Judy Chu Exposed Part 1: Yes Soledad O’Brien, Judy Chu Probably “is a Communist!”

By Trevor 

“Judy Chu, is a communist????”

In April 2012, then Florida Congressman Allen West got himself into hot water  with the media, after claiming that 70 to 80 members of Congress were “communists”. While his terminology was too loose, in spirit, Mr West was essentially correct.

In a mocking interview with the Congressman, CNN presenter Soledad O’Brien confronted West with a list of Congressmembers, asking him to confirm if they were “communists.”

If West knew as much about communism as he does about radical Islam, he could have made a case for  the affirmative for all those named. When Soledad O’Brien asked “Judy Chu, is a communist????” West could, and should have said,”she’s probably one of the worst!!!”.

That would have knocked O’Brien  off her chair, and it would probably come as a surprise to many – especially Judy Chu’s colleagues on the Congressional Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Everyone knows the Est Los Angeles Democrat is a  “progressive” – but aren’t they all down there? And Judy Chu has been a vice-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which means she has to be pretty far to the left.

But she’s nice, and photogenic, speaks beautifully, always immaculately dressed – and she likes small business. She’s very politically correct, but hey aren’t they all in SoCal? And she’s a huge supporter of President Barack Obama, so she must be OK.

Unfortunately, there is much more to Judy Chu than meets the eye.

Judy Chu spent much of younger years in the orbit of the Communist Workers Party, one of the most extreme and violent leftist groups ever active in the United States. More importantly, though the party is long defunct, Chu is still involved with a network of former comrades, and seems intent on pursuing their agenda through her Congressional work.

More concerning again,  the old CWP was loyal to Red China – America’s number one rival. Elements of Chu’s network remain pro-China to this day – raising serious questions about Chu’s suitability for any Congressional Committees involving national security, trade policy, science and technology, and…well just about anything really.

Over a series of posts, I will examine Judy Chu’s ties to this network. But first I’d like to examine the Communist Workers Party. Who were they? Why should we worry about a Maoist sect that went out of business many years ago?

Jerry Tung

Chinese born activist Jerry Tung founded a tiny Maoist organization called the Asian Study Group in New York in 1973. The ASG later merged with other radical groups to form a new organization, also headed by Tung: Workers Viewpoint Organization, which in turn became the Communist Workers Party in 1979.

The CWP emphasized unionization and self-determination for African-Americans and enjoyed some success in textile cities of North Carolina. The party established branches in New York, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Greensboro, West Virginia, and Colorado.

Mainly Asian to begin with, after absorbing several Maoist sect, the CWP gained a high proportion of Black, White, and Latino cadre. The CWP followed the policies of Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, and Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot. They also originally gave some support to the Islamists of the Iranian Revolution.

Workers Viewpoint newspaper, 1976

Violent confrontation was a key part of CWP modus operandi. In 1979, the CWP “was consciously trying to upgrade its level of militancy, to become more adept at combining legal and illegal tactics” according to CWP activist Signe Waller. In New York’s Chinatown, CWP members and supporters violently attacked the offices of a critical newspaper and members of a rival, radical organization opposing the political direction of a CWP front group. In Greensboro, North Carolina, CWP activists had violent confrontations with a rival Maoist group, the Revolutionary Communist Party.

Greensboro, NC,  was also the site of the WCP’s darkest hour.

Around Greensboro, the  CWP waged an aggressive  campaign against the local Ku Klux Klan, going so far as to try to shut down a Klan showing of the movie “Birth of a Nation” at the public library in the town of China Grove.

Planning a “Death to the Klan” rally near the Morningside Heights housing project in Greensboro on November 3, 1979, the CWP publicly challenged the Klan. The CWP claimed  that cowardly Klan members would not make an appearance and face the “wrath of the people.” The local Klan, however, sought the assistance of some neo-Nazis and responded to CWP’s challenge.

Armed CWP members, Greensboro

After  CWP activists taunted Klansman, and hit their cars, the Klansmen opened fire. Many CWPers were armed too, and fire was returned, but city bred academic communists were no match for country raised Klansmen. When the gunfire ended 5 CWP members lay dead, and many more were wounded.

The infamous “Greensboro Massacre” made the CWP world famous, in the worst possible way.

Despite being filmed by journalists, all the Klansmen were acquitted, after several trials, on grounds of self defense.

Keep reading on trevorloudon >>

Pope’s Possible Successor Promotes Marxist for Sainthood

trevorloudon

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

American Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan, reported to be in the running to replace Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, is usually described as a “conservative” because he has strongly criticized President Obama’s attacks on religious liberty and federal intrusions into church affairs. But Dolan is also the leader of the campaign to promote Marxist Dorothy Day for Sainthood.

One report asks, “Could Timothy Dolan Become The First American Pope?” Dolan, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB,) is considered the voice of U.S. Catholicism.

But Carol Byrne, author of The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980): A Critical Analysis, says Dolan manipulated a vote by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops last November to move forward with the canonization of Dorothy Day, even though The New York Times itself noted that some of the Bishops said “she had an abortion as a young woman and at one point flirted with joining the Communist Party.”

The Times story was headlined, “In Hero of the Catholic Left, a Conservative Cardinal Sees a Saint.” Day, a major figure in the “Catholic Worker” movement, died in 1980.

In a letter obtained by this journalist, Virginia State Senator Richard H. “Dick” Black was so disgusted by the push for sainthood for Dorothy Day that he told the Pope on January 7, 2013, that he was “appalled” that “a woman of such loathsome character” would be considered for sainthood.

Black, a retired Marine Corps colonel, noted that “Vatican archives are filled with reports of Christians martyred under the regimes that Dorothy Day supported. I am revolted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ support for the canonization of a woman whose views supported the violent extermination of Christians throughout the world. I ask that these matters be carefully weighed so that the Holy See will not be inadvertently misled when considering the canonization of Dorothy Day.”

As a Marine pilot, Black fought the communists. He flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam and was wounded during fierce ground fighting with the 1st Marine Regiment.

“I am particularly concerned about her support for Ho Chi Minh,” Black said in his letter. He said that he had recently hosted a group of 12 Vietnamese men, each of whom served as senior officials in the Free Republic of Vietnam during the time when the North Vietnamese Communists overwhelmed Saigon in 1975. “Six of them were imprisoned in concentration camps no less severe than those of the Nazis in Germany,” he explained.

