Archive for the ‘Communist party USA’ Category

Submitted by Trevor Loudon on August 24, 2011

Judith LeBlanc is is one of the vice-chairs of the Communist Party USA and chairs it’s Peace and Solidarity Commission, the Party body charged with controlling the  US “peace movement”, and liaising with foreign governments and organizations..

Judith LeBlanc, terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, 2002

LeBlanc is currently the national field organizer for Peace Action, the country’s largest grassroots peace organization with 100,000 members across the country. She is also formerly the national co-chair of the nationwide “peace” umbrella group, United for Peace and Justice.

The Communist Party’s aim, through the “peace movement” is essentially to weaken US Defense capabilities, to the advantage of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea and other sworn enemies of the United States of America. In more honest times, this would have been called what it is – treason.

Writing on the Communist Party website Political Affairs, LeBlanc outlines how the the “peace movement” should respond to recent initiatives by far leftist Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and a Defense review being carried out by leftist Democrats Barney Frank and Ron Wyden and Republican Congressmen Walter Jones and Ron Paul.

Something is missing in the swirl of news reporting on the debt ceiling deal struck on August 2 by the Congress and the President for close to $1 trillion in cuts in discretionary programs over the next decade.

Will the 56 percent of discretionary spending that goes to the Pentagon take a hit in the name of deficit reduction?

The short answer is not necessarily, not unless we are ready to rumble.

Even the Senate Armed Services Committee leaders Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain have no idea what the deal does to the Pentagon budget.

The cruel irony is the debt ceiling deal exempts spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though war costs are one of the biggest factors driving up the national debt by over a trillion dollars.

Caps have been set for “security and non security” spending. The cuts will follow. The security category lumps together the Pentagon with the State Department, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security and nuclear weapons systems.

Right now cuts to the Pentagon budget are not guaranteed. It is threat. Without a grassroots rumble the ax won’t fall on the Pentagon or weapons of mass destruction, it will land on veteran’s benefits or diplomatic efforts.

It’s a fight, not a discussion…

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta released a statement stirring up fear about the threat of across the board cuts if the “sequester mechanism” took effect and the Committee of 12 Congressional representatives fail to reach a compromise on how to make the next $1.5 trillion in cuts.

He also said,”We must be accountable to the American people for what we spend, where we spend it, and with what result. While we have reasonable controls over much of our budgetary information, it is unacceptable to me that the Department of Defense cannot produce a financial statement that passes all financial audit standards.”

That’s our mandate to rumble. The Pentagon and the Congress must be made accountable to us for what they cut, spend and the result. Pouring scarce resources into Pentagon is not a jobs program.

Unemployment has become a constant. CNBC, the business news website, reported on August 2, “The job cuts were up 60 percent from June, and 59 percent higher than the 41,676 layoffs recorded in July 2010. It was the largest monthly total since March 2010, and the first month this year that the government was not the biggest job cutter.”

Cuts in “non security” discretionary spending means layoffs. The 26 million people unemployed or underemployed in our communities can’t afford for that to happen…

So let’s rumble during the August Congressional recess. Take the facts to our Congressional representatives. We can and must cut the Pentagon budget to fund jobs and services in our communities.

Although the The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the bipartisan commission chaired by former Senator Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, did not have many recommendations to cheer about, but they got one thing right. Cutting military spending is possible.

They proposed closing one third of US bases around the world as an immediate savings. Not only is it a wise budget cut, it fits with how US foreign policy needs to change in the 21st century.We can’t afford a militarized foreign policy of endless wars and occupations and the modernizing of nuclear weapons systems.

In The Hill, Tom Colina, the research director at Arms Control Association wrote, “By carefully reducing our nuclear forces and scaling back new weapon systems, the United States can save billions. Moreover, by reducing the incentive for Russia to rebuild its arsenal, these budget savings can make America safer.”

In June, 2010,the bi-partisan Sustainable Defense Taskforce initiated by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), working in cooperation with Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), proposed ways to cut Pentagon spending in their report “Debt, Deficits and Defense: A Way Forward.” It can be done if the political will is mustered.

That’s where the peace and economic justice movements come in: generating the political will.

Along side of the misery of the budget cuts, there is an opportunity to win real cuts in military spending…

The President said in April when he announced his framework for dealing with the federal budget that “we’re going to have to conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world.”

New movements are taking the opportunity for such a fundamental review and a change in the spending priorities. On August 4, the AFL-CIO issued a statement, “Fake Political Crisis and Real Economic Crisis- A Call for Leadership and Action.” The AFL-CIO Executive Council said, “It doesn’t have to be this way. There are real solutions to the job crisis, but real solutions require government action.”

They also noted, “There is no way to fund what we must do as a nation without bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The militarization of our foreign policy has proven to be a costly mistake. It is time to invest at home.”

It’s going to take a an adamant, militant grassroots rumble to demand demilitarization of US foreign policy, to end the insanity of endless and countless wars draining the scarce resources needed for people, the world over, to have jobs and a decent life.

There it is people. The Communist Party USA, long time a friend of Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea and countless radical and terrorist groups in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, wants you to lower your national defense capabilities.

They are going to mobilize their minions in the “peace movement” to ensure that US defense cuts are both broad and deep.

They have President Obama on their side. they have a Secretary of Defense who has hobknobbed with the far left for decades, they have supporters in both aisles of Congress. All they need now is public opinion, and US defense readiness will go into a possibly fatal decline.

I dare call this treason.

What do you call it?

