm with which she clerked. A fellow Yale law student, President Clinton, shared the Berkeley apartment where she was staying. The pair soon got serious and would move in together when they returned to New Haven that fall.

Mrs. Clinton's campaign declined to make her available for an interview for this story.

AT YALE, TURBULENT TIMES MOLD A LAWYER-IN-TRAINING

Mrs. Clinton's decision to work at the Treuhaft firm was rooted in the turbulence, chaos and radicalism that buffeted Yale after she entered law school there in 1969. Most campuses saw their share of foment, but Yale saw more than its share in the spring of 1970 because of the impending criminal trial in New Haven of a Black Panthers' leader, Bobby Seale, and several co-defendants, for kidnapping and murdering another member of the Panthers. Many, including Yale's president at the time, doubted that Seale and other black militants could get a fair trial. As students prepared for a national student strike on May Day 1970, a suspicious fire broke out in the basement of a Yale law library. The blaze led to a palpable fear among professors and students that institutions like Yale could be burned to the ground. Crazy talk abounded. One agitated Yale law student reportedly proposed "mass suicide" to protest injustices allegedly being perpetrated against the Panthers.

While some writers and commentators have painted Mrs. Clinton as so exercised by the Panther trial that she formed a student committee to sit in on the proceedings and report on perceived abuses, a book published last year suggests that even that modest undertaking grew out of a compromise in which law students voted not to endorse a student strike. Mrs. Clinton and another Yale law student were named as co-chairs of a committee "to monitor the trial, offer legal advice to demonstrators who got arrested, and help prevent violence at the May Day rally," according to "Murder in the Model City" by Paul Bass and Douglas Rae.

The book's authors do not disclose whether Mrs. Clinton personally supported or opposed the strike, but they describe her as "a careful, moderate voice of dissent." They also noted that the Clinton-led student committee voted "to insist…that no coercion or extra-legal attempts to stop the trial should be tolerated."

Mrs. Clinton has written about joining a "bucket brigade to put out" the library fire and about organizing round-the-clock patrols in the wake of the blaze. However, Mr. Bass, a longtime New Haven journalist, and Mr. Rae, a professor at Yale's business school, noted with some puzzlement that Mrs. Clinton "never chose to shed any light" on her actions surrounding the student strike and the Panthers' trial. "In writing and speaking about the period, she never mentions co-chairing the committee," the authors observed. The senator declined to be interviewed for their book. "She wouldn't touch it," Mr. Bass said.

Ultimately, the May Day protest turned Yale into an armed camp, occupied by thousands of soldiers, but the event yielded little of the feared violence. That came three days later at Kent State University in Ohio when National Guard soldiers shot and killed four students protesting the Vietnam War.

The Black Panthers' trial didn't actually begin until the fall. During the lead-up, Seale's attorney, Charles Garry of San Francisco, became a regular presence in the courtyards at Yale Law School.

At some point, Treuhaft and his wife, Jessica Mitford, passed through New Haven and threw a party to raise money for the Panthers' defense. According to Gail Sheehy's biography of Mrs. Clinton, "Hillary's Choice," the future senator attended the Treuhaft-Mitford party. Many have surmised that this event laid the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton's clerkship at Treuhaft's law office. A law school classmate of Mrs. Clinton who later became a staff attorney at the Oakland firm, Drucilla Ramey, said she saw no evidence that Mrs. Clinton was among the groupies who surrounded the left-wing lawyers. "She was a grind," Ms. Ramey told the Sun. "It was very fashionable not to work very hard in law school. Hillary was in a distinct minority….Any sense that she was a wide-eyed radical running around with Charlie [Garry] and stuff is very misplaced."

One of Treuhaft's partners, Malcolm Burnstein, said Mrs. Clinton's internship was arranged by a national student group. "She was sent to us by the Law Students' Civil Rights Research Council," Mr. Burnstein told the Sun. The group also paid Mrs. Clinton during her summer at the firm, he said. It is possible Mrs. Clinton selected the Treuhaft firm and then arranged funding through the council. That's how she set up her first law-school summer internship working with the future founder of the Children's Defense Fund, Marian Wright Edelman.

Ms. Ramey said the Treuhaft firm also drew the notice of female Yale students for a simple reason: it hired women and took them on as interns at a time many white-shoe firms and government offices would not. "Even in the public interest world, it was hard to find a job," Ms. Ramey recalled. "At that time, the Oakland public defender wouldn't hire women. The federal public defender wouldn't hire women."

