Newsletter subscribe

Elections, Politics, Videos

Curtis Bowers of “Agenda, Grinding America Down” Speaks in Mesa

Posted: October 4, 2012 at 4:30 pm   /   by

On October 2, Curtis Bowers, writer, producer, director, and star of the documentary “Agenda, Grinding America Down”, appeared in person at the East Valley Tea Party in Mesa, AZ.  Mr. Bowers is a former Representative in the Idaho State Legislature.

Tens of thousands of copies of “Agenda” have been sold, and millions have seen its compelling story.  It has raised levels of awareness all across America to the (at best misguided) intentions of the Left and their accomplices, both witting and unwitting.  The documentary won First Prize of $101,000 at the 2010 San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival.

Click here for the 7-minute trailer to “Agenda” as well as links where you can purchase the documentary.  For those who wish a quick summary of the message in the “Agenda” documentary, see the transcript material from the documentary at the bottom of this post.

The 40-minute video below contains Rep. Bowers’ remarks from October 2.  He is introduced by Brad Zinn, professional speaker, entertainer, and conservative political activist.  An interview with Rep. Bowers, conducted by Brad Zinn will appear in a separate post — check back here for the link.


The central message of “Agenda: Grinding America Down”

“The left wants you to think that the cultural changes that have taken place since the 1960s have done nothing but progress us forward, toward a brave new world. This film will show that the brave new world they seek is nothing more than the failed policies and ideologies of the communism that enslaved over a third of the world’s population during the 20th century.

“It will show that they’ve done everything in their power to dumb down our children, undermine our families, rewrite our history, and promote obscenity and immorality everywhere that they can.

“It will show that most people on the left aren’t communists, just the useful idiots Lenin spoke of, who are being used to promote a socialist agenda which is the first and necessary step toward communism.

“History has proven beyond any doubt that the free enterprise that freedom produces provides more for anyone willing to work than any other system. So why would the left still be pushing a socialist agenda? It’s really just microwave communism. There are only two possibilities. They are either ignorant, or evil.

“From my investigation over the last two years into what has caused America’s drastic decline, I’m sorry to say the left won’t be able to use the ignorant card. They’ve left too much evidence of their agenda in their books, articles, and speeches. No. America has an enemy that is getting very close to accomplishing its plan of destroying the greatest country in world history.

“The reason I called this film Agenda, is because I wanted to make a clear distinction between what I was researching, and all the conspiracy theories out there. The dictionary says a ‘conspiracy’ is an evil plan formulated in secret by two or more persons. But an agenda is simply a list of things to be done. At every turn of my investigation, I’ve found agendas by people and groups of the left, outlining their plan in their own words. They’ve been doing most of this right out in the open.

“Some of you might be thinking these Marxist ideas aren’t the most serious threat we face. What about militant Islam? Or open borders? The national debt? Or even China? Well, I agree that America is facing many serious threats right now. But the reason I believe this agenda is the most dire is because it’s destroying us, on the inside. Through political correctness and dumbing down, it’s causing us to lose our ability to call evil evil, and stand against it. I fear for our country. If we go along with business as usual, not informed, not aware of what’s going on, then the very small minority that have a plan and are great at organizing the uninformed and misguided will make sure their plan is carried out.” thanks the East Valley Tea Party and Rep. Bowers for permission to make the video of his Oct 2 presentation.

David Leeper

David Leeper

David Leeper is a retired engineer living in Scottsdale, AZ, with his wife of 44 years. He is currently a volunteer science teacher at In his 40-year career he held positions from lab technician to technical vice president at Bell Labs, Motorola, and Intel. He holds 16 patents in telecom technology and a PhD in electrical engineering from the University of Pennsylvania. During his career, he wrote mainly for technical journals including Scientific American. He began writing for in 2011.
David Leeper


