Charles Ellison of www.blackpolicy.org and the University of Denver interviewed me about Iran, Iraq and North Korea on podcast on Blackpolicy.org
http://www.ascentperspectives.blogspot.com/ at www.blackpolicy.org
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Phil Beckman on Fifth Generation Warfare
Phil Beckman writes:
>"In a recent post Mitchell mentions that 4GW may be passe and that many of the things that Hammes writes about aren't necessarily relevant to fighting an extremist enemy. I agree. I've used the term 4GW within the framework of our discussion out of convenience, but I think the phenomena we are dealing with have yet to be adequately described and are much larger than what 4GW theorists are talking about. Over the past several years there have been many discussions of 4GW, 5GW, asymmetric war, unrestricted war, media war, idea war, meme war, etc. Not only do the Islamists present us with a different kind of threat that challenges our existing categories, but these theories allow us to review the left's success in achieving "cultural hegemony" in our universities, media, government and generally throughout our society, as well."
Phil Orenstein had written in a recent post:
>"To win the war of ideas that is central to this debate we need to put partisan politics aside and refresh ourselves with the spirit of the American Revolution and our founding fathers who fought the battle of ideas before winning the revolutionary war against the British Empire."
Beckman continues:
>"I agree that this is exactly what should happen, but it's not going to happen. We can't put partisan politics aside because the left's ideology is not only not rooted in the ideals of the American founding, but is inherently inimical to them. Remember that we live in a time where if you are a judicial candidate and you believe that the federal gov't should exercise only those powers that have been delegated by the Constitution, then you will be attacked as a right-wing extremist. Our goal should be to have the ideals and spirit of the American founding be generally accepted across all political differences. This is what we would be championing in a 4GW, media war, idea war campaign etc. But we have to accept that this is going to bring us into direct conflict with the left.
>"Around July 4th, the LA Times published an Op Ed in which the liberal writer asked, was the American Revolution really worth it? After all if we had remained part of the British Empire slavery would have been abolished in 1830 rather than 1865 and chances are we would have established the same socialist welfare state that the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have. The reality is that the left has no use for the ideals and spirit of the American Revolution.
>"The recent ISI study revealing the disastrous ignorance of American history and government shows us just how real our challenge is. We can't expect people to be inspired by the ideals of the American founding and be willing to risk their lives in defense of these ideals if they don't know what they are. This ignorance creates a population that is susceptible to the idiocies of Chomsky, Moore, et al. So promoting these ideals and educating people about them needs to be a central component of any pro-liberty, pro-American campaign.
>"While partisanship is inevitable, at the tactical level setting aside partisanship is important. For example, the Kelo decision created an opportunity to run a campaign against against eminent domain abuse and offered an opportunity to educate people on the importance of private property rights to the free society. People of all political persuasions own property and thus this kind of a campaign can appeal to everyone.
>"What we are talking about is creating a movement in which people are inspired by the ideals and a vision of the American Experiment to take action on their own, independent of any centralized control and guided by their ideals and values. The specific kinds of non-violent action available to us are many and varied. Any type of media, technology, activism, rhetorical technique and organizational form is there in the tool box. What I would like to see is a proliferation of dozens perhaps hundreds of organizations all promoting pro-liberty, pro-American ideals and working to counter the postmodernist left and Islamic fundamentalism. How do we inspire people to do this?
>"I keep coming back again and again to ideas, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and interpretations because that seems to me to be the primary battlefield. Alinsky references the well-known statement of John Adams that the revolution had taken place in the minds of the people before the war was fought. Something like that needs to happen now. This is the kind of thing that operates at a more fundamental level than electoral politics. This is about what people believe about their country and ultimately what they believe about themselves. We need to be striving to create this kind of a revolution in the minds of the people. So whether we call it 4GW, meme war, media war, culture war, whatever, I don't care, but it needs to be done."
My comment:
Phil Beckman's points are well taken. There needs to be more assertiveness and more discussion of laissez faire ideals. Individualism and the spirit of the American revolution have been attacked for ten decades by leftists, progressives and the acolytes of JP Morgan and rationalized markets, e.g., the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party and the New York Times. Groups like ISI are critical, and I am delighted that my student Pini Bohm has started an ISI group at Brooklyn College.
