America conspiracy: NPR Muslim Brotherhood Investigation

veritasvisuals 

Senior Executives at NPR meet with Muslim Brotherhood Front Group to solicit $5mm and discuss their federal funding, Fanatical Christians, Zionists in the media, Tea Partiers, Republicans, Uneducated Americans and Juan Williams.

New Documents Show Obama's Extreme Leftist Roots

The Blaze/ Billy Hallowell

President Barack Obama has been challenged before about his alleged ties to the “New Party,” a far-left political group that once served as a third party option in the American political schema. Last month, The Blaze highlighted some images that seemed to corroborate the president’s alleged past ties to groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and, alas, the New Party, despite his campaign’s 2008 denial that he was a member of the movement.

As noted, a picture of Obama was published on the cover of the New Party News pamphlet back in 1996, serving as a small sliver of evidence that he had potential ties with the political party. Now, in a new piece for National Review, Stanley Kurtz is claiming that Obama’s ties to the controversial group were extensive — and corroborated — by recently uncovered documents.

It was also in 1996 that Kurtz says Obama formally joined the New Party. Interestingly, this is the same year that he appeared on the cover of the group’s pamphlet, which can be seen here:

Kurts goes on to share the background surrounding what happened when the commentator first brought to light Obama’s alleged ties to this third, seemingly radical political party:

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Here’s a screen shot showcasing the “Fight the Smears” denial:

Minutes from a January 11, 1996 meeting, Kurtz claims, prove Obama’s affiliation with the group. The New Party‘s Chicago Chapter had apparently recorded the president’s extensive involvement, including a purported request that he be endorsed by the movement.

“Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions,” the minutes read. “He signed the New Party ‘Candidate Contract’ and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.”

This seems consistent with the above image, which shows that Obama was, indeed, endorsed by the New Party. And, according to Kurtz, a 1997 roster from the group’s Chicago chapter also shows him to be a member. The commentator continues, highlighting Obama’s other purported ties to the group:

The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”
We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.
The New Party had a front group called Progressive Chicago, whose job was to identify candidates that the New Party and its sympathizers might support. Nearly four years before Obama was endorsed by the New Party, both he and Harwell joined Progressive Chicago and began signing public letters that regularly reported on the group’s meetings. By prominently taking part in Progressive Chicago activities, Obama was effectively soliciting New Party support for his future political career (as was Harwell, on Obama’s behalf). So Harwell’s testimony is doubly false.

Read more about Obama’s alleged connections to the New Party here.

Occupy Wall Street - Pamphlet

Return of the Summer Socialists and Sunshine Terrorists!

CFP/   J.J. Jackson
Occupy Wall Street is back and gearing up for its latest round of attacks against America.  Not surprisingly, the OWS crowd set May 1st, aka May Day, aka International Workers’ Day, aka a socialist holiday, to once again disrupt society and launch their spring offensive.  Based on history, OWS is sure to become more and more “offensive” as the year rolls on.  And yes, lest there be any doubt, I am indeed talking about the odor that the unbathed hordes will be giving off from the filth they will be wallowing in by about June 1st. More >>

What Happened To George Soros' Secretaries of State Project?

theblaze.com/ Becket Adams

George Soros

The Secretary of State Project, the once influential group backed by billionaire philanthropist George Soros, has either gone into hiding or informally disbanded.

What happened? Did the group just disappear? Well, before we investigate the group’s possible demise, perhaps a quick history lesson is in order.

The Secretary of State Project was created for the sole purpose of stopping Republicans from “stealing elections” (the project’s founders were a little sore about that whole Kathleen Harris thing). So how did the group plan to accomplish this? Simple: financially back and “get out the vote” for like-minded (i.e. “left-leaning”) candidates running for secretary of state.

“In most states the secretary of state is the chief elections officer, so putting left-wingers in the often-overlooked but critically important office allows these political radicals to manipulate the electoral process,” writes Matthew Vadum for the American Spectator.

“This is what liberals call ‘election protection,’” he adds.

Add billionaire donor George Soros and the Democracy Alliance, “a billionaires’ club that funds left-wing political infrastructure,” to the mix and the Secretary of State Project quickly became an organization capable of making or breaking candidates running for state secretary.

It’s a brilliant idea, really: form a group capable of donating massive amounts of cash to a like-minded candidate running for an office that although commonly overlooked, and therefore relatively cheap to campaign for, is responsible for certifying elections.