  1. Glo Wyzgoski says:

    Welcome to SOVIET AMERIKA!!  Of course I have this DVD and have touted the message for over two years.  My story is about a little girl but ten years old taking the words of Soviet Leader Joe Stalin AT HIS WORD when he said, “we do not have to get you with guns and bombs, we will infiltrate your schools and churches.”  At that young age, I never forgot those words just like I never forgot the moment it was announced Stalin had died.  I remember well the War, sugar stamps, blackout curtains, bomb shelters, hiding under desks.  I told that story to many, including my friend Joseph.  I happened to look into my SPAM one day, there it was “Agenda, Grinding America Down”–Stalin.  I knew what it was before I even opened the e-mail and knew it was OK.  It changed the course of my life that day, and especially when I received the DVD that I have watched several times and bought the books recommened and the Karl Marx flow chart that matches the AGENDA this once great country has succumbed—-and, it has.  We are no longer the America prior to 1930 and won’t be unless as a “CULTURE” we do something now.  Most, I believe, do not realize we are lost and are living in “Cultural Marxism”.  I have read many books including “The Naked Communist”, “Shadow World”, “Shadow Party”, “The Men Behind Hitler”, “The Communist Manifesto”, “Welcome to Soviet America”, “Covert Cadre”, the list goes on and on.  I BLOG to folks who care and those who do not and drink the KOOLAIDE.  I will continue to share what I learn and take the punches whatever that means, it is what it is.  I know for certain that when Curtis Bowers went to the meeting in 1992 when the Communist Party split, he was shocked and awakened to a whole new reality and could not go back and neither can I.  He has those who support him as I do.  Just when I get down and wonder if anyone cares anymore it seems God sends some sort of message or something happens that says “you’ve never given up before, why now”?  Yes, I’ve been called tenacious–not certain that is always a compliment.  Of course, the SUN IS ALWAYS SHINING THE CLOUDS ARE JUST COVERING UP A BIT SOME DAYS!!  ;0) 
    And, thanks Curtis Bowers for making a difference in so many lives and mine as well.  God Bless You. 
    PS’  My friend Mary has ordered many of the DVD’s and we are getting the message out there too that way.  She also receives your friend Phyllis Schafly’s newsletter.  I have done rheams of history research on everything in the DVD, including in depth on nearly the entire Agenda flow chart.  I was surprised when I received the chart that I had a file folder and/or book on nearly everything, including the Institute for Policy Studies, Cloward Piven and Saul Alinsky and much more.  You have changed my world.

  2. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

    the right will stop at nothing to demonize those who stand for equal rights of all. Even invoking comparisons with hitler and stalin. I ask any right wing nut job to name one industry that has been nationalized by the government, and dont say healthcare because that industry is still run by private insurance. Name one concentration camp opened by our current government. 
    This movie tries to discredit evolution. Open your eyes!! You need to go back to school because logic, reason and the scientific method have failed to sink in!

    1. TedCruzIsaBoehner Just for comparison’s sake, can you provide us with your definition of “equal rights for all”?

      1. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

        Equal rights for all is a rather self explanatory phrase and concept.
        Can you name a newly nationalized industry in the united states.
        How about a concentration camp.
        You know, just for comparisons sake.

        1. TedCruzIsaBoehner It is by no means self-explanatory. Some believe that all should be treated equally under the laws and be given the same opportunity to achieve what they can. Others will define equality as equality of outcomes and/or equal distribution of things.

        2. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          I know what your trying to do. My statement was “equal rights for all” not equal outcomes or whatever spin your trying to place on my comment. Now could you stop deflecting and answer my questions?
          The only thing radical sites and movies like these do is try to scare gullible simple people. This movie states that women wanting the right to vote,the right to marry if they choose, as communist. It also states evolution is a communist idea. Same with gaymarriage. All youve done is use “scary word recogniton” to confuse people to believe and practice the hate you spread.

        3. TedCruzIsaBoehner Actually, I was trying to take the points in your original comment one at a time, starting with the equality one. I can only assume you are withdrawing that statement, since you seem not only unwilling to defend it, but unable to answer the most basic question about it.

        4. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          I will not be withdrawing any comments. I clearly stated equal rights. Not equal economic outcome. I even cited parts of this propaganda films claims of what are rights that should be available to all but this movie cites as communist agenda. Your dodging plain and simple.