Beckman continues:
>"I believe that if any generation deserves the title 'Greatest Generation' it is the founding generation. The more I learn about what they achieved the more I admire them. But we can't be constantly looking backward to them and using their words to express our beliefs. We have to drink deeply of the ideals of the American founding, make them a part of us and articulate them in our own words in a way relevant for our own time. Future generations should look back to our words and deeds and be inspired. The challenge that we face is to create a vision of where we as Americans are going together in the future. A vision of the American Experiment for the 21st century. One sign of our success will be when the American-born children of immigrants from Vietnam, Ghana, Ecuador, Korea, India, El Salvador, and Ethiopia adopt the ideals and vision of the American Experiment and root their identities there and reject the multiculturalism and cultural relativism propagated by the left. If we can't out-compete the left with people who made great efforts to become Americans then we are screwed. Our vision is what they came to pursue; the left's vision is a recipe for failure and dystopia.
>"We need to stoke the hearth-fire of liberty. If 300 million Americans are filled with and inspired by the vision of the American Experiment then the Jihadists have no chance in disrupting our society. But if half the populace ranges from ambivalence to hatred of America then we are in trouble. And it is the left that is responsible for that ambivalence-hatred."
>"In a recent post Mitchell mentions that 4GW may be passe and that many of the things that Hammes writes about aren't necessarily relevant to fighting an extremist enemy. I agree. I've used the term 4GW within the framework of our discussion out of convenience, but I think the phenomena we are dealing with have yet to be adequately described and are much larger than what 4GW theorists are talking about. Over the past several years there have been many discussions of 4GW, 5GW, asymmetric war, unrestricted war, media war, idea war, meme war, etc. Not only do the Islamists present us with a different kind of threat that challenges our existing categories, but these theories allow us to review the left's success in achieving "cultural hegemony" in our universities, media, government and generally throughout our society, as well."
Phil Orenstein had written in a recent post:
>"To win the war of ideas that is central to this debate we need to put partisan politics aside and refresh ourselves with the spirit of the American Revolution and our founding fathers who fought the battle of ideas before winning the revolutionary war against the British Empire."
Beckman continues:
>"I agree that this is exactly what should happen, but it's not going to happen. We can't put partisan politics aside because the left's ideology is not only not rooted in the ideals of the American founding, but is inherently inimical to them. Remember that we live in a time where if you are a judicial candidate and you believe that the federal gov't should exercise only those powers that have been delegated by the Constitution, then you will be attacked as a right-wing extremist. Our goal should be to have the ideals and spirit of the American founding be generally accepted across all political differences. This is what we would be championing in a 4GW, media war, idea war campaign etc. But we have to accept that this is going to bring us into direct conflict with the left.
>"Around July 4th, the LA Times published an Op Ed in which the liberal writer asked, was the American Revolution really worth it? After all if we had remained part of the British Empire slavery would have been abolished in 1830 rather than 1865 and chances are we would have established the same socialist welfare state that the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have. The reality is that the left has no use for the ideals and spirit of the American Revolution.
>"The recent ISI study revealing the disastrous ignorance of American history and government shows us just how real our challenge is. We can't expect people to be inspired by the ideals of the American founding and be willing to risk their lives in defense of these ideals if they don't know what they are. This ignorance creates a population that is susceptible to the idiocies of Chomsky, Moore, et al. So promoting these ideals and educating people about them needs to be a central component of any pro-liberty, pro-American campaign.
>"While partisanship is inevitable, at the tactical level setting aside partisanship is important. For example, the Kelo decision created an opportunity to run a campaign against against eminent domain abuse and offered an opportunity to educate people on the importance of private property rights to the free society. People of all political persuasions own property and thus this kind of a campaign can appeal to everyone.
>"What we are talking about is creating a movement in which people are inspired by the ideals and a vision of the American Experiment to take action on their own, independent of any centralized control and guided by their ideals and values. The specific kinds of non-violent action available to us are many and varied. Any type of media, technology, activism, rhetorical technique and organizational form is there in the tool box. What I would like to see is a proliferation of dozens perhaps hundreds of organizations all promoting pro-liberty, pro-American ideals and working to counter the postmodernist left and Islamic fundamentalism. How do we inspire people to do this?
>"I keep coming back again and again to ideas, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and interpretations because that seems to me to be the primary battlefield. Alinsky references the well-known statement of John Adams that the revolution had taken place in the minds of the people before the war was fought. Something like that needs to happen now. This is the kind of thing that operates at a more fundamental level than electoral politics. This is about what people believe about their country and ultimately what they believe about themselves. We need to be striving to create this kind of a revolution in the minds of the people. So whether we call it 4GW, meme war, media war, culture war, whatever, I don't care, but it needs to be done."
