How to Save California: Outlaw Public Employee Unions

He wants to OUTLAW unions.

To be precise, Yoo proposes outlawing unions for public sector employees. Whether or not he believes the same course of action should be taken for private sector employees is irrelevant, as that in no way pertains to the topic at hand. I am not endorsing everything that Yoo has ever written.

The very reasons unions were created and NEEDED will never go away, because it is deeply seeded in human nature and human foible. It is not a coincidence that the death of unions has led to death of the middle class.

Unions serve a purpose, but their power must be kept in check, just as the power of the corporation must be kept in check. As it currently stands, in many states there are virtually no checks on the power of organized labor. This is especially true where vital public service employees such as police officers and firemen are permitted to hold citizens hostage until their demands are met. Not only is this wrong, it is also dangerous.

As for non-union public employees, we have it pretty good. While I make about 10% less than most private sector workers with my job description, the benefits are great - full health, dental, and vision, 3 weeks paid vacation, and a 403(b) plan with a unconditional contribution of 6%.

So while I may not get a $2 million pension after contributing only $150k, which isn't uncommon in states such as New Jersey, I have peace of mind knowing that my benefits are 1) sustainable in the long-term, and 2) not ripping off the taxpayers.
 
I'm guessing you're full of shit and just say that because you think it sounds intelligent but I was hoping you would prove me wrong and wow with me a coherent and well thought out response. So much for hope.

You disengenuous retarded asshole-you were hoping no such thing. That you choose to ignore the rationale supplied by the article and my statement that I agreed with it, proves you are being disingenuous. Though the possibility does exist that you are just a thick headed knuckle dragger who lacks the ability to comprehend the articles plainly written explanation(s).
 
You disengenuous retarded asshole-you were hoping no such thing. That you choose to ignore the rationale supplied by the article and my statement that I agreed with it, proves you are being disingenuous. Though the possibility does exist that you are just a thick headed knuckle dragger who lacks the ability to comprehend the articles plainly written explanation(s).


Whatever. I understand the articles. They don't support your statement. They say that public employee unions suck, but don't say peep about them being "antithetical of a republic." That's what you said. I was hoping for some explanation from you on that. Again, so much for hope.
 
The murderer Yoo is not talking about privatizing retirement plans, he is talking about banning unions.

Conservatism ALWAYS tries to create an aristocracy, plutocracy or oligarchy. This is just another clear example. Go after the little guy and crush him.

GFY

WTF do you think socialism does? It takes the leaders of the nation and elevates them above everyone else, then creates an economic environment where the little people have to live on the minimums.
 
WTF do you think socialism does? It takes the leaders of the nation and elevates them above everyone else, then creates an economic environment where the little people have to live on the minimums.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

No, you are confusing communism with socialism.

To put it more simply: Liberals want the decision to be spread out among more people, preferably everyone; conservatives want the decision to be made by as few people as possible, preferably just one.

Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in micro-economic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human perversity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.

Marxism became Marxist-Leninism which became Stalinism. The Wikipedia entry for Stalinism: "The term Stalinism was used by anti-Soviet Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, to distinguish the policies of the Soviet Union from those they regard as more true to Marxism. Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."
 
Bfjkbdfjkebwi, out of curiosity, who did John Yoo murder?

Let's start with half the American sons & daughters killed in Iraq.

AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS

I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

By Matthew Alexander
Sunday, November 30, 2008

Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html

Matthew Alexander has spent eighteen years in the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserves. An “investigator turned interrogator,” he deployed to Iraq in 2006, where he led the interrogations team that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq, who was killed by Coalition Forces. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star for his achievements. He is the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq.
 
Bfoon, all of the ideologies you are talking about, Stalinism, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, are the product of the atheistic European idea that man requires a central government, unless they are ruled by a king.

When men broke free of Europe and founded this nation, they did so in direct defiance of those principles. They established a government with limited powers, and allowed the people great freedoms because they reasoned that man is responsible to his god, not to a government or king. Man's creator is the source of his rights, and they can not be taken or abridged by man. Almost since the inception of this concept, there have been people who wanted to destroy it. Why do people want to destroy the truth? To keep from facing it, of course.
 