        5. TedCruzIsaBoehnerOkay, since we’ve been talking at cross-purposes here, allow me to tell you what my view on equality is. Forget, for the time being at least, about the film. I did not make the film. I do not endorse, or disavow, any particular aspect of the film. To me, the idea of talking about the film is far less interesting than the subject of equality.

          I am radically, militantly in favor of human equality. The only authority that is legitimate is that authority that has been created by—and is consented to, on an ongoing basis—the human beings that make up a polity. All humans must be treated equally by that authority. All humans beings have equal claim to their rights (call them natural rights or human rights, as you wish). All humans have these rights as an ineluctable consequence of their personhood. All humans must be free to enjoy and exercise these rights to the fullest possible extent within the context of ordered liberty. Acts by government that treats humans in any way unequally is illegitimate and a violation of the social contract.
          I am probably more radical than you when it comes to this belief. Like many on my side of the spectrum, I see progressive taxation is a clear violation of equality, as it treats some humans’ property as being subject to higher *rates* of confiscation than others. But I also believe that all tax breaks are violations of equality—including tax breaks for things that I personally and ideologically support, like marriage. All transfers of wealth from one individual, group, or entity for the exclusive use of another individual, group, or entity are violations of equality. This means not just welfare transfer payments, but tax breaks, bailouts, grants, and other forms of corporate welfare.
          The purpose of government is to secure our rights; to protect us from force, fraud, theft, and breach of contract; and to provide a small set of public goods, for the general (i.e., not the specific) interests of all, that cannot as easily be accomplished by the private sector.
          In executing those duties, government must NEVER subject humans to any more force than that which is necessary to accomplish these limited aims; and it must NEVER treat humans unequally, or prefer special interests to the general interest.
          The one possible exception to this would be a limited social safety net for children (esp. orphans and children of extremely neglectful; parents) and non compos mentis adults, since the former are disallowed full communion with their natural rights, and since the latter are incapable of discharging those rights. 
          Beyond that, any unequal treatment, exercise of force, or confiscation for purposes of rewarding any special interest are immoral and illegitimate. 
          In light of that answer, nd given that the equal rights of all are my HIGHEST priority, please explain what you mean by “the right (of which I am a member) will stop at nothing to demonize those who stand for equal rights of all.”

        6. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          Why forget the movie? My comment was about the movie and how this site is endorsing it. I can agree with most of your principles above, however i do believe in a safety net. When you live in the wealthiest nation in the world theres no reason why the working poor, elderly or disables should go hungry, homeless or without healthcare. I am totally against the complete demonization of the poor being perpetuated by the right wing.
          But as i stated at the beginning, my comment was about the movie, and since you wabted to approach my comment piecemeal i do believe we now have to move to my question of how many concentration camps has obama opened? How many major industries has he nationalized?

        7. TedCruzIsaBoehnerThere, you did it again!  The first time you commented, you said, “the right will stop at nothing to demonize those who stand for equal rights of all.” That is a calumny. No one gets away with calumny here. You do not get your questions answered when you sling calumnies in the course of asking a question.

          And now, here you are doing it again, but worse, with “the complete demonization of the poor being perpetuated by the right wing” That does not have objective basis in fact; it is a slur. You do not get to make slurs and then have your other questions answered as if the slurs did not happen. The FACT is, religious conservatives are more PERSONALLY charitable than religious liberals, and secular conservatives are more personally charitable than secular liberals. Liberalism is a predictor of LESS personal charity. We conservatives and libertarians are in favor of helping the poor; what we oppose is involuntary transfer of wealth at the point of a gun. And, interestingly enough, the same cohorts who are statistically shown to be less charitable with their OWN money are MORE likely to empower the government to be “charitable” BY FORCE with someone else’s money. We give of ourselves; liberals indirectly put a gun to their fellow human’s head and force him to give. Oh, and then the recipient of the money, convinced of the superior compassion of the liberal, gives him more power (via votes and money) to take even more money from other human beings at the point of a gun. And the cycle continues.

          This is not charity; this is a racket. This is economic bondage. This is a moral atrocity. And yet you have the NERVE to say that WE demonize the poor? What an execrable falsehood and slur.