My comment:
Phil Beckman's points are well taken. There needs to be more assertiveness and more discussion of laissez faire ideals. Individualism and the spirit of the American revolution have been attacked for ten decades by leftists, progressives and the acolytes of JP Morgan and rationalized markets, e.g., the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party and the New York Times. Groups like ISI are critical, and I am delighted that my student Pini Bohm has started an ISI group at Brooklyn College.
Beckman continues:
>"I believe that if any generation deserves the title 'Greatest Generation' it is the founding generation. The more I learn about what they achieved the more I admire them. But we can't be constantly looking backward to them and using their words to express our beliefs. We have to drink deeply of the ideals of the American founding, make them a part of us and articulate them in our own words in a way relevant for our own time. Future generations should look back to our words and deeds and be inspired. The challenge that we face is to create a vision of where we as Americans are going together in the future. A vision of the American Experiment for the 21st century. One sign of our success will be when the American-born children of immigrants from Vietnam, Ghana, Ecuador, Korea, India, El Salvador, and Ethiopia adopt the ideals and vision of the American Experiment and root their identities there and reject the multiculturalism and cultural relativism propagated by the left. If we can't out-compete the left with people who made great efforts to become Americans then we are screwed. Our vision is what they came to pursue; the left's vision is a recipe for failure and dystopia.
>"We need to stoke the hearth-fire of liberty. If 300 million Americans are filled with and inspired by the vision of the American Experiment then the Jihadists have no chance in disrupting our society. But if half the populace ranges from ambivalence to hatred of America then we are in trouble. And it is the left that is responsible for that ambivalence-hatred."
Military Strategy and the Bush Administration
Warren Buffett once said that he likes to buy stocks of companies that are so well strategically situated (have such a good "moat") that even if they are run by idiots they will be profitable. Buffett's goal was to find such companies and then make sure that they were staffed by competent executives like Roberto Goizuetta or Kathryn Graham. In today's New York Sun Andrew Ferguson has a story about the new Bob Woodward book, State of Denial, which is about the incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration.
The journalists who write for the media are probably capable at what they do (no more or less capable than say the managers who run US corporations or the politicians in Washington, after all they are educated by the same universities and likely have about the same SAT scores) yet rarely have been exposed to a broad range of literature through a core curriculum and even more rarely have taken the time to seriously study subjects like management, strategy, economics and military history. Hence, it is not surprising that journalists' discussions of strategic issues lack the breadth that would have resulted from their completion of a competently executed liberal arts education that includes a grounding in the classics, philosophy and history, and lacks the sophistication that would result from relevant technical training in business or military strategy. In an earlier post I discussed the evolution of Thomas Friedman's "thinking" about Iraq. There is little doubt in my mind that the lack of perspective in his work and the acclaim that his work has received have resulted from a general failure of our education system, a failure that has debilitated America intellectually.
Criticisms about President Bush may be correct, and the Republicans may have engaged in five years of self-indulgent over-spending and cronyism. In this, I doubt that they are very different from the Democrats who, for example, run the New York State Assembly whom Mr. Friedman and the New York Times never criticize. (Mr. Woodward writes for the Washington Post, and it would be interesting to trace his coverage of government competence in Washington, DC, to include stars like Marion Barry.) In any case, the issue of the administration's competence is not quite the same as the issue of strategy in the Iraqi War.
Larwyn has forwarded some interesting links about paradoxes in the media's coverage of the Iraqi War, and the incoherence with which the press has discussed the strategic implications and even facts about the war. First, though, The Economist has written a report on the leaked intelligence report in its United States section which is short on facts and analysis but long on sneering about President Bush("These blunt conclusions...are hard to dismiss by any but the willfully dim sighted") following Thomas Friedman's tone and similarly short on intelligent discussion.