This is a big part of agenda 21 under a different name… S.C. Rep. Joe Neal(Democrat)-Explains Reality of FORCED Community Clustering & Impact on Property Values. Is your city or county…….Member List — ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA

Joe Neal, South Carolina State Representative explains how Comprehensive Planning adopted by local government will encumber private property rights. To request a copy of the entire DVD contact Don Casey, at don4132@gmail.com.

THE COMMUNISTS START THEIR MOVE

On June 9, 2011, President Obama signed his 86th Executive Order, and almost nobody noticed.

(For the record, Obama is on par to match President Bush’s 291 orders executed during his two terms in office. The National Archives defines an Executive Order this way; Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.)

President Obama’s E.O. 13575 is designed to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16% of the American people. Why didn’t we notice it?  Weinergate.  In the middle of the Anthony Weiner scandal, as the press and most of the American people were distracted, President Obama created something called “The White House Rural Council” (WHRC).

Section One of 13575 states the following:

Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.

Warning bells should have been sounding all across rural America when the phrase “sustainable rural communities” came up. As we know from researching the UN plan for Sustainable Development known as Agenda 21, these are code words for the true fundamental transformation America.

The third sentence also makes it quite clear that the government intends to take greater control over “food, fiber, and energy.”

The last sentence in Section 1 further clarifies the intent of the order by tying together “access to the capital necessary for economic growth, health care and education.”

The new White House Rural Council will probably be populated by experts in the various fields that might prove helpful to the folks who live and work outside of large urban areas, right?  Well, Tom Vilsack, the current Secretary of Agriculture, will chair the group, but let us review the list of members appointed to serve on this new council – according to the order, the heads of the following groups have been appointed:

• (1) the Department of the Treasury; Timothy Geithner
• (2) the Department of Defense; Robert Gates
• (3) the Department of Justice; Eric Holder
• (4) the Department of the Interior; Ken Salazar
• (5) the Department of Commerce; Gary Locke
• (6) the Department of Labor; Hilda Solis
• (7) the Department of Health and Human Services; Kathleen Sebelius
• (8) the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Shaun Donovan
• (9) the Department of Transportation; Ray LaHood
• (10) the Department of Energy; Dr. Steven Chu
• (11) the Department of Education; Arne Duncan
• (12) the Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric Shinseki
• (13) the Department of Homeland Security; Janet Napolitano
• (14) the Environmental Protection Agency; Lisa Jackson
• (15) the Federal Communications Commission; Michael Copps
• (16) the Office of Management and Budget; Peter Orszag
• (17) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; John Holdren
• (18) the Office of National Drug Control Policy; R. Gil Kerlikowske
• (19) the Council of Economic Advisers; Austan Goolsbee
• (20) the Domestic Policy Council; Melody Barnes (former VP at Center for American Progress)
• (21) the National Economic Council; Gene B. Sperling
• (22) the Small Business Administration; Karen Mills
• (23) the Council on Environmental Quality; Nancy Sutley
• (24) the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs; Valerie Jarrett
• (25) the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or Secretary of  Agriculture may, from time to time, designate. Chris Lu (or virtually anyone to be designated by the 24 people named above)

It appears that not a single department in the federal government was excluded from the new White House Rural Council, and the wild card option in number 25 gives the president and the agriculture secretary the option to designate anyone to serve on this powerful council.

Within the twenty-five designated members of the council are some curious ties to Agenda 21 and the structure being built to implement it:

Valerie Jarrett from the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs served on the board of something called Local Initiatives Support Corportation (LISC). LISC uses the language of Agenda 21 and ICLEI as their web page details their work to build “Sustainable Communities.”

Melody Barnes head of the Domestic Policy Council – Former VP at George Soros-funded Center for American Progress.

Hilda Solis from the Labor Dept – in 2000 received an award for her work on “Environmental Justice.”

Nancy Sutley head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality – Served on the board of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District and was one of the biggest supporters of low-flow toilets that are now credited with costing more money than expected while causing some nasty problems.

Is it possible that concerns about 13575 are just typical anti-government paranoia? Let us review the mission and function of WHRC:

Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council. The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities.

“Economic prosperity” and a better “quality of life,” that all sounds fairly innocent and well-intentioned. But continuing deeper into the order we find the council is charged with four directives:

(a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;

The vague language here sounds non-threatening. But, is there a hint here that a “rural stimulus plan” might be in the making? Will the Federal government start pumping money into farmlands under the guise of creating “economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America?” It is difficult to discern as the language is so broad.

We continue with the functions of the WHRC:

(b) coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;

Virtually every aspect of rural life seems to now be part of the government’s mission. And while all of the items in (b) sound like typical government speak, you should be alarmed when you read the words “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs). NGOs are unelected, but typically government-funded groups that act like embedded community organizers. And NGOs are key to Agenda 21′s plans.

Continuing:

(c) coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas;

That one sounds very similar to the language found in the United Nations plan for sustainable cities known as Agenda 21. Managing the population in both rural and urban areas, with a focus on controlling “open spaces.”

(d) and identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.

This function of Executive Order 13575 ties energy development with outdoor recreation and“other conservation related activities.” When did outdoor recreation become a conservation related activity?

Aside from the content of this order and some its vague intentions, the timing of the signing should also be considered. Later this month, Washington DC is hosting a meeting of the Agenda 21 operatives who are members of ICLEI:

Washington, D.C. – ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA (ICLEI USA) and U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) today announced the launch of the National Press Club Leadership Speaker Series to be held on June 28. The event’s inaugural keynote speaker will be the Honorable Sha Zukang, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), whose keynote address, The Road to Rio+20, will explain the role of key global and national stakeholders, and the impact and vision of this historic conference.