Bfoon, all of the ideologies you are talking about, Stalinism, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, are the product of the atheistic European idea that man requires a central government, unless they are ruled by a king.

When men broke free of Europe and founded this nation, they did so in direct defiance of those principles. They established a government with limited powers, and allowed the people great freedoms because they reasoned that man is responsible to his god, not to a government or king. Man's creator is the source of his rights, and they can not be taken or abridged by man. Almost since the inception of this concept, there have been people who wanted to destroy it. Why do people want to destroy the truth? To keep from facing it, of course.

America was founded on those very liberal principles and the rejection of the Divine Right of Kings. And from the birth of this very liberal experiment, conservatives have tried to stifle it and turn it into a aristocracy, plutocracy or hierarchy. The people who equate wealth with virtue.
 
America was founded on those very liberal principles and the rejection of the Divine Right of Kings. And from the birth of this very liberal experiment, conservatives have tried to stifle it and turn it into a aristocracy, plutocracy or hierarchy. The people who equate wealth with virtue.

dude, if you can't see that democrats have been doing the same damn thing, there is no hope for you.
 
dude, if you can't see that democrats have been doing the same damn thing, there is no hope for you.

DUDE...America faces the same peril if Republicans gain power as we did in 1948.

As the great liberal Harry S. Truman said:

Address in Indianapolis at the Indiana World War Memorial

And I have often said, if you elect a Republican President to go along with a Republican Congress like the 80th, you can expect them to take you headlong back down the road that led to the great depression in the 1930's.

And you don't have to travel that road. I want to be sure we don't go that way. That is one of the reasons I have been speaking to our people all over the country.

The basic difference between the two parties in economic matters is simply this: The Republican Party, as it operates in Washington, favors the interests of a few small ,powerful groups at the expense of the rest of the people.

This is the course that leads to depression.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, consistently works for measures which increase and protect the purchasing power of the great majority of our people.

I used to think that the dangers of depression would not be as great in the future as they have been in the past. I had been counting on laws enacted under Democratic leadership since 1933 to help maintain the purchasing power during the downturn in a business cycle.

I had been counting on these laws to afford enough protection to millions of our people so that never again would they face such days of black despair as they did in 1932·

Social security benefits, unemployment compensation, bank deposit insurance, farm price supports, a legal floor under wages, healthy collective bargaining--all these things I was counting on.

I thought they had so clearly proved their worth that they would never be subject to serious attack. I was just too optimistic. I gave the elephant too much credit. No matter what the Republicans say, the elephant hasn't taken on the "New Look."

The Republicans in the 80th Congress certainly disillusioned me on that score.

Don't be misled by Republican promises in this campaign. Actions speak louder than words. The record of the Republican Party that really counts is the record of that good-for-nothing, "do-nothing" 80th Congress.

And the Republican candidate, who has embraced that record so warmly, gives you no reason to hope for anything better from him. He says he is proud of the record of the 80th Congress.

The American people can no longer assume that the laws which safeguard them from disaster are secure from attack. The thing that couldn't happen here, has happened here. The Republican Party has actually started us backward. Now it promises more of the same--to take us all the way back.

That's why I have talked about the danger of depression. That's why I have talked about it in plain terms so that the people will know just what I mean and just where I stand. I regard it as a proper function of the Government to fight depressions.

The prosperity of this great Nation depends upon justice. We boast about our initiative, our inventiveness, our enterprise. All these things are important, but unless each group of our people gets a fair share of our national income, our prosperity will crash.

This is a lesson we learned the hard way. We learned it under Republican administrations in the 1920's. In those days, wages were held down. In those years, farmers were left to contend with the rise and fall of farm prices. The farmers were in the hands of the speculators, and the 80th Congress has 'put them in those same hands again--or at least it has tried to.