Regarding Dorothy Day’s “flirtation” with the Communist Party, as the Times put it, Carol Byrne told this journalist, “…I have provided proof, drawn from archival evidence and other authentic sources, that even after her conversion to Catholicism, Day became a member of several socialist organizations and was actively involved in political groups (including trade unions) whose founders and leaders were predominantly Communist Party members. She also supported the causes of individual Communists who were in the pay of the Soviet Union.”

Byrne went on, “This must be considered against the background of successive Popes who condemned communism as ‘intrinsically evil.’ They forbade Catholics from supporting Communists, and in July 1949 Pope Pius XII issued a decree of excommunication against anyone who collaborated with Communists or joined their associations. There is evidence to show that Day simply shrugged off the papal ban: she did not see communism as a real problem, or experience any moral quandary for a Catholic working in coalition with such groups professedly dedicated to ‘Justice and Peace.’”

State Senator Black said he was extremely concerned that, for almost 50 years, Day was the editor of a pro-communist newspaper, the Catholic Worker. He noted that the 58l-page FBI file on Day “contains a recommendation that Dorothy Day be considered for custodial detention in the event of a national emergency.”

His letter to the Pope went on to say that he was particularly concerned about Day’s “favorable writings regarding Lenin, Castro, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh. As you well know, each of the above dictators ordered the execution of Catholic priests among the millions of other Christians murdered by these regimes.”

Carol Byrne confirmed that Day “supported the policies of hostile foreign powers operating from Moscow, Havana, Peking and Hanoi against her own country, the USA. She also wrote favorably about such socialist dictators as Lenin, Castro, Mao and Ho Chi Minh, even though they had all violently persecuted the Church in their respective countries. Nor could she in principle bring herself to condemn the social and economic ideals of Marxism.”

Nevertheless, The New York Times reported, “Cardinal Dolan has embraced her cause with striking zeal: speaking on the anniversaries of her birth and death, distributing Dorothy Day prayer cards to parishes and even buying roughly 100 copies of her biography to give out last year as Christmas gifts to civic officials including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.”

--------------

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism

“On the Current Marxist Revolution”

trevorloudon

Given Barack Obama‘s obvious Marxism, its hard to argue with the logic presented here.
February 2013 by Partisan
This white paper will examine a Marxist Revolution under the assumption that the president wants to incite Marxist Revolution in America.
When Vladmir Lenin came to power, he introduced a set of socialist policies that literally crashed the Soviet economy by 1921. After pure socialism visibly failed, Lenin introduced what was called, “New Economic Policy,” a modified form of socialism more akin to state-capitalism. Various industries were allowed to remain in private hands while others were wrangled into the purview of government control.
As we recount the industries over which the government is now in control – healthcare, energy, education, student loans – how can one not draw similarities as the contemporary version of Lenin’s state-capitalism? And if we conclude that the president is a Marxist in a still very much un-Marxist nation, how can we think this is the end of his efforts? As long as the material needs of the neo-peasant class go unmet, the Marxist’s work is never done. (As long as there is a neo-peasant class…) Socialism is only the first step in the march towards “single class” Marxist communism; and that makes us the counter-revolutionaries.
Proletariat revolution and the peasant class.
The president’s thrust to power was the result of the perfect Proletariat revolution. Because the neo-peasant class was able to vote their revolution into place with the aid of the Marxist bourgeois, a violent revolution simply wasn’t needed. But there’s still plenty of work for the Proletariat revolution. The president still needs to continue constructing socialism in order to get to Marxist communism.
This begs the question, How do you sideline, neutralize, or otherwise silence opposition? Conservatives and libertarians make up around 50% of the nation but that number is reportedly declining; therefore a violent Marxist revolution is out of the question. The Marxists simply don’t have the guns.
Counter-constitutional activities.
We would expect the president to not only engage in anti-constitutional but counter-constitutional activities. This includes circumventing the established and separated powers of government; disabling the rule of law in America by selective enforcement; and propaganda campaigns that include how anachronistic the document created by racists is. Further, we can deduce that the president doesn’t care for large portions of the Constitution and he would probably like to get rid of it altogether. We would expect the president and his staff to create a culture of non-compliance with the law, introducing new harmful laws while giving party-affiliated organizations breaks from those laws.
Threat of military coup.
As long as counter-constitutional activity is continued, and before it’s achieved total victory, the Marxist revolution is susceptible to compromise. To mitigate the risk of a military coup by high level leaders who are upholding an Oath to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, we expect the president and party leadership to identify and replace conservative and Patriot military leaders.
Furthemore, if the president wanted to prevent a military coup, why not take the teeth off the conventional military by fostering dissension among the ranks? It’s unlikely that policy changes would incite a coup, and we’re unlikely – under this president – to get involved in another ground war. Allowing openly homosexual soldiers accomplishes two things: it bolsters the Marxist president’s standing in that community and it sows discord among the ranks of conservative military members.
February 8th, 2013 by Partisan
As for introducing females into line units, no one has proved that this will increase combat efficiency; and there are volumes of data that women can’t compete at the same levels as required in combat units. Walter Williams cites Defense Department statistics and says that dating back to 1994, only 2.9% of females can achieve the male’s standard of pushups and two-mile run time. Defense Secretary Panetta suggested that if women were incapable of meeting the same standards that the Defense Department review those standards and determine if they were too high.
Disarm the opposition.
Disarming the opposition would include a literal disarmament along with a political one. In 1993, before the first Assault Weapons Ban was enacted into law, Attorney General Janet Reno said, “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” The first step in 2013 is to re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban, with no expiration date. When that surprisingly doesn’t end all gun violence, the administration go after other firearms until the end goal is achieved.
Speaker Boehner recently claimed that the president was trying to “annihilate” the republican party. As long as it destroys itself, the president will have cooperation in its demise. Part of the plan to destroy the GOP is to introduce millions of democrat voters through amnesty and other citizenship programs for current “undocumented visitors”.
Removing effective representation will leave the Patriot-class severely under represented. The administration will continue to alienate the Patriot community and polarize the issue and, eventually, they could blame the racist, clingers to guns, religion, and low taxes as the cause of their problems; much like Hitler did the Jews in the 1930s and 40s. The ninth rule of Saul Alinsky’s Rule of Radicals is, “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” By arresting and publicizing the “most dangerous” Patriots – those with expertise, say veterans – the administration could successfully push the threat of the Patriot and citizen militia as a preeminent national security threat.
Destroy and reassign wealth.
The first rule in the playbook of politics is that power is derived from money. Global banking founder Mayer Rothschild infamously said, “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” As long as the Federal Reserve controls the money supply, our currency will suffer from manipulation to the detriment of the many for the benefit of the few. Lenin said, “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” As I’ve said before, $16 trillion isn’t debt you pay back with money you have in the bank; but with money that you will create. The Federal Reserve, at the behest and cooperation with the federal regime, will destroy the dollar in the process. After all, inflation is just a stealth tax.
In a Marxist revolution, wealth and capital destruction is also achieved through progressive income taxes (“The rich must pay their fair share.”); and the reassignment of wealth to the state through confiscatory death and estate taxes, effectively abolishing inheritance. Assuming state control of the financial and banking industry is the next step. The administration will design federal programs to “protect” pensions, 401Ks, and IRAs until the machinations result in the reassignment of wealth back to the state.
Thanks to Butte.