A CALIFORNIA SUMMER WITH CRUSADERS FROM THE "OLD LEFT"

Mrs. Clinton's only public recollection of her stint at the Treuhaft firm came in her 2003 memoir, "Living History."

"I told Bill about my summer plans to clerk at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, a small law firm in Oakland, California and he announced that he would like to go with me," she wrote. "I spent most of my time working for Mal Burnstein researching, writing legal motions and briefs for a child custody case."

While Mrs. Clinton devotes considerable ink to her budding romance with her future husband, two fleeting sentences are the only ones describing her how she arrived at the Treuhaft firm and what she did there.

None of those interviewed for this article disputed Mrs. Clinton's claim that she worked on a child custody case during her time at the law office. "It's certainly plausible. We did those cases," Mr. Burnstein said.

One nationally publicized custody case that might have caught Mrs. Clinton's attention was Treuhaft's representation in 1968 of a California artist and photographer, Harold Painter, whose "bohemian" lifestyle led the Iowa Supreme Court to grant custody of his son to the boy's more traditional Iowa-dwelling grandparents.

The most eye-catching claim about Mrs. Clinton's time at the Treuhaft firm is that she attended a plea negotiation on behalf of armed Black Panthers who stormed into the California legislature on May 2, 1967 to protest a gun-control measure. The band of more than two dozen men toting rifles, shotguns and pistols caused alarm when they emerged on the floor of the legislature. They later insisted they were trying to reach the spectators' gallery and used the wrong door.

"I just have a very distinct memory of going to Sacramento that summer with Hillary in my car and working with the D.A.'s office to resolve the Panther case. I really remember that quite clearly," Mr. Burnstein told the Sun.

The account is featured in both "Hillary's Choice" and a San Francisco Chronicle article that appeared shortly after Mr. Clinton won the presidency in 1992.

However, the Associated Press reported that criminal cases stemming from the Panthers' protest were resolved in August 1967, almost four years before Mrs. Clinton turned up at the Treuhaft office. In addition, a former partner there, Ms. Walker, insists that Mr. Burnstein's recollection is faulty.

"I am positive that Hillary was not involved in any Black Panther case with Mal," Ms. Walker told the Sun. "Mal has had a thing about Hillary and the Black Panthers for years. The rest of us know it just didn't happen."

Treuhaft, who sometimes repeated Mr. Burnstein's anecdote linking Mrs. Clinton to the Panthers, died in 2001.

Asked about the four-year gap between the legislature incident and Mrs. Clinton's clerkship, Mr. Burnstein said he simply could not square the dates with his vivid memory. "I'm not mistaking her for anyone. I was more connected with Hillary than with other clerks and I remember meeting Bill that summer," Mr. Burnstein said. "If the Black Panthers Sacramento incident was in fact in '67, then Hillary did not come with me on the Black Panthers case. I may well remember driving to Sacramento with her, but it can't be the same case and I don't know what it was."

Regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton was on hand for the Panthers' legislature case, there can be no dispute that she was at the Treuhaft firm as it played a role in a highly publicized trial in which a top leader of the black militant group, Huey Newton, was charged with killing an Oakland police officer, John Frey.

Newton's first trial in connection with the 1967 slaying took place the following year. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to between two and 15 years in prison. However, an appeals court overturned Newton's conviction in the case, which inspired T-shirts, buttons and posters emblazoned with the popular 1960s slogan, "Free Huey!"

Newton's first retrial began in July 1971, soon after Mrs. Clinton arrived at the Treuhaft firm. Newton's defense was handled by Garry, who had represented Seale in New Haven two years earlier, earning Garry the title of "the Panthers' honky lawyer," according to Time Magazine. Treuhaft represented a Panther activist and longtime friend of Newton, Gene McKinney. On the witness stand, McKinney, who was with Newton the night the policeman was killed, took the Fifth Amendment. However, the mere suggestion that McKinney, who was uncharged, could have been the killer may have helped Newton win a hung jury.

At a second retrial in December 1971, McKinney, again represented by Treuhaft, also took the Fifth Amendment. Jurors deadlocked again and prosecutors dropped the case.

Treuhaft told Ms. Sheehy in 1999 that fascination with the Panthers did not seem to have been what drew Mrs. Clinton to his firm. "Hillary was only mildly interested in the Panther cause," Treuhaft told the author.

The Black Panthers get a couple of brief mentions in Mrs. Clinton's memoir, but she never offers a verdict or view on their conduct. The former first lady does fault the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that "sometimes failed to distinguish between constitutionally protected, legitimate opposition and criminal behavior."