In those years--those Republican years-the aged and infirm were left to take care of themselves. As a result, the purchasing power of the Nation declined. There was no place to sell the products of our farms or our industries--and the result was unemployment and collapse.

We know now that we cannot have prosperity automatically. The only thing we can get automatically is boom and bust. To secure continuing prosperity takes foresight and intelligent planning. This is the purpose of a law which I regard as one of the most important laws passed during my administration, after I became President. This is the Employment Act of 1946.

This act was passed by a Democratic Congress and it embodies the Democratic principles of which I am speaking. It sets up a kind of economic signal room--the Council of Economic Advisers--in which the danger signals flash when things start to go wrong.

Now, for 2 long years, the red lights have been blinking in the signal room. They have been telling us that if we didn't do something about inflation, we would be asking for collapse and depression.

For 2 long years, we have been turning in fire alarms, alarms against the fire of inflation. And after 2 long years, the Republican firemen have been too busy playing a game of political checkers to put out the blaze.

They figured that maybe the fire of inflation would burn itself out, or that it was un-American to put an extinguisher on the flames.

Now, that is a terrible way to run a fire department. But that's the way the Republican 80th Congress met the problem of inflation.

Now another alarm bell rang on social security. But that is not enough. Millions of workers are not yet covered by its benefits, and those benefits are not nearly high enough to meet today's excessive prices.

I recommended--in plain and simple terms--to the Both Congress that we extend social security to the workers not now covered.

Did the Republican leaders extend it? They did not. Instead, they took the social security protection away from nearly a million workers who already had it.

I recommended--in plain and simple terms--that the 80th Congress increase oldage insurance benefits by at least 50 percent. Did the Republican leaders do that? No, they did not!

The Republican firemen not only failed to turn out the hook-and-ladder. They actually set fire to a couple of buildings, just for fun. They struck nearly a million Americans off the social security rolls; and their fire chief now says he is proud of that Congress.

Now, let's look at health and medical care. We need more doctors, more nurses, more hospitals. We need a system which will enable the average American family to pay for proper medical care.

Each year, because of lack of proper medical care, we lose more people than we lost in all the fighting of World War Two. Listen to that!--each year, because of a lack of proper medical care, we lost more of our people than we lost in all the fighting in World War Two.

Each year, we lost over four million man-years of work because of bad health--more working time than we have ever lost in the worst strike year on record. The Republican Congress passed the Taft-Hartley bill, because it claimed it was worried about strikes. The Congress would have done better to spend its time worrying about the loss of production due to sickness.

Each year, we lose $27 billion in national wealth through sickness and disability. These are dreadful figures. If we can stop that loss, we can pay off the national debt in 9 years by the saving.

We can do something about it, and we must do something about it.

Here is what we need. For every four doctors in practice today, we need at least one more--and we need to have them located more evenly throughout the country.

We need twice as many hospitals as we have. And we need to distribute them better. There ought to be a good hospital within easy reach of every person in the country.

Most of all, we need to make it possible for every American to afford medical care. At present, only one out of five Americans can afford the medical care he needs.

This is the crux of the problem and I am not going to mince words about it. The best health facilities and the finest doctors in the world are not much help to people who can't afford to use them.

I proposed a national system of health insurance in 1946, and I have urged it repeatedly since that time. There is no other way to assure that the average American family has a decent chance for adequate medical care.

There is no other way to assure a strong and healthy Nation.

Prepaid health insurance will be one more keystone in the great structure of social insurance which has been erected by the Democratic Party.

There has been a lot of nonsense talk about health insurance. There has been a well-organized campaign to discredit it and to confuse the issues involved.

The plan I have proposed does not disturb the traditional relationship between doctor and patient--except that the doctor will be paid more regularly for his services. Nor is this any more revolutionary than any other form of insurance.

It is 100 percent American.

It is just a way to collect the cost of medical care on a pay-as-you-go basis.

What did the Republicans do with my proposal for health insurance? You can guess that one. They did nothing!