The American left and national security

Chris Dorner: A Mass Shooter Leftists Can Love

frontpagemag

news.nationalpost.com

By Tom Blumer

In the past several days, we’ve learned about how you too can gain a degree of public sympathy if you plan to embark on a killing spree and then go into hiding as you bide your time waiting to kill again: Write a “manifesto” dominated by anti-police rants, a “progressive” outlook towards Second Amendment freedoms and support for leftist politicians.

That’s what former Los Angeles Police Department officer Christopher Dorner, who is accused of killing Monica Quan, Keith Lawrence, and an as yet unnamed LAPD officer while wounding two others, has done. His sympathy-by-manifesto strategy has been alarmingly successful.

Dorner’s 11,000-word tome, addressed to “America,” was reportedly delivered to CNN’s Anderson Cooper on February 1. Much of its second half directs praise and scorn at a variety of politicians, celebrities and athletes while also, of all things, politicking for gun control and praising two of its proponents (spelling and grammar errors were not fixed in this and the following manifesto excerpt):

The time is now to reinstitute a ban (on assault weapons) that will save lives. Why does any sportsman need a 30 round magazine for hunting? Why does anyone need a suppressor? Why does anyone need a AR15 rifle?
… Mia Farrow said it best. “Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.”
Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB.

Dorner also effusively praises President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, while showing contempt and disdain for “America,” the screed’s addressee, for not wholeheartedly supporting Dear Leader (paragraph breaks added by me):

You disrespect the office of the POTUS/Presidency and Commander in Chief. You call him Kenyan, mongroid, halfrican, muslim, and FBHO when in essence you are to address him as simply, President. The same as you did to President George W. Bush and all those in the highest ranking position of our land before him. Just as I always have.
You question his birth certificate, his educational and professional accomplishments, and his judeo-christian beliefs. You make disparaging remarks about his dead parents.
… You call his wife a Wookie. Off the record, I love your new bangs, Mrs. Obama. A woman whose professional and educational accomplishments are second to none when compared to recent First wives.

You call his supporters, whether black, brown, yellow, or white, leeches, FSA, welfare recipients, and ni$&er lovers. You say this openly without any discretion. Before you start with your argument that you believe I would vote for Obama because he has the same skin color as me, (expletive) you.
… Mr. President, I haven’t agreed with all of your decisions but of course I haven’t agreed with all of your predecessors decisions. I think you’ve done a hell of a job with what you have been dealt and how you have managed it. I shed a tear the night you were initially elected President in 2008.

Dorner also allocated space to praising the following broadcast media members, in order of appearance: Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Pat Harvey, Brian Williams, Soledad O’Brien, Wolf Blitzer, Meredith Viera, Tavis Smiley, Cooper, the late Walter Crokite, Tom Brokaw, the late Peter Jennings, Willie Geist, and Piers Morgan.

While Dorner’s alleged acts and plans have properly appalled the vast majority of America, a distressingly large contingent of our fellow citizens considers him a hero.

As of 10 p.m. Eastern Time on Sunday, I located two newly-minted Dorner-friendly Facebook pages: “I Support Christopher Jordan Dorner” (over 7,700 “likes”), and “LAPD Cop Killer Christopher Dorner is A HERO” (over 300 “likes”). On Saturday, Breitbart.com’s Ben Shapiro identified several others. This is clear evidence that there is a dangerous strand of thought on the left which is perfectly fine with the commission of violent, murderous acts — as long as their perpetrators hold anti-establishment, anti-authority views.

By contrast, the pro-life community always roundly denounces the very few acts of violence visited upon abortion clinics and abortion doctors — of course other than those which clinic employees themselves commit by killing pre-born babies. Criminals who have bombed clinics and harmed or murdered their employees have never garnered any meaningful level of sympathy beyond a truly tiny and obviously unrepresentative fringe.

Public figures who should know better have either gone into a sympathy routine or chosen a strange form of neutrality towards Dorner. Jesse Jackson tweeted: “I understand your feelings of hurt and pain.” Noticeably absent was any recognition of the “hurt and pain” Dorner has inflicted on the families of Quan, Lawrence, and the unnamed slain police officer’s families. Bitter Bill Maher attempted to draw an equivalence between cold-blooded killing and a “headline” at FoxNews.com, which, from what I can tell, was really either never there or was planted by a commenter at a blog post. The aforementioned Ms. Farrow tweeted about “a murderer cop,” but “somehow” didn’t mention that Dorner views her favorably.

Print and web reports from the nation’s establishment press are following Farrow’s example. From reading their output, you wouldn’t even know that Dorner even mentioned President Obama, Mrs. Obama, or Vice President Joe Biden, let alone spent hundreds of words praising them. An unbylined Friday report at the Associated Press containing “some samples” from the manifesto which one would have hoped would be representative managed to suppress everything relating to our sitting president, his wife, and vice president, but managed to quote relatively brief mentions of George H.W. Bush, Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton, and Colin Powell, while also ignoring Dorner’s anti-gun stance. There isn’t a chance in Hades that the self-described “essential global news network” would have been so kind to a sitting Republican or conservative president, first lady, or veep.

Also recall that ABC’s Brian Ross initially attempted to pin the blame for the Aurora, Colorado theater murders on a Tea Party activist based only on his name, while his network and other have reported nothing about Dorner’s sympathy for Obama.

Just to be clear, no one Dorner named shares any blame for his actions. He bears that responsibility alone.