A review of some of Mr. Burnstein's legal files now at the archives of the University of California at Berkeley shows that the Treuhaft firm also handled two major cases in mid-1971 involving political dissent. One involved a protest leader who was elected Berkeley student body president, Daniel Siegel.

Mr. Siegel passed his the bar exam in 1970, but his admission was blocked on grounds that he was morally unfit. He was criminally charged with inciting the 1969 "People's Park" riot, which left one man dead, others injured, and hundreds arrested.

Mr. Siegel was acquitted of that charge, but bar officials said his statements prior to the riot and thereafter indicated he was not suited to be an attorney. They also asked him if he was a Communist, which he denied.

"The question is not violence versus non-violence, the question is when violence, and how violence, and what violence," Mr. Siegel declared at a March 1970 rally at Berkeley's Provo Park, according to the archived records. "I can see very little objection theoretically, politically or morally or anything else with burning down the Bank of America and all its 500 branches."

At another gathering a month later, Mr. Siegel opined that nonviolence was "not the way any more. We have to use whatever force is necessary to make sure that this war stops."

Mr. Burnstein appealed the bar committee's rejection to the California Supreme Court, arguing that Mr. Siegel was being punished for his political beliefs. The court eventually sided with Mr. Siegel, who joined the bar in November 1973.

Two other dissenters whose case was pending during Mrs. Clinton's summer at the Treuhaft firm were Peter Cummings and Peter Rudd. Both were medical students from Case Western Reserve University in Ohio who won internships at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. On arriving at Stanford, they discovered they were required to fill out loyalty oaths to do a required rotation at the nearby Veterans Administration hospital. "It was the typical, 'Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?'" Dr. Cummings recalled in a recent interview. He said he and Dr. Rudd were not Communists, but chafed at signing the oath. "I've always been very annoyed by and not a fan of this kind of loyalty oath," Dr. Cummings said.

Through the American Civil Liberties Union, the pair became clients of Mr. Burnstein. In the ensuing legal challenges, which went before riders of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at least twice, the government argued that disloyal medical students might try to kill unsuspecting veterans who sought medical treatment. Mr. Burnstein prevailed and the loyalty oath for Veterans Administration doctors soon wound up as a footnote of history.

Mr. Burnstein said Mrs. Clinton would have likely been assigned to some work on the cases stemming from dissent at the Berkeley and Stanford campuses. "I don't remember her especially working on those, but she would have if she was there," he said.

Ms. Walker said Mrs. Clinton probably also worked on a slew of cases involving men seeking conscientious objector status to avoid the draft. "We were doing so much Vietnam War stuff then," Ms. Walker recalled. "I'm sure she worked on those."

As Mrs. Clinton left the Treuhaft firm in 1971, one of its partners was gearing up for the defense of a Communist and black revolutionary, Angela Davis, against murder, kidnapping and conspiracy charges stemming from a 1970 shootout that left a California judge dead. Ms. Walker became the resident Communist on Ms. Davis's legal team. "I was asked by the Party to participate in Angela's case," the lawyer said. She said no one else at the law firm, including Mrs. Clinton, worked on Ms. Davis's case.

At the trial, held in 1972 at San Jose, the Treuhaft firm's winning record held up again. A jury acquitted the polarizing African-American activist of all charges.

A FIRM WITH HISTORY

By the time Mrs. Clinton arrived at the Treuhaft firm in 1971, its reputation as a defender of left-wingers and radicals was well established. Indeed, those at the firm assumed that reputation drew the Yale law student in.

"She did want to work for a left-wing movement law firm. Anyone who went to college or law school would have known our law firm was a Communist law firm," Treuhaft told Ms. Sheehy in 1999.

"This was an old-left, radical law firm," a staff attorney there during Mrs. Clinton's summer, David Nawi, told the Sun. "Treuhaft was suing the police and doing wonderful work with the black community in East Oakland before anybody else."

A Yale Law student who worked as a clerk at the firm the summer before Mrs. Clinton arrived, Mary Nichols, said Treuhaft was open about his stint in the Communist Party. "Treuhaft, he himself was proud of having been a Communist at one time. This was not something that they hid in any way. They were not people stockpiling dynamite. They were a respectable law firm, but still you knew they had experimented in that kind of way," she said.