All they said was--"Sorry. We can't do that. The medical lobby says it's un-American." And they listened to the lobbies in the Congress.

I put it up to you. Is it un-American to visit the sick, aid the afflicted, or comfort the dying? I thought that was simple Christianity.

Does cancer care about political parties? Does infantile paralysis concern itself with income? Of course it doesn't.

The Democratic Party holds that the people are entitled to the best available medical care. We held that they have a right to ask their Government to help them get it.

Now, let's take a look at another very important thing--education. It's the same disgraceful story with education that it is with health.

There is no reason on earth why a great Nation like ours should not educate all its children. But every American mother and father knows that the schools in the United States face a crisis today. Elementary schools, high schools, and colleges are bursting at the seams. We don't have nearly enough schoolteachers and we don't pay them nearly enough.

And if the schoolteachers want to campaign and organize for better pay--I am all for them doing it.

The school situation is getting worse--not better. At least 6 million more children than are now enrolled in elementary schools and high schools will be seeking admittance by 1955. Think how that will crowd our schools! We shall need at least 200,000 more classrooms by that time. And we shall need tens of thousands of new teachers.

Without a strong educational system-free of government control--democracy is crippled.

Knowledge is not only the key to power. It is the citadel of human freedom.

We must maintain and expand our schools or we shall surrender our liberties without even fighting for them.

Now, I asked the Republican Both Congress, again and again, to pass legislation which would help us meet the educational crisis. It flatly refused.

Here again the issue is plain and clear.

This Nation is no wiser than the education of its citizens.

This Nation is no stronger than the health of its citizens.

This Nation's security begins with the welfare of its citizens.

The Democratic Party believes in the people.

We believe that the people are entitled to prosperity, to health, to education, to social security.

We believe that it is the function of the Government to see to it that these people have these advantages.

This great Nation must not stand still, it must not go backward; it must go forward--go forward to even greater heights of leadership in the world.

To accomplish this, our people must grow in strength, in wisdom, and in security.

It is my daily prayer that with a strong, healthy, united, and well-educated people, and with the aid of Almighty God, we will lead the world to lasting peace.
 
What stupendous hypocrisy. Why don't we just make it illegal for any business to make more then 10% profit. Why don't we reinstitute usery laws? Businesses are permitted to charge what the market will bear for their goods and services but you want to make it illegal for working people to do that? That's not only wrong it's immoral.
 
DUDE...America faces the same peril if Republicans gain power as we did in 1948.

As the great liberal Harry S. Truman said:

Address in Indianapolis at the Indiana World War Memorial

And I have often said, if you elect a Republican President to go along with a Republican Congress like the 80th, you can expect them to take you headlong back down the road that led to the great depression in the 1930's.

And you don't have to travel that road. I want to be sure we don't go that way. That is one of the reasons I have been speaking to our people all over the country.

The basic difference between the two parties in economic matters is simply this: The Republican Party, as it operates in Washington, favors the interests of a few small ,powerful groups at the expense of the rest of the people.

This is the course that leads to depression.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, consistently works for measures which increase and protect the purchasing power of the great majority of our people.

I used to think that the dangers of depression would not be as great in the future as they have been in the past. I had been counting on laws enacted under Democratic leadership since 1933 to help maintain the purchasing power during the downturn in a business cycle.

I had been counting on these laws to afford enough protection to millions of our people so that never again would they face such days of black despair as they did in 1932·

Social security benefits, unemployment compensation, bank deposit insurance, farm price supports, a legal floor under wages, healthy collective bargaining--all these things I was counting on.

I thought they had so clearly proved their worth that they would never be subject to serious attack. I was just too optimistic. I gave the elephant too much credit. No matter what the Republicans say, the elephant hasn't taken on the "New Look."

The Republicans in the 80th Congress certainly disillusioned me on that score.

Don't be misled by Republican promises in this campaign. Actions speak louder than words. The record of the Republican Party that really counts is the record of that good-for-nothing, "do-nothing" 80th Congress.