        8. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          First of all, yelling does not make your point more valid or intimidating.
          Second, equating liberals to Stalinists and Nazis is a slur. Which is what this movie does from the onset. And your site endorses this film.Calling poor people “takers” or lazy and unwilling to work is a slur. Perpetuated by who? The right wing.
          Your claim that conservatives are more charitable is laughable and totally biased opinion. I give to charity, pay my taxes and am on no sort of government aid. Is my charity less somehow because i am not a conservative? I consider giving money to charity just to write it off on your taxes as no charity at all so think twice before climbing on your high horse.
          Next, it is an insult to somehow imply that poor people are bribed into voting democrat. Maybe if conservatives didnt bash the poor as takers and moochers they might be inclined to vote for you. Have you ever thought of that concept? You offer no solution to them except tax breaks to the wealthy so that they will “trickle down” to the poor. If that was the truth we’d have been swimming in high paying jobs in a time of full employment during the Bush era, but thats not what happened.
          Finally, you shouldnt use the term “at gunpoint” being that you are on the side in bed with the nra. I have no problem with people having guns to defend themselves, but arguing against universal background checks, preventing gun violence studies by the cdc and stiffer penalties for gun violence is obscene. Talk about holding people at gunpoint.
          Again, you refuse to answer my question about nationalization of industry and opening of concentration camps under obama because those claims simply are not true and you have no defense for making them. You simply yell and deflect.

        9. TedCruzIsaBoehnerI placed a few select terms in all caps because this system does not allow italics. I agree that all caps can look like yelling, but it is your verbiage that has been far more incendiary. The very first thing you said was that people of the right oppose human equality. That is a vile slur whether you place it in all caps or not.

          As far as the movie goes, I have not personally seen it; this post was made by another of our writers. I cannot, then, speak to its specifics. I do not know if you are correctly characterizing them or not.

          For my own part, I have not claimed that industries are nationalized (though the GM buyout was a sort of second cousin to nationalization). Our economic situation is a modern version of the corporate fascism of the 1920s and 30s. Hitler and Mussolini began with a core of socialist economics but realized the futility of trying to implement full-blown socialism in the Italian and German contexts of the time. Instead of nationalizing industries, they created a tripartite alliance of government, (connected big) businesses, and unions, with government in the prime position. The approach of Obama and others today is a lite version of that, resulting in cronyism, special treatment for connected corporations, and a heavy hand governing and regulating it all.

          The charity metrics are not opinion; they are borne out by numerous studies. Conservatives are more charitable in the religious cohort than liberals, and conservatives are more charitable than liberals in the secular cohort. That is not a high horse; that is fact. Your accusation that conservatives are only doing this to write it off on their taxes is yet another slur. 

          You then move to the NRA, using the classic butterfly tactic of flitting to another trite left-wing talking point. The NRA is designed to protect private citizens’ right to own effective means of defense. That is an entirely different category from the concept of the government monopoly of force and questions of legitimate use of that force. The fact that you went there is so prosaic and boring as to warrant little further response.

        10. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          So select businesses having control is new under obama huh? What a joke. Halliburton. Enough said.
          Dont start distancing yourself from this movie. I wrote this comment as an example as how the right is trying to deny the rights of others through scaring people with terms like “nazi” and “communist” if you dont know anything about this movie to judge the context of my comment perhaps you should have never responded.

    2. dleeper47 says:


      “Nationalized”? The Left, under Obama, would never literally “nationalize” any industry in America because it’s too damned much work. He doesn’t want the responsibility, and he needs someone to blame when things go awry. It’s his leadership style. You haven’t noticed?

      Obama does want control and power over industry — that’s his chosen strain of fascism, and it suits him to a tee. Health care is a great example. 

      This theme is well-articulated by Thomas Sowell at the link below …

      Maybe in the future, if enough doctors quit, if enough care is delayed or denied, and his bureaucrats cause enough suffering and death, he’ll “nationalize” health care. But for now, his brand of fascism is preferable.