That’s not what the left or their media sympathizers would be saying if Dorner had invoked the views of conservative talk radio hosts, pundits, or politicians in a vain attempt to justify themselves.

Weekly Featured Profile – David Orr

NewZeal

KeyWiki

David Orr has been Cook County Clerk since 1991. He is the chief election authority for suburban Cook County, Illinois, the third largest election jurisdiction in the United States.

As president of the National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks, and a member of the Board of Advisors to the Election Assistance Commission – he has played pivotal roles in helping to shape federal and state election reforms.

In 1996, Orr successfully spearheaded the legal fight to fully implement the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the motor voter law. Overcoming “stiff partisan opposition,” Orr argued that prohibiting voters who registered under NVRA from participating in state and local elections violated constitutional rights and threatened to disenfranchise voters. Just prior to the November 1996 presidential election, a federal appellate court judge agreed with Orr and refused to overturn a lower-court’s decision.

The motor-voter legislation combined with Orr’s ambitious and creative efforts to register new voters at grocery stores, sporting events, schools and summer fairs, has resulted in a record number of voters in Illinois. Since taking office in 1990, more than 1 million new voters have been added to the county voting rolls.

Also, Orr led the fight for the new early voting legislation, which will allow people to vote over a 20-day period prior to an election without having to provide a reason or excuse.

Orr has been honored by the Communist Party USA led Chicago Peace Council and he has long term ties to Chicago’s largest Marxist group, Democratic Socialists of America.

He has been a regular at the annual Chicago Democratic Socialists of America organized Eugene V. Debs – Norman Thomas – Michael Harrington Dinner since the 1980s.

The Chicago Democratic Socialists of America PAC endorsed four candidates in the 1990 Democratic primary election, two of whom won: Miguel del Valle won reelection as the Democratic candidate to the State Senate from the 4th Senate District (he is now Chicago City Clerk) and David Orr won the Democratic nomination for County Clerk.

Democratic Socialists of America member Monty Tarbox, also served on Orr’s staff during the 1980s.

In the early 1990s, Orr was a leader of Progressive Chicago, a sister group to the radical New Party, alongside several DSAers, two ACORN leaders and a young radical lawyer named Barack Obama.

In the 1990s, Orr was an early supporter of Soviet front activist Alice Palmer in her bid for U.S. Congress.

In the mid-1990s, David Orr was listed as a member of Friends of Alice Palmer, alongside future Congressman and DSA member Danny Davis, later convicted fraudster Tony Rezko and Barack Obama.

More >>

Carl Sciortino: Marxist Musical Chairs in Massachusetts

NewZeal

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Carl Sciortino

Democratic Socialists of America aligned President Barack Obama, has appointed DSA supported Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, as US Secretary of State.

Leftist Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey is standing for Kerry’s old job, while Democratic Socialists of America supported Massachusetts State Rep. Carl Sciortino has put his hand up for Markey’s Congressional seat.

Sciortino said in a statement to a local newspaper:

“I am running to continue the strong progressive leadership that the families of the Fifth District have always counted on. I look forward to bringing my record of accomplishment to Washington to fight for our progressive values…I am proud to call Ed Markey my Congressman and I am dedicated to helping elect him as our next U.S. Senator. His record on behalf of Massachusetts families – fighting for jobs, consumers’ rights and a healthier environment— is the kind of leadership Massachusetts needs in the Senate and it is a record I look forward to continuing in Congress.”

Serving in the Massachusetts State Legislature since 2004, Sciortino has been backed by Boston Democratic Socialists of America his entire term of office. If he makes it to Congress, Sciortino will join a long list of Reps. who owe their careers, at least partially, to the US’ largest Marxist organization.

According to to the Boston DSA newsletter, The Yankee Radical, September 2004, page 6:

 Although supporting all of the CC” (Commonwealth Coalition) ”endorsements, Boston DSA has prioritized the campaign of Carl Sciortino for State Representative in Somerville. And in addition to our’ work with the Coalition, DSA is urging a vote for Andrea Cabral for Suffolk County Sheriff and John Kerry for President.

According to The Yankee Radical November 2004, the DSA influenced Commonwealth Coalition played a major part in Sciortino’s primary victory:

Most notable of the Coalition s winning candidates was Carl Sciortino, who defeated powerful conservative Rep. Vincent Ciampa in the 24th Middlesex district. With the support of many of the member groups of the Coalition, including DSA, Sciortino s campaign was able to overcome a last minute effort to save Ciampa by conservative House Speaker Tom Finneran.”
‘The September 14th State Primaries brought a welcome victory to Boston DSA and Massachusetts progressives. Carl Sciortino , a 26-year-old progressive activist and LGBT-rights advocate, edged out 16-year leadership incumbent Vinnie Ciampa in the Somerville-Medford 34th Middlesex District by 117 votes…Together, we were able to bring down one of Finneran’s staunchest lieutenants.
Carl Sciortino made a perfect champion for this broad progressive alliance. As Research Manager for Fenway Community Health Center, Carl saw the devastating effects of budget cuts on AIDS-prevention work. He became active in the Stop the Cuts Campaign, advocating for progressive tax reforms as the best way to prevent cuts to public health programs, public schools, and local aid. At the same time, he was active with OutSomerville and the Freedom to Marry Coalition.”

DSA led Neighbor to Neighbor came on board to help design, and later manage, the field plan.

According to DSA leader and Neighbor to Neighbor Director Harris Gruman:

In July and August, volunteers streamed in from the Stop the Cuts coalition, the Progressive Democrats of Somerville, Freedom to Marry and other groups.This gave Carl an impressive grassroots army of highly motivated door to- door canvassers and phone callers who contacted voters three to five times each.
”This surprise victory for progressives shows what can be done with clear issues and a strong grassroots campaign. Even more important, it shows the Legislature that progressive taxes and equal marriage rights are not the issues Republicans use against Democrats they re issues the left uses to defeat conservatives! Moral of the story: PINKOS UNITE!“

On June 13, 2006, almost 50 supporters attended a fundraiser at the Somerville Massachusetts home of DSA member Dick Bauer to help DSA aligned Congressman Bernie Sanders in his successful quest to become the next U.S. Senator from Vermont.

The reception, organized by local volunteers as part of a national project of the Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee, raised almost $5,700 for the Sanders Campaign. Sponsors of the event included Boston City Councilor Felix Arroyo, State Senator Patricia Jehlen, and State Representatives Anne Paulsen, Alice Wolf, Denise Provost and Carl Sciortino.