I wrote the Economist the following letter in response:
"The US intelligence community that was brutally inept with respect to anticipating September 11, 2001 now informs us that fighting terrorists on their own soil is unpopular with terorists and is therefore a mistake ("Stating the Obvious", September 30). There were similar arguments about nurturing terrorists' happiness concerning sanctions preceding the Iraqi War. Indeed any action taken to confront terrrorism will become a cause celebre among those who view themselves as part of the terrorists' community of belief. Hence, your response to the report amounts to a call to do nothing. That is a foolhardy bargaining strategy. Might have the fire bombing of Tokyo during World War II caused the Japanese to dislike the US and so increased the probability of kamikaze attacks? If so, was this a reason not to fire bomb Tokyo? Moreover, the leaked intelligence report assumes that fighters who commit acts of terror would not have in the absence of the Iraqi War (for otherwise their feelings are moot). Isn't such an assumption, that the Iraqi War alone generates terrorist acts absent fertile psychological soil, silly? And might not encouraging terrorists to fight and die in Iraq be helpful to the rest of the world by ridding us of those most likely to commit terrorist acts?"
The story Larwyn sent me is a blog by Tigerhawk which compares an article in the Washington Post about the dire fighting in Anbar, western Iraq. In contrast, the Guardian points out that much of the fighting in Anbar has involved tribes in Anbar fighting directly with al Qaeda (where are the arguments that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda?) and the Guardian states that "The clashes erupted after a new grouping calling itself the Anbar Rescue Council - which claims to represent a large number of Anbar tribes and sub-clans - said it intended to clear the province of the terrorist group." The fighting also involves in-fighting in al Qaeda where Osama bin Laden was angry with Zarqawi for killing Sunni religious scholars. According to the article "It is these issues that have been at the heart of the rift between al-Qaida and the tribes, many of whose members support the nationalist resistance". Such issues escape coverage in the Economist, the New York Times and the Washington Post.
The journalists who write for the media are probably capable at what they do (no more or less capable than say the managers who run US corporations or the politicians in Washington, after all they are educated by the same universities and likely have about the same SAT scores) yet rarely have been exposed to a broad range of literature through a core curriculum and even more rarely have taken the time to seriously study subjects like management, strategy, economics and military history. Hence, it is not surprising that journalists' discussions of strategic issues lack the breadth that would have resulted from their completion of a competently executed liberal arts education that includes a grounding in the classics, philosophy and history, and lacks the sophistication that would result from relevant technical training in business or military strategy. In an earlier post I discussed the evolution of Thomas Friedman's "thinking" about Iraq. There is little doubt in my mind that the lack of perspective in his work and the acclaim that his work has received have resulted from a general failure of our education system, a failure that has debilitated America intellectually.
Criticisms about President Bush may be correct, and the Republicans may have engaged in five years of self-indulgent over-spending and cronyism. In this, I doubt that they are very different from the Democrats who, for example, run the New York State Assembly whom Mr. Friedman and the New York Times never criticize. (Mr. Woodward writes for the Washington Post, and it would be interesting to trace his coverage of government competence in Washington, DC, to include stars like Marion Barry.) In any case, the issue of the administration's competence is not quite the same as the issue of strategy in the Iraqi War.
Larwyn has forwarded some interesting links about paradoxes in the media's coverage of the Iraqi War, and the incoherence with which the press has discussed the strategic implications and even facts about the war. First, though, The Economist has written a report on the leaked intelligence report in its United States section which is short on facts and analysis but long on sneering about President Bush("These blunt conclusions...are hard to dismiss by any but the willfully dim sighted") following Thomas Friedman's tone and similarly short on intelligent discussion.
I wrote the Economist the following letter in response:
"The US intelligence community that was brutally inept with respect to anticipating September 11, 2001 now informs us that fighting terrorists on their own soil is unpopular with terorists and is therefore a mistake ("Stating the Obvious", September 30). There were similar arguments about nurturing terrorists' happiness concerning sanctions preceding the Iraqi War. Indeed any action taken to confront terrrorism will become a cause celebre among those who view themselves as part of the terrorists' community of belief. Hence, your response to the report amounts to a call to do nothing. That is a foolhardy bargaining strategy. Might have the fire bombing of Tokyo during World War II caused the Japanese to dislike the US and so increased the probability of kamikaze attacks? If so, was this a reason not to fire bomb Tokyo? Moreover, the leaked intelligence report assumes that fighters who commit acts of terror would not have in the absence of the Iraqi War (for otherwise their feelings are moot). Isn't such an assumption, that the Iraqi War alone generates terrorist acts absent fertile psychological soil, silly? And might not encouraging terrorists to fight and die in Iraq be helpful to the rest of the world by ridding us of those most likely to commit terrorist acts?"