      1. TedCruzIsaBoehnerdleeper47  
        regulation of private businesses, centralization of power, 
        bureaucracies imposing their own demands on the people without accompanying legislation being passed, a national
        welfare system . . . these things all characterize Obama’s approach AND classical 20th century European fascism.

        1. dleeper47 says:

          WesternFreePress TedCruzIsaBoehner

          That definition does fit, broadly, but Obama has put a new spin on it.

          Full-on fascism has been done before, and it’s been done better. Obama’s crappy variation might best be called “lazy-ass fascism”. 

          Lots of conservatives do like to call Obama a “socialist,” but it’s technically inaccurate.  “Fascist” would be closer.  And for the hustler and poseur that is Obama, rule-by-fascism is easier and more fun. It’s how he’ll be remembered.

          Those among the Left who still think for themselves know full well what Obama is. The rest can go pound sand.

      2. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

        So your answer is nothing. He has nationalized no industries, a staple in any communist society. Then you have a bunch of speculation about what he does or doesnt want. As if youve ever met the man. Then you site an article from another right wing source that has an overwhelming amount of pro right propaganda and trashes obama, and even nelson mandela on its homepage. You cant possibly think someone could view an article on that site as objective.

        1. dleeper47 says:

          Is your reply addressed to me? Where did I call him a “communist”? Are you talking about Where did I call that website “objective”? It’s conservative, just as DailyKos is left-oriented. So what?

          If you want to argue against strawman positions and labels that I haven’t taken or used, go right ahead. Enjoy. Knock yourself out. It’s moronic and juvenile, but it evidently suits you.

          BTW, one doesn’t “site” an article. One “cites” an article.


        2. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          Well i agree with your comment on site instead of cite, auto correct is something we all have to deal with these days.
          First, if you seek to cite something to back your point its generally wise to pick something that take an objective approach. Just because you found an article on a site that parrotts your point of view doesnt make itcorrect or anymore valid.
          Second, you call obama a fascist but say hes bad at it and at best a “lazy ass facist”. So hes a facist but not good at implementing facist policies? Maybe hes not a facist at all.
          Obviously name calling is the one thing you can do: “moronic and juvenile” “ability to think for themselves” “pound sand”. Your argument falls flat on its face with your contradictions, use of poor sources and name calling.
          Well done.

      3. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

        So your answer is nothing, he has nationalized no industries, which clearly shows hes not a communist.

        1. TedCruzIsaBoehnerdleeper47Correct; he is technically not a communist.
          Communism = TOTAL ownership of the means of production; 
          Socialism =  PARTIAL ownership of the means of production (some industries, usually the big ones); 
          Fascism, a.k.a. corporatism or fascist corporatism: CONTROL of the means of production
          These are all phenomena of the left. They are all flavors of statism: The belief that government should play a greater role in human lives, and that increasing the degree to which some men rule over the lives of people is justified in the name of producing certain results.

          Hitler and Mussolini both realized that they could not impose full-blown socialist economics in the Italian and German circumstances of the era, so they went for a partial implementation. Barack Obama is no different. He begins from a statist/left-wing economics mindset, and then pushes as far as the social context will allow. In America, that means a flavor of fascist corporatism.

          Let us say I want to go into the business of providing catastrophic medical insurance coverage under a certain set of terms. Let us say that I have customers interested in buying my product. Under the current regime, this completely voluntary exchange is disallowed. Even though the parties are all willing and consider it to be mutually beneficial, we are prevented, through the use of government’s monopoly of force, from exercising our rights of association, commerce, property, control of our bodies, self-ownership, etc.
          That is fascism. Not in the way that you lefties like to sling that term around, as a slur, but actually definitionally, historically—fascism. Obamacare is quintessentially fascist corporatism. 

          Obama will not nationalize industries because he cannot gt away with it. But he will come as close as he can in our national context. And you, and millions like you, will support and empower him to do so, even though most of his actions involve serial violations of our human rights.

          It doesn’t matter what the reason, or what rationalization you use to comfort yourself. It is morally criminal to do this. But moral criminality and serial violations of human rights are what the left out to be known for, fo that is their stock and trade.