As Secretary-General of Rio+20, Ambassador Sha Zukang will convene high-ranking leaders from government, the private sector and civil society to chart a pathway to accelerate the implementation of sustainable development decisions and the green economy through the creation of an institutional framework and inclusive participation.

The United Nations has pushed their sustainable development program for almost twenty years. The UN’s “social justice” blueprint called Agenda 21 requires governments to control almost all aspects of an individual’s life, but has recently met with substantial resistance in America. Since The Blaze covered this topic and the story appeared on Glenn Beck’s Fox TV program, we have been inundated with reports from around the country about efforts to remove ICLEI and Agenda 21 from local governments.

Carroll County, Maryland: Starting in February, 2011, all five newly elected county commissioners, led by Richard Rothschild, voted to become the first county in the nation to end the ICLEI contract.

Amador County, California: The Mother Lode Tea Party lead the successful effort to remove ICLEI form Amador County.

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Activists Ruth Miller and Maggie Roddin have raised awareness that lead to the removal of ICLEI.

Edmond, Oklahoma: Molly Jenkins motivated 200 people to attend the city council meeting and demand action against ICLEI.

Las Cruces, New Mexico: continues to debate the issue, but rational voices are gaining momentum in the community.

Spartanburg, South Carolina: City Councilman Roger Nutt successfully directed the effort against the program and Spartanburg became the 6th community to kick out ICLEI in a vote of 6-0 by City Council (with one abstention).

There have also been anti-ICLEI rallies held in several cities this week, with more planned in the near future:

• June 27, 11:30am-3:00pm
  Exeter, NH, Exeter High School
• June 27, 5:00pm-8:30pm
  Galveston, TX, Galveston Convention Center
• June 27, 8:30am-5:00pm
  Ocean Shores, WA, Quinault Beach Resort and Casino
• June 30, 1:00pm-5:00pm
  San Francisco Bay Area, CA, TBD
• June 30, 10:00am-5:00pm
  West Long Branch, NJ, Monmouth University

There appears to be a developing, grass-roots movement to reject programs like Agenda 21. It remains to be seen if these groups might also reject a Washington-based control over rural lands, like the council created by Executive Order 13575.

As long as there’s not another Weinergate, maybe they’ll notice.

The normalcy bias refers to a mental state (head in the sand) people enter when facing a potential disaster.
It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects.

This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations.

The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. America will always be America – yeah right.

It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.
Possible causes

The normalcy bias may be caused in part by the way the brain processes new data. Research suggests that even when the brain is calm, it takes 8–10 seconds to process new information. Stress slows the process, and when the brain cannot find an acceptable response to a situation, it fixates on a single solution that may or may not be correct. An evolutionary reason for this response could be that paralysis gives an animal a better chance of surviving an attack; predators are less likely to eat prey that isn’t struggling.

Effects
The normalcy bias causes people to drastically underestimate the effects of the disaster.
Therefore, they think that everything will be all right, while information from the radio, television, or neighbors gives them reason to believe there is a risk.
This creates a cognitive dissonance that they then must work to eliminate.
Some manage to eliminate it by refusing to believe new warnings coming in and refusing to evaluate (maintaining the normalcy bias), while others eliminate the dissonance by escaping the danger.

The possibility that some may refuse to evaluate causes significant problems in planning for the future.

Our present disaster is the Obama – Soros (Fabian Socialists) dumbing down of America, Making America a third world country. They are presently behind all the uprising in the middle East. The Fabian Socialists believe the smashing apart the World and rebuilding it in their elite One World Order image. It is easy to pick up their agenda. We write about it every day at our website – www.itmakessenseblog.com It is time to wake up your neighbors and your children.

Sad to say my grown children get their news from the comedy channel, the food channel, the travel channel and believe that somehow the world will stay the same.
Let’s try to get their heads out of Normalcy bias. – The Meister

Yesterday we brought you video of socialists openly rallying in Madison, WI and trying to recruit new members. Today, we show you that the communists are joining the fray too.

Once again, the MacIver Institute was down at the Capitol capturing video of those flocking to the protests in Wisconsin. This time, videographer Bill Osmuski caught up with some admitted revolutionaries from Chicago who came up to try and spread their message, and told Osmuski they definitely think “people are open to the possibilities of building a revolutionary movement.”

What did the communists cite as evidence? If you said “Egypt” and the unrest “around the world,” you’re right:

The group’s website explains more about its leader:

Bob Avakian is the leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. And he is more than that: he’s an innovative and critical thinker who has taken Marxism to a new place; he’s a provocative commentator on everything from basketball to religion, doo-wop music to science and he’s a pit-bull fighter against oppression who’s kept both his solemn sense of purpose and his irrepressible sense of humor.

He’s the author of “Revolution: Why It’s Necessary, Why It’s Possible, What It’s All About.”

The group, which appears to be different from the Communist Party USA, has three guiding principles:

1) The whole system we now live under is based on exploitation—here and all over the world. It is completely worthless and no basic change for the better can come about until this system is overthrown.

2) Many different groups will protest and rebel against things this system does, and these protests and rebellions should be supported and strengthened. Yet it is only those with nothing to lose but their chains who can be the backbone of a struggle to actually overthrow this system and create a new system that will put an end to exploitation and help pave the way to a whole new world.

3) Such a revolutionary struggle is possible. There is a political Party that can lead such a struggle, a political Party that speaks and acts for those with nothing to lose but their chains: The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.

Remember, they’re just your friendly neighborhood communists.