After all, as Vadum notes, it was Joseph Stalin who once said: “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

The idea of controlling who counts the votes is hardly original. In fact, Secretary of State Project co-founder Rebecca Bond once said:

Any serious commitment to wrestling control of the country from the Republican Party must include removing their political operatives from deciding who can vote and whose votes will count.

The group was initially successful.

“They helped to elect Saul Alinsky-inspired community organizer Mark Ritchie, the ACORN-loving Minnesota secretary of state who presided over Al Franken‘s theft of incumbent Republican Norm Coleman’s U.S. Senate seat in the 2008 election cycle,” Vadum writes.

And everything was going smoothly for the organization until President Barack Obama decided to pound through his unpopular health care bill. When “Obamacare” passed, wealthy groups like the Secretary of State Project were powerless against the 2010 Republican “Red Wave.” That year, out of the seven secretary candidates backed by the Soros-funded project, only two won.

Apparently, it was all downhill from there.

Since the 2010 losses, the Secretary of State Project has gone eerily silent. As the American Spectator notes, the project’s website has been offline since July 2011. The group’s Facebook page, YouTube channel, and Twitter account have not been updated since 2010.

“The group hasn’t endorsed any candidates for the 2012 election cycle and its most recent IRS filings show almost no financial activity since the 2010 election cycle,” Vadum reports.

Did the “Republican electoral tsunami” destroy the Secretary of State Project’s standing? Perhaps, Vadum writes. Many signs would seem to point to it — but you’re not going to hear that from the group’s leaders.

When contacted by the American Spectator, Rebecca Bond, the group’s aforementioned co-founder, refused to offer a comment on the status of the group.

 

Rebecca Bond (photo source: CREDO Action)

And she wasn’t the only one keeping silent.

“Wayne State law professor and community organizer Jocelyn Benson, who was beaten decisively in blue state Michigan by Republican Ruth Johnson in 2010, failed to return telephone calls,” Vadum reports.

“Benson, who lost by five percentage points despite running in a blue state, being endorsed by the Secretary of State Project, and outspending her opponent by a quarter of a million dollars, failed to return telephone calls,” he adds.

Perhaps the project is defunct. Perhaps it’s just keeping a low profile. The group’s status is uncertain. However, what we do know is that several of the major players associated with once powerful Soros-funded project, including James Rucker of “Color of Change” fame, have set their sights on another major voting issue: voter ID laws.

Needed: A Marxist-Style Analysis to Understand and Combat the Extreme Left’s Hegemony

PJ Media/  By Barry Rubin

Ironically, those opposing the current hegemonic ideas and political forces in the United States and Europe must develop a Marxist-style analysis of what has happened. To call the current dominant ideas and political currents socialist, Marxist, Communist, leftist, progressive, or liberal is not meaningful and conceals more than it reveals. The movement must be understood on its own terms in order to understand it and see how it differs from its predecessors.

The problem of revolutionary movements has been to find a group to be the motive force in fundamentally transforming society. Next, they must analyze which groups can be made into allies and which must be defeated.

The Marxist Analysis of the Social Battle

Marx and his followers identified the industrial working class as that revolutionary force. Here’s how the idea appears in the 1848 Communist Manifesto:

Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

Marxists posited that the workers’ condition would worsen and that no reform could improve their situation, forcing them to become revolutionaries. Their main ally would be the lower middle class, wiped out by big business and new technology:

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat …

In contrast, who are the revolution’s enemies? Capitalists, clergy, and those elements that benefit from capitalism. And along with them:

The “dangerous class,” [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

Note that in many ways the post-Marxist left reverses this analysis. The lumpenproletariat becomes its ally along with those — many of them prosperous — who benefit from the government’s management of capitalism. In contrast, Marx’s description of the revolutionary forces sounds more like a description of Tea Party members.

Why Marxism Failed

This is a complex subject, but given limited time here are some key points:

– Capitalism didn’t decline but advanced, raising living standards across the board. So Marx was wrong about capitalism. Rather than a generalized misery (think of London during the second half of the nineteenth century), the “victims” today are a small minority, 10 to 20 percent, who have been left behind. And even these people receive welfare and other benefits beyond the wildest dreams of the poor in every other country and every historical era in the world.

– The working class prospered, preferring material betterment rather than a transformation of society. So Marx was wrong about the proletariat, especially in the United States. What’s important to remember is not that this group struggled to improve its life and working conditions but that it succeeded.