        2. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          The government under obamacare has set minimum standards of insurance requirements. Being that our current system punishes those who buy insurance through exponential increases in hospital costs for services to pay for those who do not have insurance and recieve emergency care only to never pay for it i would think the party that cries foul on the “takers” would be all for it. Also being that the overall priciple of this plan was constructed by the heritage foundation in the 90s also means that many gop congressmen in the 90s were facist by your own definition.
          Facists under hitler also demonized the poor, immigrants and the educated. Boy that sure sounds like members of the tea party to me.
          You think you have somekind of moral authority? It was the right that bailed out wallstreet. It was the right that started an unprovoked war in Iraq. Its the right who wants to go into people bedrooms and personal lives and tell them who they can and cannot love or marry. Its the right calling for secession or the overthrow of a democratically elected government just because their side lost.
          No sir, i am not interested in your moral authority, because from where i sit, you have none.

        3. TedCruzIsaBoehnerDavid Leeper 
          Oh, this has been fun. You people on the left are so used to having conservatives and libertarians challenge you on the consequentialist failings of your beliefs, but never the moral ones. Well, guess what—times have changed. The left has long felt free to speak of the people on the right as being hate-filled and next-of-kin to demons. After all, anyone who stands in the way of the utopia you have convinced yourselves can be built with just the right application of government force is definitionally a monster to be demonized. We see it in the hate-filled bile you sling at us daily.  But those days are coming to an end. More and more, people are waking up to fundamental immorality of force, and the superior morality of voluntary cooperation. As more people awaken, the days of statism draw closer to their end. That vile, IMMORAL system of governance that has plagued man for so long—from the despots of ancient times to the totalitarians and fascists of the 20th century to the chic nouveau-progressives of today—is slowly becoming discredited. And when it fails, spectacularly, as it is going to do, human beings will finally realize that we are far better off free, and taking care of one another the way we’re supposed to—as communities of free people, not cattle on the left’s Animal Farm.

        4. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          Oh i feel so bad for you “moral conservatives” who are getting picked on. I believe it is you who are not used to having your ideas discredited or even hearing another point of view.
          I do not believe a utopia is possible to be achieved, especially on a national level so i dont know who that argument is directed at. I also know no other liberals who call for a utopian society either.
          I do believe that members on the right attempt to sit on a high horse of so called morality but have been knocked off of their perch recently and are upset that they have been found to be the frauds they are. You claim to want freedom, but yet seek to limit the right to vote, the rights of immigrants, the rights of homosexuals,the rights of women and those of different faiths or no faith.
          Your experiment with trickle down economics has been a whopping failure. Your continued call for a return to a laissez faire style economics as though you dont remember the times of child labor, mass tenements, lower qualities of health and standards of living show that you are poor students of history. To further my point of you lacking in historical knowledge, you throw around the words communist and nazi continuously, showing your complete lack of respect for those imprisoned or killed under hitler or various communist regimes, further more proving you missed multiple chapters to the stories of torture suppression and murder.
          Whats best about all this is that you and many other tea partiers seem to think that you have some groundswell of support and that you somehow own the majority of this countries representation in government. I say to you it is your way of thinking and governing that is coming to an end. Youve lost the election for president twice, to a man that youve portrayed as foriegn,muslim,communist and hitler esque. And the way you all console eachother is by calling the majority of the electorate “takers” or blind followers or thosewho cannot think for themselves. Ive got news for you, the reason you lose is the hate that spews from your mouths on a daily basis. In an election year in which you were supposed to take a clean sweep of the government you lost seats in the house and senate. And all you can do is blame others for your losses.
          Ill leave you with this thought for the day and it should help keep you awake tonight:
          Everyday another person in this country turns 18 and registers to vote and they are immune to your brand of hatred because they do not recognize themselves with your stand on social issues. they believe that they should treat others the way they want to be treated regardless of race, religion, age, sex or sesexual orientation. overwhelmingly those people vote deomocrat or at least more liberal.
          One the other side of that coin: everyday a bigoted,hate filled irrational right winger dies. The future is not bright for your outdated mode of thinking my friend. Enjoy the view from the fringe while the rest of us march forward into the future.