As a side note, some of you might have caught someone carrying an American flag in the background. No, your eyes weren’t fooling you — the person was flying the flag upside down:

Posted on February 3, 2011 at 9:28am by  Jonathon M. Seidl

The following video was taken at the anti-Koch brothers protest in Palm Spring, CA last weekend. What you’re about to see is shocking — “peaceful” Communist leftist protesters calling for the torture and death of Clarence Thomas as well as the death of Fox News executives, and one woman challenging Glenn Beck to a duel with her “Glock.”

You’ll also hear one person calling for revolution and another saying Thomas should sent “back to the fields”:

I saw a political cartoon today that has Patrick Henry saying, “Give me liberty or give me civility.” The apparent point being that civility is a limit on liberty. There is a saying that people in the old west tended to be rather polite, because everybody was armed; to the degree that is true, people voluntarily limited the offensiveness of their speech as a matter of prudence. The reality is that anything that governs any action is a limit on liberty, which is why the Founding Fathers held the idea of limited government as a basic tenet of the foundation of our republic.

There is a balance that should be maintained between complete freedom to say and behave in any way a person chooses and in civility and polite behavior. Politeness and civility come from a person’s upbringing and the social culture of society.

When I was a child, in the 1950’s, society was considerably more polite than it is today, not only in speech, but in grooming, dress, and general behavior. Men were careful of their personal appearance, were chivalrous, tipping their hats (everyone wore a hat), stepping aside to allow others to pass on the sidewalk, holding doors for women, children, and the elderly, and watching their language in public.

The big change to this came from the younger members of my generation in the late sixties and seventies. Inspired by left-leaning professors, it started with college students who refused to honor the draft, developed into opposition to the Viet Nam war; running counter to traditional patriotic support of our soldiers during time of war. This bloomed into the hippy era, drug culture, free love, abortion rights, women’s rights, environmentalism, and a general anti-establishment philosophy. They rose up in a mass rebellion against pretty much every social and moral more of the time.

From the close of World War II, the Soviet Union was very actively working to foment this type of unrest through agents and contacts in the American Communist Party, the Socialist Party, labor unions, the universities, and the media. These have elevated extremism to mainstream politics via left wing groups from followers of Alinsky, SDS, Acorn, and various other “community organizations” and radical groups.

The McCarthy hearings of the early fifties identified some of this activity, but concentrated most on the film industry, where they were fairly successful in disarming that propaganda effort. The irony of the Soviet success in placing socialist plants and creating civil unrest was that, while they ended up succeeding beyond their original hope, it did not cause a push for Soviet style communism, but instead a push toward greater liberty; almost, but not quite, an anarchy type of freedom.

There were some very good things that came from all this. Freedom of speech and expression were given a greater emphasis than ever before. Women gained equality in the workplace and a greater say in the political and civic arena. Citizens became openly hostile toward public corruption and cronyism. Industrial pollution and toxic waste has been reduced by probably 90%.

Business has been changed from the type X labor/management conflict model to a more win/win approach. Families have switched from a rigid patriarchal style, to more of a partnership with greater parental involvement with children. All these are examples of the good that came out of this period of unrest.

However, there were almost an equal number of bad things that came from this period; it was a sort of a “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” situation. The polite civility of our parent’s generation didn’t completely disappear, but it was badly damaged and greatly reduced.

The use of slang, poor grammar, and of aggressive, offensive, and threatening language greatly increased. Self-discipline and personal accountability have been replaced with selfish hedonism and victimization. The concept of earning respect was replaced with deserving respect. Our children have been raised to believe that competing is bad, and winning isn’t important; everybody deserves the same reward regardless of personal effort and performance.

Political correctness has created a society unable to address differences between cultures, races, or other social distinctions, while at the same time destroying the concept of the American social “melting pot.” We now have Afro-, Hispano-, Asian-, etc. Americans who believe the culture and values of their homeland or racial group is more important than their identity as Americans. We have inadvertently created a new type of segregation.

So in addition to the many good things, the history of the Baby Boomers and their children has created all kinds of bad fall-out. Examples are extremely high rates of birth out of wedlock, huge numbers of abortions, huge numbers of single parent families, widespread use of drugs, illogical environmental and social laws, great loss of heavy industry, tremendous growth in government and the taxes required to support it, and a less civil, more crude society.

A second irony is the left accusing the right of using violent rhetoric when the use of extreme aggressive violent language, hyperbole, rhetoric , and imagery has been an invention and mainstay of the left; they are now accusing a much more mild right, in particular the Tea Party and talk radio, of abusing freedom of speech with excessive use of violent language. For any liberal to make such an accusation is not only ironic, but also hypocritical.

Personally, I would like for people on all sides of the political spectrum to avoid aggressive language and instead endeavor to express their ideas and opposition with more accuracy and less emotion. I don’t think this will really happen, because the left is steeped in the concept of using every crisis to drive an emotional following to a loud attack on their opposition.

I recently stated that I dislike seeing the Republicans “playing nice” with the Democrats; and I definitely feel that way. I think the Republicans need to respect the right of the Democrats to their opinions, but I also think Republicans need to strongly counter those damaging and anti-American ideas.

Modern politics is more clearly than ever aligned between not just conservative and liberal, but right and wrong. The conservatives are simply right, and the liberals are simply wrong, and there is nothing in that to compromise. I would rather see congress unable to ever pass another law than to pass one more law that will hurt our country.

An example of left-wing civility

The union chief tries to intimidate CEOs from backing reform.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka seems to have learned a thing or two about strong arm bully techniques.

Last Wednesday Mr. Trumka gave a speech at the National Press Club denounc­ing business groups that support pro-reform Governors, calling them “shadowy commit­tees . . . aimed at depriving all work­ers—public and private sector—of the basic human right to form strong unions and bar­gain collectively to lift their lives.”