Another Yale Law student who ended up at the Oakland firm, Ms. Ramey, insists she did not know of the partners' Communist ties before showing up to work there. "It sounded like kind of a cool place to work. I had no clue. I was pleasantly surprised," she told the Sun.
Mr. Siegel, the Berkeley protester-turned-lawyer, said committed student leftists in 1971 would have viewed the firm's Communist connections as quaint, perhaps even conservative. "We almost universally thought Communist Party people were sellouts," he said. "People of my generation who were getting involved were Marxists, Maoists, even Trotskyists. The Communist Party was pretty unpopular, unless your parents were in it."

The details of Treuhaft's membership in the Communist Party were not formally disclosed until 1977, when his wife, Jessica Mitford, published a humorous memoir of their years in the Communist ranks. In "A Fine Old Conflict," she reported that her husband signed up in 1943 and that she followed in 1944. Both left the party in 1958, she wrote.

Ms. Walker told the Sun she is still a member of the Communist Party, which she joined in 1942. "I'm still a Marxist, and that's why I stayed in," she said.

While many American Communists quit the party in disgust in 1956 following the Soviet invasion of Hungary and Nikita Khrushchev's denunciation of Josef Stalin's crimes, those events do not seem to have been the impetus for the departure of Treuhaft and Mitford, who stayed on for another two years.

A journalist who edited a recently published collection of Mitford's letters, Peter Sussman, said the couple's falling out with the American Communist Party was driven largely by its unyielding bureaucracy.

"She was bored with it," Mr. Sussman said. "It was ineffective. She had worked to reform it and that was unsuccessful, and to give the American party some autonomy from Soviet Communism."

Mr. Sussman said Mitford, who died in 1996, was also "bitterly disappointed" about a decision the party made to cut ties with a group dedicated to resolving racial inequities in America, the Civil Rights Congress.

Mr. Sussman said Mitford and Treuhaft probably left for the same reasons. "They usually made decisions on such things together and they left the party together, though they had friends who remained," the journalist added.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TAKES INTEREST BUT HOLDS BACK

The new collection of Mitford's letters indicates that Republican political operatives knew about Mrs. Clinton's work at Treuhaft's firm months before the 1992 election, but apparently chose not to raise it despite her prominence in her husband's presidential campaign. In a July 4, 1992 letter to a veteran civil rights activist, Virginia Durr, Mitford wrote, "There was a v. long article in Vanity Fair by Gail Sheehy, an interview with Hillary in which every detail of her life from childhood on was explored — no mention of the internship in Bob's law office. Quite right, I thought, as obviously if that came out it would be prime meat for the Bush campaign."

In the letter, Mitford recounts that she and her husband recently had dinner with a novelist, Diane Johnson, who raised Mrs. Clinton's clerkship out of the blue. "I hear that Hillary Clinton once worked for you when she was a Yale law student," Mitford remembered the novelist saying.

Mitford wrote that Ms. Johnson picked up the fact from her son-in-law who "works in the White House dirty-tricks division…whose job is to dig up dirt on all the Bush opposition."

"Presumably, the Bush campaign is hoarding this bit of non-news for later springing on the public," Mitford wrote to Durr.

Ms. Johnson, best known for her book "Le Divorce," told the Sun she has only a vague recollection of the discussion Mitford relayed. "I remember our conversation about Hillary coming to work for Bob that summer," the novelist said. "I don't remember who brought it up."

The son-in-law Mitford alluded to is David Tell, a Republican operative who was director of opposition research for the 1992 re-election campaign of President George H.W. Bush.

Mr. Tell, a former opinion editor of the Weekly Standard, confirmed to the Sun that the Bush camp knew about Mrs. Clinton's connection to the Treuhaft firm, but said last week that he couldn't recall how he learned about it. "We sucked up everything we could possibly find," he said.

Asked why the campaign never tried to make hay of Mrs. Clinton ties to a communist and ex-communists, Mr. Tell said part of the reason was that Mrs. Clinton was not running for office. "We were shy about going after the candidate's wife, and it was when she was 23," he said.

So far in Mrs. Clinton's current bid for the presidency, none of her opponents has sought to tar her over her ties to the Treuhaft firm. However, that is no guarantee that the issue will not arise, in part because of the recent proliferation of independent political groups known as 527s, for the section of the tax code under which they are organized. Such groups often undertake attacks that rival campaigns and political parties shy away from. Some 527s have had considerable influence in the presidential race, such as when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked Senator Kerry in 2004.