– This adjustment of society to solve these problems was due to many forces. One was improved technology and methods of organization, created by the capitalist system. Another was reforms, usually brought by liberal and social democratic parties and the institution of trade unions.

– The workers were responsive — at the time more than the elites — to the appeals of religion, patriotism, and traditional culture.

More >>

American Bolsheviks – The Second Act

NoisyRoom
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Hat Tip: Nancy Jacques

Well, look who’s sprouting out of the radical ground! It reads like a who’s who of Communists…

From MoveOn.org:

99% Spring Action Training
We’re at a crossroads as a country. In recent years, millions have lost their jobs, homes have been foreclosed, and an unconscionable number of children live in poverty. We have to stand up to the people who caused of all this and confront the rampant greed and deliberate manipulation of our democracy and our economy by a tiny minority in the 1%.
Inspired by Occupy Wall Street and the fight for workers in Madison, Wisconsin, the 99% will rise up this spring. In the span of just one week, from April 9-15, 100,000 people will be trained to tell the story of what happened to our economy, learn the history of non-violent direct action, and use that knowledge to take action on our own campaigns to win change.
We’ll gather for trainings in homes, community centers, places of worship, campuses, and public spaces nationwide to learn how to join together in the work of reclaiming our country through sustained non-violent action.
Will you rise with us and join a 99% Spring action training?
Host your own 99% Spring Action Training event
Right now, there are 900 gatherings planned.
Already hosting or signed up for an event? We can e-mail you a link to your tools.
The following organizations have called for a 99% Spring: Jobs With Justice, United Auto Workers, National Peoples Action, National Domestic Workers Alliance, MoveOn.org, New Organizing Institute, Movement Strategy Center, The Other 98%, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Rebuild the Dream, Color of Change, UNITE-HERE, Greenpeace, Institute for Policy Studies, PICO National Network, New Bottom Line, Veterans of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement, SNCC Legacy Project, United Steel Workers, Working Families Party, Communications Workers of America, United States Student Association, Rainforest Action Network, American Federation of Teachers, Leadership Center for the Common Good, UNITY, National Guestworker Alliance, 350.org, The Ruckus Society, Citizen Engagement Lab, smartMeme Strategy & Training Project, Right to the City Alliance, Pushback Network, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Progressive Democrats of America, Change to Win, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, Campaign for America’s Future, Public Campaign Action Fund, Fuse Washington, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, Citizen Action of New York, Engage, United Electrical Workers Union, National Day Laborers Organizing Network, Alliance for a Just Society, The Partnership for Working Families, United Students Against Sweatshops, Presente.org, Get Equal, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Corporate Accountability International, American Federation of Government Employees, Training for Change, People Organized for Westside Renewal (POWER), Student Labor Action Project, Colorado Progressive Coalition, Green for All, DC Jobs with Justice, Midwest Academy, The Coffee Party, International Forum on Globalization, UFCW International Union, Sunflower Community Action, Illinois People’s Action, Lakeview Action Coalition, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, International Brotherhood of the Teamsters, Resource Generation, Highlander Research and Education Center, TakeAction Minnesota, Energy Action Coalition
MoveOn.org Civic Action is hosting the online event registration process but is not responsible for the content or programming of the trainings or for the planning or organization of any specific actions. The 99% Spring is a collaborative effort between many organizations to train over 100,000 Americans in the basics of nonviolent direct action—not an electoral campaign.

They’re baaack… the American Bolsheviks. Can’t you just feel the violence in the spring air? Communism in bloom – just look at the list of them above. Occupy Wall Street is coming out of hibernation just as we predicted and they are good to go, ready for revolution and chaos. The American Spring is about to be born. Stay as far away from these useful idiots as you can.

The movement kicked off last Friday and was dubbed National Occupy Washington (NOW). It sprung into action with a march on the Environmental Protection Agency – accompanied by a brace of alpacas, a large polar bear and an even larger blow-up of planet Earth. I kid you not… But, before you write them off as looney (and they are), remember they are also dangerous and violent and coming to your town and neighborhood.