He then started foot stomping, naming Rupert Mur­doch, CEO of News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal newspaper, and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as participants “in a committee formed to raise business funds to attack pub­lic employees.”

The AFL-CIO didn’t return our calls asking what group he has in mind, but we’ll guess that it’s the Committee to Save New York, a nonprofit organized last year to promote eco­nomic reform in a state that desperately needs new business and job creation. We don’t know if Messrs. Murdoch or Blankfein donate to the Committee, but they are board members of the Partnership for New York City, a business group that also wants to save the state.

The Committee aims to raise $10 million and supports a balanced budget, capping property taxes and fewer state mandates for cities. Its board includes such radicals as Democratic financier Felix Rohatyn and Carl McCall, a former Democratic candidate for Governor. It recently released a TV ad praising new Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo and plans to support his effort to clean up Albany.

That program represents a direct threat to government unions and their allies, which have long opposed any cuts in the rich pay and pensions that are bleeding the state budget. As Mr. Cuomo noted in his state of the state speech this month, “government costs are simply unsustainable.” New York’s Medicaid payments are larger than those of Texas and Florida combined. The state faces a nearly $10 billion budget deficit and a pension gap pro­jected to hit $6.2 billion in 2013.

Mr. Trumka realizes that he can’t influence GOP Gov­ernors, but he’s desperate to stop a Democrat like Mr. Cuomo from breaking the union stranglehold on Albany. He’s wagering that his public pressure will cause some of Mr. Cuomo’s business allies to drop their support, and on that score he may be right.

Ridhard Parsons, the chairman of Citigroup and a founding member of the Committee, re­signed from the board sometime after Mr. Ro­hatyn proclaimed his support in a December op-ed in the New York Post. A spokesman for Mr. Parsons wouldn’t confirm the date of the resignation but told us it had nothing to do with union pressure and that Mr. Parsons wanted to “focus on his current business re­sponsibilities as well as his other civic and philanthropic activities.”

Meanwhile, the Blackstone Group, which manages billions of dollars of state and local public pension money, issued a statement seemingly out of the blue last Wednesday op­posing the “scape goating” of “public employ­ees.” A Blackstone spokesman told us the statement was not linked to the Trumka speech, but we’ll go out on a very short limb and say it had everything to do with maintain­ing access to pension cash controlled by poli­ticians who answer to government-employee unions. We’re reminded of the old line that capital is a coward.

As they’ve done in the past, unions and their allies will run millions of dollars in TV ads trying to stop Mr. Cuomo’s reform efforts. Without business support for ads that counter this demagoguery, the unions might prevail once again. Given his liberal record, Mr. Cuomo is an unlikely reformer, but so far he’s sounding enough like New Jersey Republican Chris Christie to offer taxpayers hope.

We also hope business leaders aren’t intim­idated by Mr. Trumka’s, communist tactics, war whoops and keep supporting efforts to save New York from the public unions that are driving its economic decline.

Barack Obama’s patriotic tour has run into a snag. More evidence of communist backing for the candidate has surfaced. The latest to emerge publicly in Obama’s camp is Joelle Fishman, the chairman of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) Political Action Commission. In a column titled, “Big political shifts are underway,” Fishman says that Obama could lead “a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right” this November and that he is “ready to listen” to the “left and progressive voters” backing him. Fishman makes it clear that the CPUSA is part of this coalition.

Meanwhile, admitted CPUSA member Alan Maki, writing on the official Barack Obama website, in the “community blogs” section under an “Obama 08” banner, has mentioned the unmentionable. That is the role of CPUSA member Frank Marshall Davis in mentoring Obama during his formative high school years in Hawaii.

Although fine print at the bottom of the page says that “Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign,” the information provided by Maki is deadly confirmation that a hard-core CPUSA member played a key role in helping raise Obama. It is a story that most media, including some “conservative” news outlets, have shied away from.

Davis, who died in 1987, was a Stalinist who stayed with the CPUSA when others were abandoning it, and he refused, as late as 1956, to deny his membership in the party. He was selected by Obama’s white grandfather to be the future candidate’s role model and father-figure.

Obama showed his gratitude by going to socialist conferences and selecting Marxist professors as his friends in college. Later, of course, he would arrive in Chicago and launch his political career in the arms of communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who, according to declassified intelligence information (PDF), were members of a group with connections to the CPUSA, foreign communist regimes, and even the Soviet KGB. The information shows that their close terrorist associate, Kathy Boudin, attended Moscow University and was subsidized by the Soviet government. Her father was a CPUSA member and a registered Cuban agent, documents show.

Praise for the CPUSA Figure

Announcing the “Frank Marshall Davis roundtable for change” on the Obama website, Maki, a Democratic Party activist and casino worker organizer, explained, “Reading Barack Obama’s book I learned about his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.” He went on, “Of course, as we all know, Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist and he had a very good understanding of the underlying source of problems which all too often goes unstated and unchallenged and remains hidden because of the high fear-factor level in this country; I am referring to capitalism, a thoroughly rotten system. Frank Marshall Davis also understood through his thorough studies of the situation that socialism provided the only workable alternative to capitalism.”

Saying that he has been “active in the Minnesota DFL and the Democratic Party most of my life,” Maki still wants to know about the specifics of the “change” Obama is promising.

Maki goes on to say, “There really isn’t much for us to learn about ‘change’ from Obama, but there is quite a bit to be gleaned from the writings of Frank Marshall Davis and I thank Barack Obama for bringing him to my attention… now I can say that Frank Marshall Davis is in many ways my mentor, too.”

In a telephone conversation, Maki admitted being a CPUSA member and claimed the FBI had thousands of pages on him. A friendly fellow, he maintains more than a dozen blogs. One of them is simply titled, “Communist manifesto.”