Back in 1992, Mitford was not the only one who suspected Mrs. Clinton's involvement with the Treuhaft firm would be seized on by the Republicans. Mr. Burnstein said he, Treuhaft, and Ms. Walker agreed upon learning of Mr. Clinton's presidential bid not to talk publicly about Mrs. Clinton's clerkship because they anticipated it would become fodder for Mr. Clinton's opponents.

"We expected it," Mr. Burnstein said. "We were very carefully not talking to the press back then. ... We did not want her being unfairly tarred with someone else's politics. Hillary's politics were not Bob's politics, which were not Doris's politics, which were not mine."

"For Hillary to pick the most left-wing firm really at that time in the Bay Area, it's still a surprise to me that more hasn't been made of that," Ms. Walker said. "It was such an obvious thing for them to pick up, but they didn't, and I've never understood it."

Mr. Burnstein said he never discussed with Mrs. Clinton the decision to keep quiet about her clerkship during the 1992 presidential race.

Aside from the two bland lines in her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton has been tight-lipped about how she came to work at the Treuhaft firm and what she did there. A California oral historian who interviewed Treuhaft at length, Robert Larsen Jr., told the Sun that Mrs. Clinton seemed reluctant to discuss the clerkship when he asked her about it at a San Francisco-area political function in the 1990s.

"I talked to Hillary once and said, 'You know you interned at Treuhaft's firm….I've never seen anything about that anywhere,'" Mr. Larsen recalled. "'It's not exactly secret, but it's not publicized,'" he said she replied. "I just don't think she wanted to have the charge of being an intern at a Communist law firm."

When the connection did emerge, halfway through a Herb Caen column in the Chronicle on Nov. 12, 1992, eight days after the election, some conservatives likely viewed it as confirmation of Mrs. Clinton's radical views. However, some on the left side of the political spectrum who knew the Treuhaft firm were taken aback.

"I was quite shocked when I found out that Hillary had been there the summer after I was," Ms. Nichols, a Democrat who holds a top environmental post under Governor Schwarzenegger, said. "She certainly downplayed anything that would make you think that'd be the kind of place she'd summer….Once the political career was actually launched, Hillary's whole life has been about being moderate and fending off criticism from friends on the left."

"I was kind of surprised when I heard she had worked there," Mr. Siegel recalled. "Anything I've ever heard about her or known about wouldn't have led me to think she was interested in Marxism, for example, or any other kind of left politics."

Mr. Burnstein said Mrs. Clinton was probably drawn to the firm by its civil rights work and not by the left-wing politics of its partners, though she expressed no disquiet about that. "There was nothing revolutionary about Hillary, and I do not say that pejoratively," he said. "She was much more of a classic liberal than the rest of us."

Mr. Burnstein said he also detected a clear change in Mrs. Clinton's political outlook after she faced real-world campaigning with her husband. "The Hillary that clerked for us that summer is not the Hillary that ran for the Senate and is not the Hillary that was in the White House for eight years. The politics were noticeably different," Mr. Burnstein said. "The Hillary of 1971 was much more idealistic and progressive in the sense we would use the term today than the Hillary we saw after her exposure to politics in Arkansas."

---

Hey Frank, you voted for this ---- ----! Ya happy now?

Talk about out of touch...


Hellooooooo....

Tell your Senator to vote NO on S. 1145

Don't just read this...do something about it!

Senate bill 1145 must be stopped. Call your Senator today!

This legislation presents a danger to American inovation and is part of the on going effort to globalize everything...please take the time to read including the comments. This will affect YOU and every American!

Patent Bill Should Die

by James R. Edwards Jr.