And the Republican candidate, who has embraced that record so warmly, gives you no reason to hope for anything better from him. He says he is proud of the record of the 80th Congress.

The American people can no longer assume that the laws which safeguard them from disaster are secure from attack. The thing that couldn't happen here, has happened here. The Republican Party has actually started us backward. Now it promises more of the same--to take us all the way back.

That's why I have talked about the danger of depression. That's why I have talked about it in plain terms so that the people will know just what I mean and just where I stand. I regard it as a proper function of the Government to fight depressions.

The prosperity of this great Nation depends upon justice. We boast about our initiative, our inventiveness, our enterprise. All these things are important, but unless each group of our people gets a fair share of our national income, our prosperity will crash.

This is a lesson we learned the hard way. We learned it under Republican administrations in the 1920's. In those days, wages were held down. In those years, farmers were left to contend with the rise and fall of farm prices. The farmers were in the hands of the speculators, and the 80th Congress has 'put them in those same hands again--or at least it has tried to.

In those years--those Republican years-the aged and infirm were left to take care of themselves. As a result, the purchasing power of the Nation declined. There was no place to sell the products of our farms or our industries--and the result was unemployment and collapse.

We know now that we cannot have prosperity automatically. The only thing we can get automatically is boom and bust. To secure continuing prosperity takes foresight and intelligent planning. This is the purpose of a law which I regard as one of the most important laws passed during my administration, after I became President. This is the Employment Act of 1946.

This act was passed by a Democratic Congress and it embodies the Democratic principles of which I am speaking. It sets up a kind of economic signal room--the Council of Economic Advisers--in which the danger signals flash when things start to go wrong.

Now, for 2 long years, the red lights have been blinking in the signal room. They have been telling us that if we didn't do something about inflation, we would be asking for collapse and depression.

For 2 long years, we have been turning in fire alarms, alarms against the fire of inflation. And after 2 long years, the Republican firemen have been too busy playing a game of political checkers to put out the blaze.

They figured that maybe the fire of inflation would burn itself out, or that it was un-American to put an extinguisher on the flames.

Now, that is a terrible way to run a fire department. But that's the way the Republican 80th Congress met the problem of inflation.

Now another alarm bell rang on social security. But that is not enough. Millions of workers are not yet covered by its benefits, and those benefits are not nearly high enough to meet today's excessive prices.

I recommended--in plain and simple terms--to the Both Congress that we extend social security to the workers not now covered.

Did the Republican leaders extend it? They did not. Instead, they took the social security protection away from nearly a million workers who already had it.

I recommended--in plain and simple terms--that the 80th Congress increase oldage insurance benefits by at least 50 percent. Did the Republican leaders do that? No, they did not!

The Republican firemen not only failed to turn out the hook-and-ladder. They actually set fire to a couple of buildings, just for fun. They struck nearly a million Americans off the social security rolls; and their fire chief now says he is proud of that Congress.

Now, let's look at health and medical care. We need more doctors, more nurses, more hospitals. We need a system which will enable the average American family to pay for proper medical care.

Each year, because of lack of proper medical care, we lose more people than we lost in all the fighting of World War Two. Listen to that!--each year, because of a lack of proper medical care, we lost more of our people than we lost in all the fighting in World War Two.

Each year, we lost over four million man-years of work because of bad health--more working time than we have ever lost in the worst strike year on record. The Republican Congress passed the Taft-Hartley bill, because it claimed it was worried about strikes. The Congress would have done better to spend its time worrying about the loss of production due to sickness.

Each year, we lose $27 billion in national wealth through sickness and disability. These are dreadful figures. If we can stop that loss, we can pay off the national debt in 9 years by the saving.

We can do something about it, and we must do something about it.

Here is what we need. For every four doctors in practice today, we need at least one more--and we need to have them located more evenly throughout the country.

We need twice as many hospitals as we have. And we need to distribute them better. There ought to be a good hospital within easy reach of every person in the country.