Carl Sciortino was also endorsed by Boston DSA in 2008, 2010 and 2012.

The Yankee Radical, Aug. 2006, p7

No doubt, if Ed Markey becomes a US Senator, Boston DSA will back Carl Sciortino in the Democratic primary for Markey’s vacant Congressional seat.

DSA influence is rampant in the Massachusetts State Legislature, as it in the US House of Representatives.

If Carl Sciortino becomes a US Congressman, he will be simply moving from one Marxist infiltrated body to another.

Hagel endorsed by Communist Party USA

WND.com

After reportedly receiving support from Iran, Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s defense secretary nominee, has yet another endorsement to add to his resume, this one coming from the Communist Party USA.

People’s World, the Communist Party USA’s official magazine, touted Hagel as “represent[ing] the more sober elements who have called in our national discourse for rejection of the old cold war tactics, the unilateralism and the continual push for wars all over the world.”

The magazine’s labor editor, John Wojcik, slammed the ”neocon” U.S. Senate for trying to “force Hagel to disavow his opposition to what they call the ‘successful’ surges in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

A People’s World blast email further lamented Hagel “is still the subject of controversy due to some mild criticism he made of the State of Israel.”

Wojcik contended “it was the U.S. Senate, not President Obama’s nominee, Chuck Hagel, that fell down on the job at the hearings.”

“It was allowed to become a place for right-wing grandstanding and unacceptable efforts to rewrite history,” he continued.

Wojcik conceded that Hagel “does not have the kind of record that progressives conclude will make him a Secretary of Defense who would chart the entirely new foreign policy direction the times require.”

Last week Hagel took heat from Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oka., who asked during the Senate hearings why Iran supports Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary.

As a senator, Hagel opposed sanctions on Iran, instead calling for “direct, unconditional talks.” He was one of only 12 senators who refused to sign a letter asking the European Union to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

WND reported Hagel went on the Middle East satellite network Al Jazeera in 2009 to argue that before dealing with the nuclear arsenals of rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea, the U.S. and Russia must first lead the effort by phasing out their own nuclear weapons.

WND also reported Hagel serves on the board of the Ploughshares Fund, a George Soros-funded group that advocates a nuclear-free world.

The Ploughshares Fund has a long history of anti-war advocacy and is a partner of the Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies, which has urged the defunding of the Pentagon and massive decreases in U.S. defense capabilities, including slashing the American nuclear arsenal to 292 deployed weapons.

Hagel’s thesis on minimizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal was reiterated in a 2012 report he co-authored titled “Global Zero: U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission.”

The report called for an 80-percent reduction in U.S. nuclear weapons to about 900, with only half of those being deployed. It further called for the eventual phasing out of short-range nuclear weapons and the elimination of ICBMs and B-52 bombers.

The report was the initiative of the Global Zero advocacy group, which works for a nuclear-free world.

Hagel co-authored the commission report with former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, who reportedly previously held clandestine meetings with Hamas aiming to open U.S. dialogue with the terrorist group.

Iran is arguably the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Regarding his views on jihad, WND exposed that in unreported remarks during a 2007 Senate hearing, Hagel posited that terrorism does not arise from religious beliefs but instead is a response to despair and a lack of hope.

The Communist Party USA may ideologically support some of Hagel’s ties.

WND reported Hagel sits on the board of a fund that serves as the main financial backer of a group urging the U.S. to join the U.N.’s International Criminal Court, which could prosecute American citizens and soldiers for “war crimes” and other offenses.

Opposes U.S. missile defense

Ploughshares, meanwhile, opposes America’s development of a missile defense system and contributes to scores of anti-war groups highly critical of U.S. foreign policy and military expansion.

Ploughshares is directed by Joseph Cirincione, who served as an adviser on nuclear issues to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Cirincione also was director of nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress.

Among the groups to which Ploughshares donates are the anti-Israel Americans for Peace Now, the Arms Control Association, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Policy Alternatives, the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, the radical Citizen Action, Citizens for Environmental Justice, the Coalition for New Priorities and the radical Institute for Policy Studies.

More grantees include the New America Foundation, the Nonviolent Peaceforce, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the Nuclear Freeze Foundation, the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, Peace Action, the Peace Studies Association, Physicians for Human Rights and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Ploughshares has also funded the Soros-financed Connect US Fund, which urges more U.N. helmets on U.S. troops, as well as the Center for American Progress, which has strong influence on White House policy.

Also on the list of Ploughshares grantees is The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which has long petitioned for the U.S. to reduce its nuclear stockpiles. According to Pavel Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, the work by the magazine editors was for the benefit of the Soviet Union.

Two of the magazine’s founding sponsors, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project to the Soviets. Both were also key initiators of the Manhattan Project.

Ploughshares funds the International Crisis Group, a small organization that boasts Soros on its board and is a key promoter of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine used to justify the NATO airstrikes in Libya last year.

Massive defense slashes

Another Ploughshares grantee is the Institute for Policy Studies.

Ploughshares is listed on the institute’s website as a partner organization.

The institute works with the Center for American Progress to release an annual “Unified Security Budget,” which reportedly has influenced White House military policy. Previous recommendations from the two groups’ yearly Unified Security Budgets have been adapted by the Obama administration.

The 2012 budget, reviewed in full by WND, called on Obama to use the U.S. Armed Forces in part to combat “global warming,” fight global poverty, remedy “injustice,” bolster the United Nations and increase “peacekeeping” forces worldwide.

The budget called for massive, second-term slashes to the military budget. The savings are to be used to invest in “sustainable energy” and in fighting worldwide climate change.

The report makes clear the stated objective of transforming the U.S. Armed Forces to stress conflict resolution and diplomacy.

The report takes issue with the use of forces on the ground in various countries to secure or influence the longer-term strategic position of other nations.

It recommends scaling back all U.S. ground forces by 20 percent and reducing the Navy’s surface fleet by 20 percent, including two carriers and carrier combat air wings. It also calls for reducing the Air Force by two combat air wings while cutting standing peacetime overseas deployments in Europe and East Asia by up to 50,000 troops at a time.

The budget’s authors strongly argue for the reduction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to no more than 292 deployed nuclear weapons and the complete elimination of the Trident II nuclear missile. It’s a process Obama already initiated in April 2010 when he signed a deal with Russia reducing stocks of weapons-grade plutonium.