Posted: 04/22/2008

The so-called Patent Reform Act is fundamentally flawed. It combines many bad provisions. Some of the worst parts of the bill include a new, administrative route to challenge patents after they are granted, the ability to infringe a patent without having to pay back what the patented product is truly worth, giving a patent to the first party to file an application rather than the traditional first-to-invent standard, and forcing publication of patent applications at 18 months.
A group of the largest high-tech firms is pushing this legislation, which certain lawmakers are all too eager to accommodate. In short, though, S. 1145 and H.R. 1908 would destroy what the Founding Fathers put into the Constitution with the specific intent of stimulating invention.
The bills purport to “harmonize” (in fact, dumb down) our patent system with the model predominant in Europe and Asia. Proponents claim their bills fix problems like low patent quality. But it ain’t so.
The so-called Patent Reform Act is fundamentally flawed. Some of its worst parts include new post-grant challenges, the ability to infringe for cheaper, “first-to-file” and forced publication at 18 months.
Under the bills, a patent’s validity could be challenged throughout a patent’s life. These appeals would be brought in a lower-cost, administrative forum instead of a real court. It’s easier for competitors to antagonize patent holders for years. And the competitors could do it more often because such challenges would be cheaper.
Also, what’s touted as “proportional liability” is actually rewarding infringers with less liability exposure for unlicensed usage of patented elements. It would be tougher to prove “willful” infringement and thereby win punitive damages. Instead, IP pirates would only have to pay back a small portion of the patented element’s value.
The legislation adopts the foreign first-to-file-a-patent-application standard. Currently, America awards patents to the “first to invent.” Big companies with armies of lawyers can afford to get their patent applications in before the little guy toiling away in his garage who actually first invents something. It also kills off provisional patent protection, which costs less and is of prime benefit to independent inventors.
The forced publication measure will require all inventors to disclose all their invention’s details after 18 months. It takes the Patent and Trademark Office about 33 months to issue a patent. So, for a year and a half an inventor would face hordes of Chinese, Indian and other thieves who’ll steal his invention and gain a commercial edge. The American inventor wouldn’t have any legal rights to protect his creation.
Is this what the Founders had in mind? Hardly. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress “[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Why did men of competitive private enterprise choose to grant people an outright, legally protected monopoly? As they explained in Federalist 43, “The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. . . . The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors.”
They noted the rights of copyright under British common law and that it wouldn’t work for each state to try to create its own laws governing intellectual property within the common nation.
“The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals.” That is, the success of America’s private enterprise, market competition and international competitiveness, from which all Americans benefit, hinges on rewarding creative people with strong intellectual property rights.
This model has proven itself extraordinarily successful. It’s no coincidence that America became the world’s strongest economic engine because of its patent and copyright laws. It’s why inventors like Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and George Washington Carver sit among the panoply of American heroes.
The facts, cited by U.S. Business and Industry Council, tell what the patent bills risk. U.S. manufacturers perform two-thirds of the R&D. They own six out of ten patents and, increasingly, corporate intellectual property is a firm’s greatest asset. Small inventors, independent firms, research universities and nonprofits file a third of the patent applications.
At heart, the legislation advantages a single sector and disadvantages all other sectors. High-tech, which uses many patented elements and so has to secure licenses from the various patent holders, wins. Notably, Big Tech contributes lots of its political money to Democrats.
Who loses? The productive sectors. They range from independent inventors to small businesses to universities to venture capitalists to large and small manufacturers of every sort to nonprofit research entities.
So, we’re pressed to scrap our highly successful patent model for an inferior one, unilaterally disarm in the highly competitive global market and disadvantage the most creative sectors of our economy.
We’re to rob America’s inventors. We’re to remove the economic incentive that entices them to invest time and treasure in turning an idea into an item.
We’re to gut the very thing that’s made the rewards worth someone’s risks -- and that produces the miracle medicines, the labor-saving devices, the safety and security improvements that benefit all Americans.
If it really wanted to be constructive, Congress would allow the Patent and Trademark Office to retain application fees. That would enable the PTO to review more applications more quickly. It would also improve patent quality.
A Congress willing to sell the birthright of America’s real innovative sectors for the porridge of “harmonization” and tech execs’ campaign contributions is a disgrace.

---

Mr. Edwards is an adjunct fellow with the Hudson Instutute. He coauthored The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform (Allyn & Bacon) with Professor James Gimpel and has contributed to several published works, most recently Debating Immigration (Cambridge University Press), edited by Carol M. Swain. Dr. Edwards is a principal at the Washington consulting firm Olive, Edwards, & Cooper.

Reader Comments: (

12

)

Here are the comments submitted by Human Events readers:

Page 1

Report Abusive PostThank you for that, I’ve been trying to get my head around the proposed patent reform act for weeks. This article has really helped my understanding of it.
www.loveinventions.com

Ryan, London, England

Apr 22, 2008 @ 04:40 AM

Report Abusive PostCharacterizing the bill's purpose as being to "dumb down" patents is absolutely right on. That has been the major goal of the USPTO leadership under the Bush administration and the oxymoronic "Coalition for Patent Fairness" (which has lobbied Congress). They want to make it *impossible* for any innovative startup to ever obtain patents that a "tech giant" (using the phrase loosely to include MS, HP, etc.) could not infringe and/or break at will. Thus, by eviscerating patent system, we would effectively transfer all new technology from the innovators immediately to the mass marketing Big Corps.