For her part, CPUSA official Fishman seems to have more insight into Obama’s notion of change. “In sharp contrast” to John McCain, Fishman writes, “Obama speaks of strengthening government to provide health care and jobs, address global warming and end the war in Iraq.”

Drudge Plays Role of Censor

While Obama’s far-left support seems to be worthy of news and comment, Matt Drudge of Drudge Report fame has just rejected two paid ads submitted by my group America’s Survival, Inc. about the influence that CPUSA member Davis exerted over a young Obama. The ads featured a photo of Davis and a communist hammer and sickle. They asked, “Who is this man?,” and urged viewers to click to “Meet the mysterious Red Mentor” so they could be directed to two reports on the subject. The ads were “too controversial,” Drudge’s representative told me.

A recent article in Politico suggested Drudge was moving into the Obama camp. Matt Drudge, the article said, has been “trumpeting Obama’s victories and shrugging at his scandals.” The rejection of my ads is proof of that.

While Drudge protects Obama to the extent of rejecting paid advertising which draws attention to his Frank Marshall Davis connection, the “progressives” are openly talking about it. A“progressive” blogger named Rita responded to Alan Maki and says she checked out a copy of Davis’s book, Livin’ the Blues, from the library, and has been “reading it every day and sharing this with my kids…Frank Marshall Davis was a journalist and social activist of tremendous courage. I want to point out that Frank Marshall Davis was not only a voice for civil and human rights; his voice was a solid voice for the rights of all working people.”

She reproduces Maki’s email on Davis, which notes that copies were sent to such left-wing luminaries as Rep. Keith Ellison, Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, and Robert Borosage of the Institute for America’s Future and the Campaign for America’s Future. Borosage, who writes for the Huffington Post, is also the founder and chairman of the Progressive Majority Political Action Committee, which “recruits, staffs, and funds progressive candidates for political office.”

If Davis was indeed a “voice for civil and human rights,” why didn’t Barack Obama proudly identify Frank Marshall Davis by his full name in Dreams From My Father? Instead, Obama refers repeatedly to somebody named “Frank” giving him advice on various matters. Obama does note, however, that “Frank” was a contemporary of black poets Richard Wright and Langston Hughes. This is a hint of his real identity. The reference is significant because Wright and Hughes broke with the CPUSA while Davis did not. Indeed, Davis, in Livin’ the Blues (page 243), refers to Wright’s “act of treason” for exposing the CPUSA. Davis favored cooperation between what he called “Reds and blacks.” This demonstrates how much of a committed communist Davis really was. And this may be why Obama didn’t want readers to know his true identity.

A writer for a communist publication, Gerald Horne, first identified the mysterious “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis. The identity was confirmed by Dr. Kathryn Takara of the University of Hawaii. Now, Alan Maki confirms it as well, saying that “progressives” should be proud of his legacy.
Praising Foreign Reds, Too

In addition to glorifying Davis as a source of sound ideas, the “progressive” Minnesota blog that favorably cites Maki also features a picture of “Paul Reyes…heroic leader of the Columbian resistance.” This is the dead leader of the communist narco-terrorists known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Documents found in Reyes’ computer after his death disclosed that “gringos” representing Barack Obama wanted to meet with the FARC and that they were opposed to U.S. military aid for the Colombian government. Obama had been publicly critical of the Colombia government’s human rights record.

400 Leftist organizations involved in destroying our country  are marching in the One Nation Rally on Saturday, 10.02.10.

Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:13:04 AM by Art in Idaho

Glen Beck had a segment today on the upcoming One Nation rally and described many organizations sponsoring it including communist party usa. I did some research and found on the Communist Party USA site, a link to Political Affairs at the top of the CPUSA home page. Click that and in the middle of the site is a story “March on Washington for Freedom and Jobs”. Click that and you go to a page devoted to the 10.2.10 March on Washington. Then click on One Nation and voila’, you’re at the main One Nation Page. There you can Find a Ride. You can also click the News and Updates Link and click this Link Liberal Groups plan One Nation rally in D.C. There you can click 300 Progressive Groups and you’ll go to Endorsing organizations. At that site it says, wait, not 300 organizations, but 400 organizations: “These are some of the more than 400 organizations, representing tens of thousands of individuals who have endorsed the One Nation Working Together campaign.”

Wait until you see the List. I didn’t know there were so many leftist/marxist/socialist/communist organizations in the United States. Check out the names.

If you got lost in my listed urls, just go Here That’s where The List is. An eye opening experience. Keep in mind I started at the Communist Party USA site and just kept clicking from their site to find the list.

It appears communist are very well organized, must network extensively and have been working infiltration for decades. They are ‘on the march’ as it were. Well, so are we.

We’ve all seen the 1963 congressional record list of the communist goals. A scary list which reveals their decades long struggle to infiltrate, brainwash and eventually take over. Education of Truth is our key. Is the Cold War over? . It never ended.

I hope people go to the rally and document as much as possible. Go in groups and remember these people are brainwashed, unstable but dedicated. If you go, go in small groups and hang tight.

On a personal note, I had 8 people I knew: one family member, close friends, and acquaintances, die in Vietnam. We were told we were fighting communism. We still are. We need to unite and continue this fight or we are going to be overrun from within. This isn’t a college discussion anymore. They are going for total control, and soon. They smell victory. They must be stopped.

Swedish rout highlights European socialist crisis

The crash of Sweden’s long-ruling Social Democrats to their worst defeat since 1914 highlights the decline of socialist parties in much of Europe, drained by social change, economic crisis and the rise of new issues.