Most of all, we need to make it possible for every American to afford medical care. At present, only one out of five Americans can afford the medical care he needs.

This is the crux of the problem and I am not going to mince words about it. The best health facilities and the finest doctors in the world are not much help to people who can't afford to use them.

I proposed a national system of health insurance in 1946, and I have urged it repeatedly since that time. There is no other way to assure that the average American family has a decent chance for adequate medical care.

There is no other way to assure a strong and healthy Nation.

Prepaid health insurance will be one more keystone in the great structure of social insurance which has been erected by the Democratic Party.

There has been a lot of nonsense talk about health insurance. There has been a well-organized campaign to discredit it and to confuse the issues involved.

The plan I have proposed does not disturb the traditional relationship between doctor and patient--except that the doctor will be paid more regularly for his services. Nor is this any more revolutionary than any other form of insurance.

It is 100 percent American.

It is just a way to collect the cost of medical care on a pay-as-you-go basis.

What did the Republicans do with my proposal for health insurance? You can guess that one. They did nothing!

All they said was--"Sorry. We can't do that. The medical lobby says it's un-American." And they listened to the lobbies in the Congress.

I put it up to you. Is it un-American to visit the sick, aid the afflicted, or comfort the dying? I thought that was simple Christianity.

Does cancer care about political parties? Does infantile paralysis concern itself with income? Of course it doesn't.

The Democratic Party holds that the people are entitled to the best available medical care. We held that they have a right to ask their Government to help them get it.

Now, let's take a look at another very important thing--education. It's the same disgraceful story with education that it is with health.

There is no reason on earth why a great Nation like ours should not educate all its children. But every American mother and father knows that the schools in the United States face a crisis today. Elementary schools, high schools, and colleges are bursting at the seams. We don't have nearly enough schoolteachers and we don't pay them nearly enough.

And if the schoolteachers want to campaign and organize for better pay--I am all for them doing it.

The school situation is getting worse--not better. At least 6 million more children than are now enrolled in elementary schools and high schools will be seeking admittance by 1955. Think how that will crowd our schools! We shall need at least 200,000 more classrooms by that time. And we shall need tens of thousands of new teachers.

Without a strong educational system-free of government control--democracy is crippled.

Knowledge is not only the key to power. It is the citadel of human freedom.

We must maintain and expand our schools or we shall surrender our liberties without even fighting for them.

Now, I asked the Republican Both Congress, again and again, to pass legislation which would help us meet the educational crisis. It flatly refused.

Here again the issue is plain and clear.

This Nation is no wiser than the education of its citizens.

This Nation is no stronger than the health of its citizens.

This Nation's security begins with the welfare of its citizens.

The Democratic Party believes in the people.

We believe that the people are entitled to prosperity, to health, to education, to social security.

We believe that it is the function of the Government to see to it that these people have these advantages.

This great Nation must not stand still, it must not go backward; it must go forward--go forward to even greater heights of leadership in the world.

To accomplish this, our people must grow in strength, in wisdom, and in security.

It is my daily prayer that with a strong, healthy, united, and well-educated people, and with the aid of Almighty God, we will lead the world to lasting peace.

Give em hell Harry!
 
Let's start with half the American sons & daughters killed in Iraq.

AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS

I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

By Matthew Alexander
Sunday, November 30, 2008

Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html

Matthew Alexander has spent eighteen years in the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserves. An “investigator turned interrogator,” he deployed to Iraq in 2006, where he led the interrogations team that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq, who was killed by Coalition Forces. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star for his achievements. He is the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq.

I doubt that even one of the chickenhawks on here will respond to this extremely illuminating article.
 
I doubt that even one of the chickenhawks on here will respond to this extremely illuminating article.

Of course not. The 100,000 Iraqis who were killed because of the scourge of mankind America brought to that country LOOKED like the fifteen hijackers from Saudi Arabia, the two from the United Arab Emirates, and the one from Egypt and Lebanon that attacked us on 9/11.

9_11-hijackers.jpg
 
Back
Top