As if selling each other hamburgers made in China is going to keep our economy strong.

David, Alexandria, VA

Apr 22, 2008 @ 06:33 AM

Report Abusive PostThe topic of patents always perks my ears. About 40 US patents bear my name as inventor. So I know something about them.

James R Edwards is telling us an opinion he's formed about patents, but he doesn't tell us why. He asserts that the reforms would benefit industry which files 2/3 of patent filings and would harm the small interests that file for 1/3. I don't see any hint of why he holds this view in the article.

Of the 3 main points of reform he cites, [1] penalties for infringement, [2] publication, and [3] first to file rights, I'll offer my opinions.

[1] Penalties. This is the biggest problem area. The entire premise of patent rights is exclusivity ... that the patent holder has the right to sole benefit from an invention for a period of years. Unfortunately, big business has been lobbying hard against patent exclusivity. It's hard for people to appreciate what this means, but an example is worth 1000 words. We're everyday baraged with TV commercials to sign up for VONAGE, to cut our phone bills. Vonage has in a court of law been found to have been illegally using proprietary patented inventions owned by Verizon. But in court, Vonage has pleaded that upholding Verizon's ownership rights would be a hardship for all the millions of Vonage customers. While Vonage was ordered to pay $58 Million in damages to Verizon, the courts declined to uphold Verizon's patent rights to exclusive usage of their patented inventions ... Vonage was NOT shut down, or even ordered to stop infringing. The author is correct on this one ... the court system has for some time been intentionally chipping away at the rights of patent holders at the request of non-patent holding businesses, under the belief that patents infringe competition. If you believe patents infringe competition that undermines the entire concept of patent protection for innovation. Why bother with R-and-D? Just sit back and wait for others to invent things, and then just steal and copy every new product. R-and-D loses the basic premise which underwrites INVESTMENT in research.

[2] First to file rights ... I got'ta tell you all, that the patent office has (in over 100 years) never really been able to determine who is the first to invent anything. Patents have HISTORICALLY been granted to the first to file, with very few patent litigations actually over-turning patented rights to the first filer in favor of a later discovered first inventor. And then what happens? Overturned patents in favor of a later discovered first-inventor are typically decided SO MANY YEARS LATER that it reversal of rights becomes nearly impossible (witness the famous patent inventorship reversal for the computer ... just years ago while the inventorship was over 50 years ago!).

[3] International patent applications become publicly viewable as soon as they are filed, while in the US they are private until issued. I'm not sure how this reform (making us more like Europe) helps anyone in the US. I would agree with the author that this is not necessarily a good thing ... but be aware that it is the way the rest of the world operates.

Plain sense dictates that inventors file patents quickly when an invention is realized. I agree with the author regarding taking the teeth out of patent laws is a bad thing for those that would invest in innovation ... but be aware that this has been the trend for some time in patent litigation (reducing penalties for infringement has been the recent mindset of the courts) and the same mindset is now trying to make this law.

Doc, aka Rich from Chicago, IL

Apr 22, 2008 @ 12:54 PM

Report Abusive PostNewt Gin-rich SCREWED us the last time on Pat. so-called reform! What is remainig to take away? This is "just another" global-socialist (glob)step toward "harmonizing" every thing in prep for WORLD GOVERNMENT!!!!!!

Jingo John, Formerly FREE USA

Apr 22, 2008 @ 02:30 PM

Report Abusive PostDoc AKA Rich, MegaBuck Global Marketer CAN and WILL take a great idea the second it is filied! THEN, 'Ol MegaBuck MARKETS the hell out of YOUR idea that you just filed 10 days ago AND uses "their" profit to FIGHT YOU in court. COOL huh! Great for good 'ol MegaBuck SEE MY POST SUPRA!

Jingo John, Formerly FREE USA

Apr 22, 2008 @ 02:35 PM

Report Abusive PostJingo John,
I hope I didn't say anything contrary to your words. I agree with you. I didn't suggest that publishing upon filing was good ... I said I wasn't sure it was good for US, and the rest of the world publishes everything upon filing.

I guess I could have said it was definitely bad, instead of I wasn't sure it was good for the United States. I'm sure you're correct, in that only the rest of the world would stand to benefit from publicizing everything invented in the United States.

But the figure in the article is correct, in that the average filing-time-to-issued -patent is about two and a half years. While a good head-start, it's hardly conclusive that an infringement would be able to use profits to pay for their patent infringement defense in such a short time. But there's no denying that publishing upon filing only helps those that wish to infringe as soon as possible.