The accord with Russia was signed at a nuclear summit in Washington arranged by Obama at which leaders of 47 nations committed to reducing the world’s nuclear stockpiles. One week earlier, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev and Obama signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, committing both countries to reducing their deployed nuclear arsenals.

Obama had broadly proclaimed his disarmament intentions during a 2007 campaign speech.

“Here’s what I’ll say as president: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,” Obama said.

By 2010, as president, he was arguing: “We need to change our nuclear policy and our posture, which is still focused on deterring the Soviet Union – a country that doesn’t exist.”

Obama’s declaration came just as Russia signed a major arms deal with Syria and began to revive its Cold War-era naval bases in the Middle East, including in the Syrian ports of Tartus and Latakia on the Mediterranean.

The joint CAP and IPS report, meanwhile, recommends the U.S. cease all further development of missile defenses.

The report pushes for all current missile defense programs to be cut, including Ground-based Midcourse Defense, Airborne Laser and Kinetic Energy Interceptors.

“It is unwise to fund more advanced systems for missile defense while current ones have yet to be proven effective against their targeted threats,” complains the report.

The military’s vital Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation program is to be cut by $10 billion across the board.

Next on the chopping block: the complete cancellation of the second SSN-744 Virginia Class submarine. While the Unified Security Budget describes the new model as “unnecessary to address any of the threats facing the United States today” and “a weapon looking for an enemy,” the SSN-774 is designed for covert collection of intelligence, transportation of special operations teams and launching of tactical Tomahawk missiles – flexible capabilities tailored to rapid responses required by the 21st-century’s conflicts with irregular combatants.

Similarly targeted for cancellation are the V-22 Osprey helicopter and the Navy and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Combating ‘global warming’

The 2012 Unified report sets the tone of its lofty agenda by demanding immediate reductions in the military’s already heavily slashed budget. But there is one exception requiring massive increases in funding – any spending that funds “alternative energy” or focuses Defense Department resources on combating “climate change as a security threat.”

The report authors recommend investing “the lion’s share” of the few allotted military increases in addressing the so-called “threat” of climate change.

The report wants Obama to take billions of dollars from the U.S. military and instead use them for a “green stimulus.”

These groups also envision the military as a tool to fight so-called global warming. In 2011, IPS released a 40-page CAP-endorsed report titled “The Green Dividend,” a term IPS defines as “a major shift of resources from the military budget to sustainable energy.”

The IPS research paper identifies the Pentagon as the “largest institutional energy user – and greenhouse gas emitter – on the planet,” arguing that if it undertook a “crash program” to convert to renewable energy sources and clean vehicles, it could make a significant impact on global emissions.

IPS calls on the Pentagon to contribute to a green world “by simply getting out of the way, by handing over unneeded military installations to be converted into green job incubators.”

The report lauds Obama’s first-ever U.S. Global Development Policy, which was issued in September 2010 and declares that the primary purpose of development aid is to pursue broad-based economic growth as the means to fight global poverty.

The report goes on to recommend that massive funds be sent to combat global woes, including an increase of $3.5 billion to “Global Health” investment and $2.14 billion to support United Nations peacekeeping and ensure that the United States does not fall behind in U.N. payments.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/hagel-endorsed-by-communist-party-usa/#PzLGytvKLQc7GpBb.99

Leftists Propose Plan to Reduce So-Called Global Warming by Deliberately Lowering American Living Standards

international liberty

By Dan Mitchell

Regular readers may remember last year when I shared some remarkably silly data from the “Happy Planet Index,” which supposedly showed the United States ranked below very poor nations such as Cuba, Albania, and Venezuela.

Red is unhappy

It turns out that nations got lower grades based on their energy consumption. And since energy usage is one of the key indicators of prosperity, that explains why the United States also trailed such global garden spots as Pakistan, Palestine, Iraq, Moldova, and Tajikistan.

Well, the authors of the Happy Planet Index are not the only ones who explicitly embrace stagnation and decline as a strategy to deal with so-called climate change. A leftist think tank in DC is now arguing that we should work less, which means we will produce less and consume less energy.

But that means we will earn less, and therefore consume less. In other words, they are openly asserting that we should all endure lower living standards.

Here are some excerpts from U.S. News and World Report.

Working fewer hours might help slow global warming, according to a new study released Monday by the Center for Economic Policy and Research. A worldwide switch to a “more European” work schedule…could prevent as much as half of the expected global temperature rise by 2100, according to the analysis, which used a 2012 study that found shorter work hours could be associated with lower carbon emissions. The Center for Economic Policy and Research is a liberal think tank based in Washington. “…lowering levels of consumption, holding everything else constant, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” writes economist David Rosnick, author of the study.

Gee, maybe we should be like Haiti and Afghanistan, the nations that “won” the top two spots for smallest “ecological footprint” in the Happy Planet Index.

Small carbon footprints!

I suppose this is the point where I should freely acknowledge that I’m not an expert on environmental issues.

But I am a big fan of wilderness and nature and I recognize that – unless we figure out a way to extend property rights to water and air – there is a role for government intervention.

But I’m nonetheless quite skeptical of professional environmentalists. Why? Well, here are a few reasons.

• The environmentalist-driven war on high-quality light bulbs.
• The environmentalist-driven rule against working toilets.
• The environmentalist-driven prohibition against washing machines that actually clean.
• This environmentalist-driven example of EPA thuggery.
• The environmentalist-driven pointless recycling mandates.

This is what we get from the sane environmentalists. The nutty ones are even more bizarre.

• The environmentalist accusation that you’re racist if you oppose their agenda.
• The environmentalists who don’t believe in bathing,
• The environmentalists who sterilize themselves to avoid carbon-producing children,
• The environmentalists who produce/use hand-cranked vibrators to reduce their carbon footprint.
• The environmentalist claim that climate change causes AIDS.

Then there’s the super-nutty category.

• The environmentalists who choose death to lower their carbon footprints.

So perhaps global warming is a real concern, but I think you can understand why I don’t trust environmentalists to be in charge of the issue. Though Al Gore has lots of followers, so I guess that’s all that matters.

An Elderly Chicago Communist’s Eulogy to Barack Obama

Trevor

Senior Chicago Communist Party USA member Bea Lumpkin, and her late husband and comrade Frank Lumpkin were longtime supporters and a fans of Barack Obama.