The story Larwyn sent me is a blog by Tigerhawk which compares an article in the Washington Post about the dire fighting in Anbar, western Iraq. In contrast, the Guardian points out that much of the fighting in Anbar has involved tribes in Anbar fighting directly with al Qaeda (where are the arguments that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda?) and the Guardian states that "The clashes erupted after a new grouping calling itself the Anbar Rescue Council - which claims to represent a large number of Anbar tribes and sub-clans - said it intended to clear the province of the terrorist group." The fighting also involves in-fighting in al Qaeda where Osama bin Laden was angry with Zarqawi for killing Sunni religious scholars. According to the article "It is these issues that have been at the heart of the rift between al-Qaida and the tribes, many of whose members support the nationalist resistance". Such issues escape coverage in the Economist, the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Congressman John M. McHugh--Republican at the Trough
The Federal Election Commission permits review of all the Political Action Committee contributions to Congressional candidates for the Senate and Congress. One can trace the sources of influence on our elected officials through this site.
One Congressman who outshines all the others from New York's delegation is Congressman John M. McHugh a Republican from northern New York, New York’s 23rd district. McHugh received $384,126 in campaign contributions through August 23, 2006.
Congressman McHugh sits on the National Security, Emerging Threats, and the Energy subcommittees of the Comittee on Government Reform. He is also on the Readiness subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services. He is also on the Intelligence Policy; the Technical and Tactical Intelligence; and the Terrorism subcommittees of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Congressman McHugh's web page emphasizes that he is "recognized as a 'Champion of Dairy Farmers' for his aggressive approach to forcing Congress to address the needs of dairy farmers." The website also states that he is a "champion of education" but education interests do not dominate his list of contributors. Rather, a wide range of labor unions in the construction industy along with mail carriers and direct mail firms that likely have an interest in his postal reform proposals.
A clue as to why he receives such heavy contibutions from construction unions is in this statement:
"He believes that a good educational foundation allows children to reach their full potential and lead responsible adult lives. As such, Rep. McHugh has been a strong supporter of a bill that would subsidize $25 billion in zero-interest school modernization bonds..."
A flurry of school construction would not do much to improve education (that would require reinstatement of traditional teaching methods and discarding of the left wing ideology that dominates our education schools and the education establishment) but rather might benefit construction interests.
As far as his postal activities, his website indicates that:
"as a recognized authority on postal matters in light of his six years as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, Rep. McHugh was appointed to serve as the chairman of the Committee’s Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight in early 2003. In the 109th Congress, he has again introduced legislation to significantly reform the Postal Service for the first time in 35 years..."
In addition to the postal bill, Congressman McHugh has proposed bills to: promote the use of digesters by agricultural producers; amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide a tax credit to farmers in value-added agriculture; and exempt individual health insurance premiums from tax. He has been involved in several additional tax- and health insurance-related bills, which may explain the heavy presence of health insurance firms and health providers among his contributors.
What is fascinating about Congressman McHugh's long list of contributors is the wide range of business and labor interests who are helping McHugh get elected, some of which probably salivate at the thought of the needless construction of school buildings. Some of his contributors reflect local interests such as Fort Drum, dairy, other farming, paper mills, lumber and a General Motors plant. Other of his contributors appear to relate to projects whose purposes are unrelated to the needs of his constituents or of the United States.
Given the rural nature of McHugh's district one wonders why he needs so much money for his election campaigns---air time and newspaper space cannot be very expensive in the frozen north country of New York State.
McHugh's donors in excess of $5,000 since 2000 include:
Advo Inc. (direct mail company)
Agri-Mark (Dairy Farmer Cooperative)
Airline Pilots Association
American Chiropractic Association
American Federation of Government Employees
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
American Federation of Teachers
American Hospital Association
American Maritime Officers
American Medical Association
American Postal Workers
Capital One Financial Corp.