From Yahoo! News:

“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” Kevin Zeese, one of the coorganizers, says by cell phone while marching under the overcast capital skies.
“We are preparing to give people the skills and training they need for longer and more powerful involvement,” he says, adding, “the tents were just a tactic, not the purpose of this movement.”
While many have seen the disappearance of the signature tents from downtown parks from New York to Oakland and Boston to Los Angeles as a sign that OWS had lost both its appeal and vigor, Mr. Zeese counters that long-term social campaigns such as the civil rights movement unfolded over years and took many forms as they progressed.
“We may be less visible, but we are just getting started,” Zeese says.
Spring is inspiring other OWS-related activism as well, including the 99 Percent Spring, a coalition of progressive groups launching large-scale nonviolence training for its members and a national call for a general strike on May 1.
OWS is in transition, says Mark Tatge, journalism professor at DePauw University in Indiana. “I don’t see it dying, I see it morphing into something beyond just an attack on the big banks or Wall Street,” he says via e-mail, adding that the seeds of this movement can be seen elsewhere.
“There is really more than one ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement underway,” says Professor Tatge, pointing to coalitions of groups mobilizing over issues such as immigration, fights over creationism in schools, a fierce battle over health care now before the Supreme Court, and the recent shooting of an unarmed teen in Florida.
“I expect more, not less, political activism over the next five years,” he says. “Most of this is because of the widening split between the haves and have-nots in this country.”

Class warfare at its finest. The Marxists are gearing up to attack us, possibly physically as well as philosophically, on every major front. They are coming and don’t discount them; that would be a fatal mistake. Almost as bad as joining them. Do I need to remind everyone what happens to useful idiots once they have served their purpose? Death, death and death. No cake. All of these hapless fools are looking for a free lunch and in the end, all they will get is a lead sandwich. Nothing is ever free.

From Sultan Knish:

That is Utopia’s free lunch, a magic dance through the air, arm in arm with Wile E Coyote that ends when we realize there’s nothing underneath us and someone has stolen our shoes. It’s the magic of idealism mingled with corruption, dissonant musical instruments playing a mad waltz that ends with everyone falling down. A reminder that we can make a better world, but not by closing our eyes and believing in free lunches and fairies.

So, are you ready for the American Bolsheviks – The Second Act? I hear it’s to die for. They are lying just like the Russian Communists did. They characterized themselves as the majority in Russia then, just like they are here, trying to recreate the Bolshevist meme – it wasn’t true then and it’s not true now. Behold the violent minority! Or, we can get rid of these freaks and work industriously at restoring the Constitution, smaller government, way less debt and the freedom to succeed or fail without big brother breathing down our necks. Hmmm, decisions, decisions…

From the Trayvon Martin Tragedy to a National Travesty

By Victor Davis Hanson

Every year hundreds of Americans are shot and killed under controversial circumstances. The public rarely, if ever, hears of such tragedies. What, then, made the Trayvon Martin shooting so different? More >>

Nuclear Treason: Who Was Leo Szilard? — Emerging Corruption

Emerging Corruption/  By Trevor Loudon 

Sane nations do not willingly surrender a position superior military strength to potential enemies,  for no reason.

Why then did  the U.S. Senate recently sign   START 2 with Russia, despite a long record of blatant and persistent cheating by Moscow?

Obama and Medvedev, START 2

The United States has  signed several nuclear disarmament treaties with the Soviet Union/Russia, always from an ever decreasing position of superiority. Always Moscow has gained and Washington lost ground.

Leo Szilard

Why has Washington always conceded advantages to Moscow, when there was absolutely no necessity to do so?  The blunt answer? Because U.S. policy makers have been  persuaded to do so, by American citizens who’s loyalty to their home country is questionable.

One of the most influential leaders of the U.S. disarmament lobby was former nuclear physicist and Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard. In 1962, two years before his death, Leo Szilard founded a little known organization that would come to have a huge impact on U.S. defense capabilities , the Council for Abolishing War, now known as the Council for a Livable World.

In the early 1960s, Szilard sought a way to influence U.S. defense/disarmament policies at the highest levels.; In 1962, he founded the Council for Abolishing War to raise money for U.S. Senators who favored arms-control treaties. By Szilard’s calculus, all states had two Senators, so votes came cheapest by supporting campaigns in the least populous states. The Council’s first successful candidate was Sen. George McGovern from South Dakota.
Today the Council supports candidates from all states and the House of Representatives as well.
It was America’s first and most successful Political Action Committee for arms control and disarmament.