Obama was very close, for many years, to the far left side of Chicago politics – where the Lumpkins were major players.

Frank and Bea Lumpkin

As a friend, supporter and campaigner for pro communist Chicago mayor Harold Washington (1983-87) Lumpkin credits the Washington campaigns, and the communist/labor/leftist Democrat/Black/Latino alliances they forged, with blazing the way for an Obama presidency.

Sadly, when Washington died in office, the Democratic Party hacks crept back into power. The movement around Harold had not had time to jell into an organization with staying power. Still, the lessons of that campaign, with its spirit of African American, Latino and labor unity, took deep root in Chicago. Those roots nourished the spectacular rise of a new voice for people’s unity, Barack Obama. Since then, Obama’s strong voice has brought the message of unity to every corner of the country.

The Lumpkins and their comrades in the Chicago Communist Party, aided and supported Obama,  right through his career.

From Bea Lumpkin’s book “Joy in the Struggle“, pages 244, to 248;

I am sure that Frank and I met Obama in the ’80s. That’s when he was working on pollution problems at the Altgeld Gardens public housing. The site was close to the steel mills, and Frank was active on similar pollution issues. We certainly knew the community people with whom Obama was working. But I cannot say that we knew the Obama name then. There were two reasons for that. Both Frank and I have a hard time remembering names. More important, was Obama’s style. He pushed the community people forward and stayed out of the limelight himself. After Obama became our state senator in 1996, we knew his name, and I am sure he knew ours.

The Lumpkins were also close to Alice Palmer, the long time Communist Party ally, and high ranking Soviet front official, who employed Obama as her chief of staff, and gave Obama his first job in politics.

We were also friends with Alice Palmer, a progressive state senator. When she ran for Congress, Barack Obama won the vacated state senatorial seat.

The couple also knew and worked with Obama, during his time as an Illinois State Senator. They visited on behalf a communist front, a steelworkers retiree organization, which Frank Lumpkin led, during which Obama discussed his political ambitions.

During Obama’s years in the Illinois Senate, we heard many good things about him. I helped organize steel worker retirees to visit Obama about health care legislation. He made us happy by telling us he was a sponsor of the legislation we wanted. And we liked his stand against a U.S. invasion of Iraq. He told us he was thinking of running for the US Senate.

Keep reading >>

Will Obama help unions?

By Nelson Lichtenstein, Special to CNN

Editor's note: Nelson Lichtenstein is MacArthur Foundation chair in history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he directs the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy. He is co-editor of "The Right and Labor in America: Politics, Ideology, and Imagination."

-----------------------------

(CNN) -- Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder's stunning decision to sign a right-to-work law poses the question: Are these anti-union statutes, which make illegal any union contract that requires union membership or payment of dues a condition of employment, the future? During the last two years Indiana and Wisconsin have also passed laws that curb union strength and slash dues income.

"If Michigan can do it, then I think everybody ought to think about it," asserts Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Mix listed Alaska, Missouri, Montana and Pennsylvania, where Republicans enjoy large majorities in state legislatures, among the top contenders.

The potential spread of right-to-work laws in the North, even in states where voters heavily favored President Obama for a second term, is a startling and ominous development.

For decades, right-to-work laws were confined to the South or Mountain West, heavily agricultural states where new unions born during the Depression era evoked, among many employers and conservative politicians, the specter of Communism, race-mixing or both. These laws were almost all enacted in the years after the 1947 Congressional passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, which gave states the right to make illegal any collective bargaining contract that mandated union membership as a condition of employment.

Opponents of unionism hailed these laws as insuring a "right-to-work" because they encouraged workers to take a job, even one where the wages and working conditions had been negotiated by a union, without paying the dues necessary to sustain the labor organization. To note that employers encouraged such free-loading would be an understatement. Then and now they denounced "compulsory unionism" and the "labor bosses" who sought to live high on the hog on member dues. In this imagining, it was the union, not the employer, who oppressed the workers.

Opinion: A victory for right-to-work laws

In 1958, right-to-work advocates thought the time was ripe to invade the North. A sharp recession in the late 1950s had sapped union strength at the same moment that the Senate's McClellan Labor Rackets Committee investigation had uncovered unsavory links between Jimmy Hoffa, the Teamsters, and organized crime. Urged on by conservative Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater and financed by a newly created National Right to Work Committee, these anti-union activists put right to work referenda on the ballots of California, Ohio, Washington, Kansas, Idaho and Colorado.

But with the exception of Kansas, all these initiatives went down in overwhelming defeat. That was not only because labor was still a powerful force -- in Ohio union density, the proportion of all workers in a union, stood at nearly 40% -- but also because the Democrats linked their fortunes to the labor movement and to the fight against right to work. As Pat Brown, the California gubernatorial candidate put it, right to work represented "a return to the ugly and destructive law of the economic jungle."

The battle for the votes of African-Americans constituted one of the most remarkable features of these referenda. Right-to-work advocates pointed out, often quite accurately, that many American trade unions failed to adequately represent their minority members. If unions were weaker, minority workers might well get better jobs and promotions. But in Ohio and California especially that argument failed to persuade.

The NAACP distributed a pamphlet entitled "Keep Mississippi Out of California," but even without this kind of propaganda most African-Americans and Latinos knew that an imperfect union was a better friend that a non-union employer whose power and prejudices ruled the workplace unchecked by any countervailing institution.

Today, right-to-work forces are once again making a push to eviscerate unionism in its heartland. Thanks to Citizens United they have unlimited money. Thanks to globalization, slow growth, and corporate attacks, trade unionism is far weaker than in 1958.

In Ohio union density stands at 13.4%, in Pennsylvania 14.6%, in Michigan, birth state of the once powerful United Automobile Workers, just 17.5%, a disastrous drop since the industrial union heyday in the 1950s.

To staunch this anti-union assault, the Democrats have to make the defense of union rights and power a central, organic component of their message to American voters, office holders and workers -- both white collar and blue. Although Democratic legislators in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio have bravely fought the Republican right on this issue, President Obama has been notably missing from the action.

Obama denounced "right to work for less" in a post-election speech at a factory outside Detroit, but he was almost entirely silent on the issue both during the demonstrations that convulsed Madison, Wisconsin, in the winter of 2011, during the effort to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in the spring of the next year, and throughout the presidential campaign itself.

Obama and his advisers undoubtedly thought that if they wanted to win right-to-work states like Virginia and Florida, they better keep quite about union rights in the North. But this was and is an exceedingly shortsighted and self defeating calculation.