        5. TedCruzIsaBoehnerWhat a lovely string of straw men and left-wing tropes about the right. Oh, and the right didn’t slaughter 110 million human beings in the 20th century in the name of marching forward into the future—-the left did.

        6. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          The right got off to a good start in the slaughter in the 21st. Another example of lack of knowledge in the history department. And your definition of fascism being on the left is certainly disputed. But we all know how the right likes to attempt to rewrite history.
          Your comment to my earlier response was full of straw men. If you want to go there i gladly will.
          However, i walk in confidence knowing that your method of lies and hate to win elections no longer works. And the tea party is the last grasp at that philosophy, condemning you to the fringes. Sweet dreams

        7. TedCruzIsaBoehnerI have no idea what 21st century slaughter you are talking about, but it’s going to be hard to compete with the left’s 9-figure body count.

        8. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          This is exactly what ive been commenting about for weeks now. Just because i believe in a safety net does not mean i condone, endorse or believe in the opening of gulags or the slaughter of millions of people.You have no valid counter arguments, and know that your days of winning national elections are numbered. Thus you revert to calling everyone a stalinist or Nazi when they dont agree with you.
          Notice i havent blamed you for every death at the hands of slavery, every workplace fire throughout the world where a business skirts building codes, every person that has died from cancer due to smoking, power grids and leakage of carcinogens. Just because someone disagrees with me does not mean they are murderers or wish to see human suffering. This is why your message is falling on deaf ears.
          And by the way, anyone whos been to college knows that fascism is on the right and communism is on the left. Just recently the rightwing has tried to redefine it just like they try to rewrite history.

        9. TedCruzIsaBoehnerLet the record show that someone of the political left—the side that has turned calling their opponents on the right “fascists” and “nazis” at the drop of a hat . . . ANY hat! . . . into an art form—just whined, “Thus you revert to calling everyone a stalinist or Nazi when they dont agree with you.”
          Oh golly, this has been fun.

        10. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          Oh boo hoo. Youve got it so rough…. continue deflecting from why cant win elections or defend your stance that those who want a safety net some how endorse mass slaughter.
          You made comments that hold no water and as you have along cannot tie the left of the united states to stalinists or nazis. You are getting foolish

        11. TedCruzIsaBoehnerYou do not understand. I am not tying the left in America directly to mass slaughter—though many condoned it, rationalized it, or knew of it and hid the knowledge. (I actually had a lefty in LA deny Stalin’s terror famine of Ukraine to my face.) I am tying the left to a philosophy. There are only two core political philosophies, once everything else is stripped away. One side says that government should do more, and men should rule over other men. The other side says that government should be as restrained as possible, and that, beyond the barest minimum elected, consensual, nonpermanent leadership empowered only to accomplish a limited number of  simple social contract aims, men should rule themselves. In that context, every lefty is part of a chain that not only includes fascism and stalinism, but monarchy and despotism.
          Your constant talk of elections also shows that you do not understand. There is something far more important than elections. It is called rule of law. Rule of law is based on human rights. If the collective votes that redheaded people should die, that is an election, but it is not consonant with the rule of law. If the collective votes that a man must transact business with someone he does not wish to transact business, or must transact business in a certain way, that is not consonant with the rule of law. It may have made the collective feel good about itself, and many may *think* they’re doing something good, but that does not change the fact that it is a violation of human rights. And if a man’s property is taken from him by force for the exclusive use of another, a use in which he will have no part, that is almost never consonant with the rule of law. If 90% of the collective can vote higher confiscation of property from 10% and lower confiscation from themselves, and can vote also that they enjoy the fruits of that confiscation in greater measure, that is not consonant with the rule of law . . . no matter what the expressed purpose.

          You can win a thousand elections, and none of these principles will change. These principles are rooted in our Founding and in the Enlightenment, and they have their roots in English Common law going back more than a thousand years, and in accumulated human wisdom going back further than that. And these principles were broadly understood until the era of statism returned in the 20th century, after an all-too-brief interregnum between the era of ancient despotisms and the era of modern despotisms.