Bela Kun

But who was this man, who sought to buy his way into the heart of U.S. defense policy making?
Leo Szilard was born in  Hungary in 1898.
In Budapest during the 1919 Bela Kun Hungarian Soviet Republic, Szilard founded a socialist students association to “help clarify political and economic issues.” The Hungarian Association of Socialist Students distributed a pamphlet on tax and monetary reform purportedly written by Szilard.

Leo Szilard was an enthusiastic supporter of Bela Kun’s communist regime. When Kun’s government fell, the backlash against communists and Jews persuaded Szilard to leave Hungary for Berlin. there he was involved in a study group dedicated to analyzing Soviet affairs.

In London in the 1930s, Szilard helped organize the Academic Assistance Council to aid refugee scholars. He also proposed enlisting Nobel laureates to protest Japan’s invasion of Manchuria, the first time the  group was politicized in this way. Both causes were legitimate, but both were also heavily infiltrated by communists and sympathizers.

Szilard’s best known political efforts involved his mentor,  friend, and fellow communist sympathizer  Albert Einstein. In New York in 1939, Szilard proposed and drafted a letter from Einstein to President Franklin D. Roosevelt that warned about German nuclear weapons research and urged a U.S. counter-effort.

Their letter prompted Roosevelt to convene a federal Advisory Committee on Uranium (with Hungarian physicists Eugene Wigner, Edward Teller, and Szilard as members) that promised money for Enrico Fermi and Szilard to conduct chain-reaction experiments at Columbia University.

But when this funding from Washington hadn’t materialized by the spring of 1940, Szilard enlisted Einstein in an  effort at political blackmail. He drafted for Einstein a letter warning the White House that if those funds were not forthcoming, Szilard would publish a paper detailing just how a chain reaction in uranium could work. Soon, Fermi and Szilard received their money.

By 1942 Szilard was working on the Allied effort to develop the Atomic Bomb – the  Manhattan Project,

Einstein and Szilard

However Szilard  was already under suspicion.

General Groves, head of the Project  declared Szilard to be detrimental to the project and that he should be arrested and interned for the duration of the Second World War.

Were Groves’ suspicions founded?

According to Pavel Sudoplatov, former wartime director of the Administration for Special Tasks, an elite unit of the Soviet intelligence service, Leo Szilard, Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi, knowingly supplied information to Soviet contacts during their work on the Manhattan Project.

Sudoplatov

Sudoplatov wrote in his 1994 book “Special Tasks, Memoirs of an unwanted witness-A soviet Spymaster”;

The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American atomic bomb – Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, and Leo Szilard.”
Oppenheimer, Fermi, Szilard, and Szilard’s secretary were often quoted in the NKVD files from 1942 to 1945 as sources for information on the development of the first American atomic bomb. It is in the record that on several occasions they agreed to share information on nuclear weapons with Soviet scientists. At first they were motivated by fear of Hitler; they believed that the Germans might produce the first atomic bomb. Then the Danish physicist Niels Bohr helped strengthen their own inclinations to share nuclear secrets with the world academic community. By sharing their knowledge with the Soviet Union, the chance of beating the Germans to the bomb would be increased.”
As early as 1940, a commission of Soviet scientists, upon hearing rumors of a superweapon being built in the West, investigated the possibility of creating an atomic bomb from uranium, but concluded that such a weapon was a theoretical, not a practical, possibility. The same scientific commission recommended that the government instruct intelligence services to monitor Western scientific publications …
We were able to take advantage of the network of colleagues that Gamow had established. Using implied threats against Gamow’s relatives in Russia, Elizabeth Zarubina pressured him into cooperating with us. In exchange for safety and material support for his relatives, Gamow provided the names of left-wing scientists who might be recruited to supply secret information. …”

Another route was from the mole who worked with Fermi and Pontecorvo. The mole in Tennessee was connected with the illegal station at the Santa Fe drugstore, from which material was sent by courier to Mexico. The unidentified young moles, along with the Los Alamos mole, were junior scientists or administrators who copied vital documents to which they were allowed access by Oppenheimer, Fermi, and Szilard, who were knowingly part of the scheme.