Trade unions stand at the core of the Democratic coalition. They are the last organizations remaining on the liberal side that can effectively appeal to white, working-class men in the Rust Belt swing states. Without the union organization and mobilization of blue collar Latinos in California, Nevada, and New Mexico those states would be almost as red as Texas.

When Obama declared his support for gay marriage, he helped consolidate a growing national consensus in favor of that right. The president and other national Democrats need to use the same bully pulpit to defend trade unionism in its hour of need, not only because their destruction threatens the living standards of our working middle class, but because these institutions are the living embodiment of democracy, interracial solidarity and personal dignity in the world of work.

Harry Belafonte: Obama Should Jail All Opposition Like A Third World Dictator

Greg Hengler

It takes 54 trees to make a Merry Marxist Christmas

CFP/ Judi McLeod

The maligning malcontent activists in the White House try harder than ever to torment the people who never voted them in.

In this, the ‘Year of the Big Gloat’ it’s a $4-million Hawaiian taxpayer-paid, 20-day vacation and 54 ‘Christmas’ trees, one-upmanship on George W’s last 27 Christmas trees in 2008.

 The Obamas celebrated their first Christmas in the White House with an 18-foot tree decorated with Mao Zedong and Drag Queen Hedda Lettuce ornaments, and four years later accept the “Our Lord and Savior” title.

The 54 trees decked out for this year’s celebration can’t be Christmas trees.  The Obamas, who claim they do not give their daughters gifts, do not believe in Christmas.

The trees are decor—decor meant to demoralize and depress anyone paying attention.

Letter writers to Canada Free Press (CFP) keep asking why the Obama regime and their supporters are so angry even after winning the November 6 election.

They’re angry because the United States of America is, even after all the damage hurled at it from an activist-run government, still up and running.

They’re angry because it is in raging Marxist blood to be angry.  They’re angry because it’s taking too long a time to inflict One World Government on passionately patriotic America and even with the United Nations doing all the heavy lifting, there’s no guarantee that OWG will ever come to pass.

The waste of the Obamas in office puts them in the same category as Romania’s high spending Ceausescus.

While the 54 trees are intended to rub salt in the wound of the millions worried about what Barack Hussein Obama will do to the one country the rest of the world depends on, they are really preaching to their own czar and star-studded choir. More >>

Obama to Complete Conquest of America in 2nd Term

TheAlexJonesChannel Alex covers the latest outrages against the Constitution and common decency by an out of control federal government as an outlaw TSA continues to sexually molest citizens and government officials grill target shooters practicing their Second Amendment right.

Why Obama Won

Supporters of President Obama watch results at an election night viewing party in Chicago. Exit poll data showed that he won by drawing on a growing base of minority voters. (Scott Strazzante, Chicago Tribune / November 8, 2012)

American Thinker

Gary Aminoff 

On election night, as the camera panned the audience waiting to hear Barack Obama give his victory speech, what struck me was that the audience was primarily young people and minorities.  My thought was, "These are the very people who will suffer the most under a second Obama administration.  Don't they know they are voting against their own best interest?"

And then I thought about it and came to the conclusion: "No.  They don't."  They don't because they are, by and large, uneducated.  Oh, some of them may have college degrees or even graduate degrees, but they are still substantially uneducated.  I would bet that very few of them know the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian School economics.  I am sure that most of them have never heard of the Laffer Curve.  I would guess that most of them aren't familiar with the first principles behind the origin of our country.  I doubt that many of them know what evil lies in Socialism or Communism, or unbridled leftism.  Or are even aware that Barack Obama is a man of the left, and what that means.  They, for the most part, have no idea what the concept of individual liberty is, nor how a big, powerful central government reduces that liberty.  I also am pretty sure that they feel that Barack Obama is someone who cares about the poor, women, minorities, and the "middle class," and that Republicans don't.  I would stake my substance on the fact that they don't know what is meant by a limited government, or what the Tenth Amendment says.  I am certain that most of them don't know anything about Benghazi.  Substantially uneducated!

How is it that we have raised one or two generations of uneducated Americans?  The answer, my friend, is not blowing in the wind.  The answer lies in the curricula of our schools.

For the past several months, in my capacity in the Republican Party, I have been speaking at middle schools and high schools around Los Angeles.  It has been very enlightening.
I love engaging with children.  Most of them are very bright and ask brilliant questions.  The questions give me insights into what they are most concerned about.  It also makes clear what they are taught -- by either their parents or their teachers, or both.

To summarize -- children, for the most part, believe the following:

a) Republicans care about only the rich -- the top 1% -- and don't care about anyone else.

b) Republicans hate people of color and especially Latinos.

c) Republicans hate gays.

d) Republicans are racist.

e) It is the government that provides jobs.  (I have asked that question many times in classrooms or assemblies.  "Who is it that creates jobs in America?"  The answer is invariably, without hesitation, "the government.")

f) Corporations are bad, and profits are very bad.  Business shouldn't make profits; they should give any excess money they make to their employees.

g) Taxes are good; they provide the money for the government to take care of people.

h) Government should expand and take care of everyone in the country.

i) America, rather than being a force for good in the world, has been a force for evil.

j) Government has an unlimited source of funds.  (When I ask, "Where is the government going to get the money to do all these things you want it to do?," the answer is "taxes.")

These children will soon be voters.  How is it, in America, that we are raising children to believe that bigger government is better, that government is the engine that provides jobs, that profits are bad, that Republicans care about only the rich, that we are racist, and that we hate minorities and gays.

This is not something to be ignored.  Our country is being changed forever by children who have had this type of indoctrination.  We must figure out how to stop it.  We need to create a love of country in our children as we once did.  We need to have our children say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag every morning, as we once did.  We need to teach our children that America has been a force for good in the world.  We need to teach them that it is not the role of government to "take care" of people.  We need to teach civics once again, and the Constitution.

Until this problem is dealt with, and it needs to be soon, we will be raising generations of children who believe in an ever-larger government and who will permanently change America into Greece.  There will be no Republican Party or conservative candidates who will win elections as more and more of the population is indoctrinated with leftist thinking.  Goodbye to the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free if we don't act on this issue.

-----------------------------

Gary Aminoff is the vice chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County.  He can be reached at gaminoff@gmail.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/why_obama_won.html#ixzz2BjtNWsWO