The re-election of a center-right Swedish government for the first time in modern history and the entry of a hard-right anti-immigrant party into parliament show how far the times have changed, even in social democracy’s north European heartland.

How the center-left should respond, and whether it can regain the ascendancy in Europe at a time when loyalties are shifting across the political spectrum, are now being fought out in internal party tussles in Britain and France in particular.

In Sweden as in Germany, France, Denmark or the Netherlands, the main party of the center-left has hemorrhaged votes in all directions — to the hard left, the ecologist Greens, the populist far right but also to mainstream conservatives.

“Social democracy comes across as a victim of the crisis, when it should appear as a refuge or a hope after years of neo-liberal excess,” French political scientist Laurent Bouvet wrote earlier this year.

Technological change and globalization have shrunk the traditional industrial working class and the trade unions, made jobs more precarious and thrown up new issues such as climate change, population aging, immigration, obesity and drugs.

The mainstream left is torn between trying to reconnect with a lost popular electorate and reaching out to an aspiring new class in the knowledge economy.

Swedish Social Democratic leader Mona Sahlin alienated some centrist supporters by agreeing to a formal coalition with the ex-communist Left party — a move that the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) continues to eschew.

ACCOMPLICE?

In countries such as Britain, France and Germany, where the center-left was in government in the early 2000s, it is regarded by many voters as having been a zealous accomplice in financial deregulation and economic liberalism.

Rising income inequality gave a hollow ring to the left’s proclaimed ambition to redistribute wealth.

Now that most European countries are burdened with high deficits and debt mountains due to the financial crisis, the “big government” left is not seen as offering a credible answer to the question of where and how to shrink the state.

In many countries, public employees are the biggest bloc of socialist party members and constitute a brake on reform.

Socialists’ long-standing support for European unification, religious tolerance and integrating immigrants has made them vulnerable to right-wing populists like the Sweden Democrats, Geert Wilders’ Dutch Freedom Party or France’s National Front.

These dilemmas are the backdrop to the choice of a new leader by Britain’s opposition Labor Party this week, and of a presidential candidate by the French Socialist party next year.

In Britain, the choice is between sticking to the market-friendly New Labor ideology that marked Tony Blair’s decade in office from 1997, or shifting to the left to try to win back disenchanted working class and public sector voters.

“We need to become ‘effective state’ social democrats, not ‘big state’ social democrats,” Roger Liddle, one of the thinkers behind the New Labor project, said in a speech last week.

Former foreign secretary David Miliband embodies Blairite continuity, while his younger brother Ed, former cabinet minister Ed Balls and left-wing stalwart Diane Abbott offer varying degrees of the latter approach.

GREENS RISING

In France, the Socialists face a potential three-way choice between a social-liberal (International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn), an old-style socialist (current party leader Martine Aubry), and a left-populist (defeated 2007 presidential candidate Segolene Royal).

Aubry and Royal have vowed to reverse President Nicolas Sarkozy’s pension reform, which pushes back the retirement age from 60 to 62 and makes many work until 67 for a full pension. Strauss-Kahn says retirement at 60 cannot be a “dogma” when people are living ever longer.

An ecologist list ran neck-and-neck with the French Socialist party in last year’s European Parliament elections, siphoning off so-called Bobo voters (the bohemian bourgeois), while ex-communists and Trotskyists split another 10 percent.

In Germany, the Greens are snapping at the heels of the opposition SPD in opinion polls and may get a chance to lead a regional state government for the first time next year.

But the SPD has also lost support to the hardline Left party among working class and elderly voters who felt betrayed by its reduction of unemployment benefits and extension of the retirement age while in government over the last decade.

Where socialists are still in office, in Spain, Portugal and Greece, they risk alienating their core electorate by having to implement austerity measures mandated by the IMF and the European Union in exchange for financial support.

Only Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou has managed to retain his lead in opinion polls so far despite eye-watering spending cuts — perhaps because his conservative opponents made such a shambles of running public finances until last year.

• Created by Democratic political operative Rob Stein
• Goal is to raise money to fund a leftwing political movement and Democratic electoral victories and the further Socialist and Communistic causes.
• Supported by George Soros and Peter Lewis

• The mission of the low-profile Democracy Alliance is to build a lasting political infrastructure of think tanks, activist groups, leadership schools, and media outlets to help the left gain and keep power. It was created by high-dollar Democratic donors –Soros, Peter B. Lewis, Herb and Marion Sandler– after Democrats failed to reclaim power in the 2004 election — despite favorable polls and record contributions by high-dollar donors

Founded in the spring of 2005, Democracy Alliance is a self-described “liberal organization” whose long-term objective is to raise $200 million to develop a funding clearinghouse for progressive groups. Democracy Alliance is a non-tax-exempt nonprofit entity registered in the District of Columbia. The Alliance’s hope is that liberals and leftists can replicate what it views as the success of the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Leadership Institute, and the Young America’s Foundation, and other aspects of the conservative movement in building effective institutions for developing new ideas and promoting public policies.

Political operative Rob Stein, who served as chief of staff to Commerce Secretary Ron Brown during the Clinton administration, conceived of the project and is directing it. Stein explains that he awakened one morning after the 2002 elections to the realization that he was “living in a one-party country.” He vowed to study the conservative movement to determine why it was winning the political battle. After a year of analysis, he compiled his conclusions into a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation, which he set out to show to prospective big-money donors.

“Progressives should not emulate what conservatives have done,” says Stein. “Conservatives have built remarkably successful institutions and strategic alliances in the 20th century that presumably are consistent with their values and, we know, are effective in promoting their beliefs. . . . Progressives have different values, this is the 21st century, the conservative infrastructure is in place and will continue to grow, and so we have to do it all differently.”