Doc, aka Rich from Chicago, IL

Apr 22, 2008 @ 02:52 PM

Report Abusive PostAs I read the last two posts by "Doc" and "Jingo" -- it appears tat there is basic concensus that the proposed S.1145 is Baaaad. It IS BAD. And while the Double-Speak Patent FAIRNESS folks are attempting to HARMonize us down to the Lowest Common Denominator of the Least Inventive Countries in the world -- they are also asking us to DESTROY the hugely CREATIVE STRENGTH of America.

In other words -- they're saying -- that Because the rest of the world has the CANCER of Non-protective and anti-innovation Patent Systems -- they want US -- the U.S. to infect ourselves with cancer so we can join the Global Chorus of mediocrity.

In the mind of virtually all of us American professional inventors -- HARMonizing us so that we can Sing in the Global Chorus would require a small operation -- one which would cause us to SING IN THE SOPRANO SECTION. 'Nuf said?

INVENTOR, Newport Beach, CA

Apr 22, 2008 @ 07:01 PM

Report Abusive PostDoc and Inventor! BOTH EXCELLENT posts and RIGHT on the nail head!

Doc, with modern CAD-CAM a 'hot' idea could be put on the market in 2-3 weeks!

And "MegaBucks: COULD and WOULD use "their" income from YOUR idea to fight you for 10-15-20 years! ALL the while using income form YOUR idea to fight YOU.

All: Google "attrition litigation". I think that search term will lead you to the legal concept of "fighting a war of attrition". NOT many folks have the tens of millions to fight a "legal war of attrition".

Jingo John, Formerly FREE USA

Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:15 PM

Report Abusive PostJingo John,
Good thoughts, but I've not seen much from inspiration to profit in less than 18 months ... minimum ... typically longer. IF a corporation with a lawyers to file a patent saw a competitor attempt to turn it into product (while their own patent was pending), what could they do? First off, a company filing for a patent is typically developing their own implementation ... then if and when their patent issued they would bring infringement lawsuit seeking injunction (shutting off the illegal copy).

I don't fear the illegal knock-off using their profits to fight your patent infringement lawsuit. I fear the Chinese knock-off, which gives a rats ass whether you ever get a patent, because they are not within US jurisdiction ... and their GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGES IPR THEFT. This is why I should have been more forceful (as you were) that US publication of patents pending is bad.

Doc, aka Rich from Chicago, IL

Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:24 PM

Report Abusive Post"International patent applications become publicly viewable as soon as they are filed"

Doc, it's nice to hear from an inventor (you too, Inventor). International patent applications become viewable at 18 months after filing, and if you file internationally, then your U.S. application also becomes viewable at 18 months, without any exception that I am aware of. (Meaning the only way to keep your U.S. patent application secret till issuance is to forego foreign rights.)

BTW, if you've ever seen a patent application from MS versus one from an innovative startup, you would immediately understand Mr. Edwards' "why", I think. MS relies on quantity more than quality/innovation. And no one really wants to license MS' patented "inventions" anyway, so there portfolio is mostly "defensive" because people aren't paying to use them and generally don't care that MS even has them. (Yes, "defensive patents" makes no logical sense, but that's what people call them if they're numerous and they're not being asserted.) [P.S. And if we can't think of a single important invention that MS ever invented, perhaps they're not the voice that should be guiding patent reform.... It would be like having Big Oil guide environmental protection. Oh, wait, scratch that.]

Here's one random example of a MS patent application subject matter:

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC

David, Alexandria, VA

Apr 23, 2008 @ 01:03 PM

Report Abusive PostOops, it cut off the link.... You can go to the USPTO patent search web site (an/microsoft) or the EPO patent search web site (Applicant=Microsoft) and see the kinds of things they patent.

P.S. I wonder if MS filed a patent application on the Microsoft Word paper clip assistant too? Actually, the patent on disabling the assistant might be more valuable. :-)

David, Alexandria, VA

Apr 23, 2008 @ 01:12 PM

Report Abusive PostCheck out latest Patent battle between Victoria's Secret and an independent inventor who claims patent infringement over US Patent 6,733,362 - "Brassiere".

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200804211209DOWJONESDJONLINE000526_FORTUNE5.htm

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
search on "Plew, Katerina" in "inventor name"

Can't cut and paste the patent URL here, as the URL uses amphersand ... but you can search and find the patent easy enough with the inventor name from the US patent website using the URL above.

Doc, aka Rich from Chicago, IL

---