Carpenters and Joiners
Committee on Letter Carriers Political Education
Con-Way (supply chain management and logistics services)
Credit Union National Association
Dairy Farmers of America
Direct Marketing Association
Electrical Contractors
Operating Engineers
Farm Credit Council
General Dynamics
General Motors
Health Net
Humana
Bridge Structural and Iron Workers
International Association of Firefighters
Bricklayers Union
Laborers' International Union
Lockheed Martin
Magazine Publishers of America
Retired Federal Employees
National Association for Uniformed Services
National Association for Postal Supervisors
National Association of Postmasters
National Association of Realtors
Beer Wholesalers
National League of Postmasters
National Postal Mail Handlers
National Rural Letter Carriers' Association
National Star Route Mail Contractors Political Action Committee
PMA Group (automotive products)
RR Donnelly (printing, brochures, direct marketing)
Service Employees International Union
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors
Time Warner (magazine subscriptions)
Treasury Employees
United Auto Workers
Verizon
Wal Mart
HJ Heinz
Georgia Pacific Corporaton (paper)
One Congressman who outshines all the others from New York's delegation is Congressman John M. McHugh a Republican from northern New York, New York’s 23rd district. McHugh received $384,126 in campaign contributions through August 23, 2006.
Congressman McHugh sits on the National Security, Emerging Threats, and the Energy subcommittees of the Comittee on Government Reform. He is also on the Readiness subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services. He is also on the Intelligence Policy; the Technical and Tactical Intelligence; and the Terrorism subcommittees of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Congressman McHugh's web page emphasizes that he is "recognized as a 'Champion of Dairy Farmers' for his aggressive approach to forcing Congress to address the needs of dairy farmers." The website also states that he is a "champion of education" but education interests do not dominate his list of contributors. Rather, a wide range of labor unions in the construction industy along with mail carriers and direct mail firms that likely have an interest in his postal reform proposals.
A clue as to why he receives such heavy contibutions from construction unions is in this statement:
"He believes that a good educational foundation allows children to reach their full potential and lead responsible adult lives. As such, Rep. McHugh has been a strong supporter of a bill that would subsidize $25 billion in zero-interest school modernization bonds..."
A flurry of school construction would not do much to improve education (that would require reinstatement of traditional teaching methods and discarding of the left wing ideology that dominates our education schools and the education establishment) but rather might benefit construction interests.
As far as his postal activities, his website indicates that:
"as a recognized authority on postal matters in light of his six years as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, Rep. McHugh was appointed to serve as the chairman of the Committee’s Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight in early 2003. In the 109th Congress, he has again introduced legislation to significantly reform the Postal Service for the first time in 35 years..."
In addition to the postal bill, Congressman McHugh has proposed bills to: promote the use of digesters by agricultural producers; amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide a tax credit to farmers in value-added agriculture; and exempt individual health insurance premiums from tax. He has been involved in several additional tax- and health insurance-related bills, which may explain the heavy presence of health insurance firms and health providers among his contributors.
What is fascinating about Congressman McHugh's long list of contributors is the wide range of business and labor interests who are helping McHugh get elected, some of which probably salivate at the thought of the needless construction of school buildings. Some of his contributors reflect local interests such as Fort Drum, dairy, other farming, paper mills, lumber and a General Motors plant. Other of his contributors appear to relate to projects whose purposes are unrelated to the needs of his constituents or of the United States.
Given the rural nature of McHugh's district one wonders why he needs so much money for his election campaigns---air time and newspaper space cannot be very expensive in the frozen north country of New York State.
McHugh's donors in excess of $5,000 since 2000 include:
Advo Inc. (direct mail company)
Agri-Mark (Dairy Farmer Cooperative)
Airline Pilots Association
American Chiropractic Association
American Federation of Government Employees
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
American Federation of Teachers
American Hospital Association
American Maritime Officers
American Medical Association
American Postal Workers
Capital One Financial Corp.
Carpenters and Joiners
Committee on Letter Carriers Political Education
Con-Way (supply chain management and logistics services)
Credit Union National Association
Dairy Farmers of America
Direct Marketing Association
Electrical Contractors
Operating Engineers
Farm Credit Council
General Dynamics
General Motors
Health Net
Humana
Bridge Structural and Iron Workers
International Association of Firefighters
Bricklayers Union
Laborers' International Union
Lockheed Martin
Magazine Publishers of America
Retired Federal Employees
National Association for Uniformed Services
National Association for Postal Supervisors
National Association of Postmasters
National Association of Realtors
Beer Wholesalers
National League of Postmasters
National Postal Mail Handlers
National Rural Letter Carriers' Association
National Star Route Mail Contractors Political Action Committee
PMA Group (automotive products)
RR Donnelly (printing, brochures, direct marketing)
Service Employees International Union
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors
Time Warner (magazine subscriptions)
Treasury Employees
United Auto Workers
Verizon
Wal Mart
HJ Heinz
Georgia Pacific Corporaton (paper)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