As of August 2005, Stein had shown his PowerPoint presentation, titled “The Conservative Message Machine Money Matrix,” to more than 700 key people in private meetings. The presentation, designed to persuade potential donors to invest in Democracy Alliance, carefully maps out the right’s networking and funding in diagrams and bullet points. Stein claims that a few well-connected, wealthy clans — including the Scaife, Bradley, Olin, and Coors families — founded a $300-million network of groups that now dominate American policy.

Democracy Alliance was forged from the remnants of the Phoenix Group, an assembly of financiers who backed pro-Democratic 527 organizations such as MoveOn.org during the 2004 election cycle.

Major donors George Soros and Peter Lewis, who each gave roughly $23 million to 527s for the 2004 elections, have latched onto the Democracy Alliance cause and are attracting other donors. A constellation of Hollywood elites (including Rob Reiner), are also backing the cause. As of August 2005, some 80 founding donors were already onboard.

Prospective donors are asked to make an initial pledge of $200,000 per year for five years to Democracy Alliance-endorsed think tanks and advocacy groups. ”There is enormous capacity for financial giving,” said former Clinton White House spokesman Mike McCurry, who is now a spokesman for Democracy Alliance. ”There are enormous resources not being invested effectively, and the Democracy Alliance will make giving more purposeful. If anything, I think the pie will grow as more people want to be a part of it.”

According to author Joseph Klein, Democracy Alliance also has “received significant support from some of Hillary Clinton‘s most important backers including Susie Tompkins Buell and her husband, Mark Buell, and financier Alan Patricof.” Moreover, Democracy Alliance reports that one of its officials, Jonathan Adler, served as Regional Campaign Coordinator for Senator Clinton’s successful 2006 Senate re-election campaign. The current Managing Director of Democracy Alliance, Kelly Craighead, is, according to Newsday‘s Glenn Thrush, ”one of the Clintons’ closest friends.” In the 1990s Craighead worked as an assistant to President Clinton and as director of the advance team for Hillary, who was then the First Lady. The depth of the friendship between Craighead and Mrs. Clinton is evidenced by the fact that Hillary, acting as a justice of the peace, performed Craighead’s 2001 marriage ceremony to political consultant Erick Mullen, a former aide to Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York and a former informal advisor to Mrs. Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign.

Recipients of Democracy Alliance grants are sworn to secrecy about the funds they receive from this organization, thus only a small percentage of its grantees are known to the public. Among them are Media Matters, EMILY’s List, ACORN, and the Center for American Progress.

According to Glenn Thrush of Newsday, Democracy Alliance members report that their organization ”advises Democratic donors on where to spend their political contributions” and, in so doing, “steered more than $6 million to [David] Brock‘s group” — Media Matters — between 2004 and 2006.

On January 14, 2008, the Canada Free Press identified the Treasurer of Media Matters, Rachel Pritzker Hunter, as a Board member of Democracy Alliance (which helps to fund Media Matters). A generous donor to Democratic candidates and causes, Hunter in recent years has given money to the presidential campaigns of Sherrod Brown, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Wesley Clark.

HAVANA — Cuba’s communist economic model has come in for criticism from an unlikely source: Fidel Castro.

The revolutionary leader told a visiting American journalist and a U.S.-Cuba policy expert that the island’s state-dominated system is in need of change, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has taken pains to steer clear of local issues since illness forced him to step down as president four years ago.

The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel’s brother Raul, the country’s president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba’s 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked Castro if Cuba’s economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: “The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore,” Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.

The Cuban government had no immediate comment on Goldberg’s account. a Cuba expert at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations who accompanied Goldberg on the trip, confirmed

The Cuban leader’s comment, which he made at a private lunch last week.

She told The Associated Press she took the remark to be in line with Raul Castro’s call for gradual but widespread reform.

“It sounded consistent with the general consensus in the country now, up to and including his brother’s position,” Sweig said.

In general, she said she found the 84-year-old Castro to be “relaxed, witty, conversational and quite accessible.”

“He has a new lease on life, and he is taking advantage of it,” Sweig said.

Castro stepped down temporarily in July 2006 due to a serious illness that nearly killed him.

He resigned permanently two years later, but remains head of the Communist Party. After staying almost entirely out of the spotlight for four years, he re-emerged in July and now speaks frequently about international affairs. He has been warning for weeks of the threat of a nuclear war over Iran.

But the ex-president has said very little about Cuba and its politics, perhaps to limit the perception he is stepping on his brother’s toes.

Goldberg, who traveled to Cuba at Castro’s invitation last week to discuss a recent Atlantic article he wrote about Iran’s nuclear program, also reported on Tuesday that Castro questioned his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, including his recommendation to Soviet leaders that they use nuclear weapons against the United States.

Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has clung to its communist system.

The state controls well over 90 percent of the economy, paying workers salaries of about $20 a month in return for free health care and education, and nearly free transportation and housing. At least a portion of every citizen’s food needs are sold to them through ration books at heavily subsidized prices.

Cuba says much of its suffering is caused by the 48-year-old U.S. trade embargo. The economy has also been slammed by the global economic downturn, a drop in nickel prices and the fallout from three devastating hurricanes that hit in quick succession in 2008. Corruption and inefficiency have exacerbated problems.

As president, Raul Castro has instituted a series of limited economic reforms, and has warned Cubans that they need to start working harder and expecting less from the government. But the president has also made it clear he has no desire to depart from Cuba’s socialist system or embrace capitalism.

Fidel Castro’s interview with Goldberg is the only one he has given to an American journalist since he left office.