          My point about the end of the power of statism is not something so petty as a point about elections. It is a broader point that human beings are about to experience a rebirth of liberty. We are on the cusp of a modern Enlightenment, where we usher in an end to despotism and a new era where we are free, and in that freedom, we are able to take care of the needy and less fortunate in ways that put the pathetic social safety nets we have today to shame. 

          You have come on this site, and in your very first sentence, slung vile, untrue calumnies at entire orders of people. You have continued to do so at various junctures, blithely, almost unaware how easily they slip from your fingers. You then protest that it is you—poor you, who only wants an oh-so-minimal safety net—who is being mistreated. But your every trope, your every hackneyed left-wing insult, betrays you. Wrap yourself in a self-righteous cloak of belief in your superior compassion all you want; we know what you want, what you are, and what you enable others to do.

          An end is coming. Just as the rule of kings ended, so too shall we soon see an end to the rule of masters. And end to the rule of “experts.” Whether it comes in my lifetime, or that of my child, it is coming, and I will work for it relentlessly. Human freedom, and the power of voluntary human interaction, will defeat imposed power and force and coercion. We will meet human needs together. We will care for the needy together. Not through force. Though cooperation, love, and liberty. 

          Your time on this site has been poorly spent. You have learned nothing. You have sounded the typical left-wing notes, and vomited forth the typical left wing protestations and smoke screens. You are like a dinosaur, mocking the burning meteor as it heads for impact. You have no idea what is coming, just as you apparently have no idea who we truly are and what we truly believe.

          And it looks like my time in this endeavor has been poorly spent as well, so I think I shall spend no more.

        12. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          There isnt much to learn from a site that believes there are only two basic principles, and that those who believe the government has a role to play somehow condone slaughter as you claimed above. That because you talked to one “lefty” in la who refused to believe atrocities in ukraine does not mean that all of those who recognize themselves as left of center believe that same thing. Ive talked to “rightys ” that disagreed with the abolishion of slavery. Does that now mean that you believe that same thing?
          Furthermore you apply a slippery slope argument when it come to those who recognize themselves as left but yet do not when it comes to the philosophies of the right. That because i believe there should be some sort of safety net somehow implies i or people like me would support a communist regime who confiscates land and all the other paranoid ranting you did above shows just how little you have learned. Including your basic argument that if your left you condone the acts of hitler and stalin and if your right then your somekind of saint that is just looking out for the well being of all. Where else in life have found the option of “black or white” to be applicable? People and groups of people are far more complex than that and you should know better than to try and usethat argument against someone that actually questions your logic behind an argument.
          I would love to see a world where we care for the needy and less fortunate as well. However i disagree that it can be obtained by giving all the power to business owners and corperations. By doing that your trading one percieved master for another. If you think that a business will just do what is right out of the goodness of their heart than you are not a good student of history. Because at the end of the day a business is beholden to their shareholders, not the communities in which they operate or their employees.
          I am not complaining that im being attacked or want any kind of sympathy. All ive done is illustrate how radical and without basis your claims are. You play to the fears of simple people by labeling those you dont agree with as communists or facists through slippery slope arguments in the hope that no-one will question your logic. Well you have been questioned and have failed to show how everyone on the left, whether they are moderate or more fringe, are equal to murderous regimes.

        13. dleeper47 says:


          Your time may have been poorly spent on TCIB but not on others. 

          There’s no further need to put him down with your writing. His own posts do that. He is the billboard of his own buffoonery.

          Over & out …

        14. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

          At least he tried to make points. More than i can say for your comments. Your brand of hate and dilusion are on their way out. Enjoy 2014 and 2016. I know i will. The teaparty is on the express to the footnotes of history. Cooler heads and moderates will prevail in due course. But first the hate mongerers know as the tea party must, and will, be dispatched.

  3. TedCruzIsaBoehner says:

    Glo Wyzgoski add another name to the list: lunatic

Curtis Bowers of "Agenda, Grinding America Down" Speaks in Mesa