We received reports on the progress of the Manhattan Project from Oppenheimer and his friends in oral form, through comments and asides, and from documents transferred through clandestine methods with their full knowledge that the information they were sharing would be passed on. In all, there were five classified reports made available by Oppenheimer describing the progress of work on the atomic bomb.”
Not only were we informed of technical developments in the atomic program, but we heard in detail the human conflicts and rivalries among the members of the team at Los Alamos. A constant theme was tension with General Groves, director of the project. We were told of Groves’s conflicts with Szilard. Groves was outraged by Szilard’s iconoclastic style and his refusal to accept the strictures of military discipline. The “baiting of brass hats” was Szilard’s self-professed hobby.Groves believed that Szilard was a security risk and tried to prevent him from working on the Manhattan Project despite Szilard’s seminal contribution to the development of the first atomic chain reaction with Fermi. ...

Sudoplatov claims that Soviet spy chief Lavrenti Beria  had post war plans for their Manhattan Project friends.

Beria

After our reactor was put into operation in 1946, Beria issued orders to stop all contacts with our American sources in the Manhattan Project; the FBI was getting close to uncovering some of our agents.Beria said we should think how to use Oppenheimer, Fermi, Szilard, and others around them in the peace campaign against nuclear armament. Disarmament and the inability to impose nuclear blackmail would deprive the United States of its advantage. We began a worldwide political campaign against nuclear superiority, which kept up until we exploded our own nuclear bomb, in 1949. Our goal was to preempt American power politically before the Soviet Union had its own bomb. Beria warned us not to compromise Western scientists, but to use their political influence.

Comrade Beria’s advice turned out to be sound. Szilard’s usefulness to the Soviet cause only incresaed after the War.

One of Szilard’s first projects was the strongly pro-disarmament  Federation of American Scientists, started with former communist and alleged spy  Philip Morrison, and communist sympathizer  Harold Urey . F.A.S. was founded in 1945 with a membership of more than 2,000 scientists and an advisory panel that included several more communists or sympathizers, including  Robert Oppenheimer,  Harlow Shapley, andEdward U. Condon  , a known associate of several Polish embassy officials.

Leo Szilard was, co-organizer of the first Pugwash conference in 1957, a major series of gatherings involving Western and East Bloc scientists, diplomats and politicians.

Khruschev

In 1960, Szilard gained a private audience with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in New York City. During their two-hour conversation, Szilard gained the Soviet leader’s assent for a Moscow-Washington “hot line” to help prevent accidental nuclear war. As a gift, Szilard brought Khrushchev a new razor and promised to send him blades as long as there is no war. “If there is war,” said Khrushchev, “I will stop shaving. Most other people will stop shaving, too.”

Szilard was also an early affiliate of the far left and pro-disarmament Washington DC based think tank, the Institute for Policy Studies – once described by British security expert Brian Crozier as the “perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the K.G.B.”

Leo Szilard died before his attempts to influence U.S. disarmament policies came to fruit, but bear fruit they did.

Nuclear Treason: Who Is Jerome Grossman? — Emerging Corruption

Jerome Grossman

From  Emerging Corruption

In my first post in this series, I looked at Leo Szilard – communist sympathizer, accused Soviet agent and founder of Council for a Livable World (C.L.W.), America’s oldest and most influential Political Action Committee which is dedicated to funding pro-disarmament candidates into the U.S. Congress and Senate.

According to C.L.W.’s website, “its purpose is to campaign against the proliferation of nuclear weapons through lobbying and by supporting candidates who share their vision.” Next up, I profile C.L.W’s major  guiding force, Massachusetts businessman, activist and power broker  Jerome Grossman.
Born in 1917, Jerome Grossman worked in his  family business, the Massachussets Envelope Company,  for thirty-five years.  After selling his interest in the firm, Grossman,  accepted a position as the President and National Executive Director of Council for a Livable World, before becoming after 12 years, the  chairman of the organization. He is still officially Chairman Emeritus on the board of the C.L.W.
While coming from a business background, there is no doubt that Grossman is a socialist at heart.
Grossman told  interviewer  Nancy Earsy in 1996;

“The dynamics of the modern world under capitalism tend toward the growth of large corporations with semimonopoly positions. That’s my basis for supporting a big government, is to control big corporations.”

Jerome Grossman, grew up in a “liberal” household, reading The Nation and watching his father supporting supporting several  Massachusetts leftist politicians.

By this time he had left the business. When I was twenty-four he gave me the keys, and says, “You run it.” So that’s what he did. So he was known as a capable, effective, well-respected political person. I’m known as the Massachusetts liberal. Not radical––liberal. Although a lot of people think I’m radical––I’m more radical than they think. But my activities have been along those lines.

Grossman began his own political activism in the 1950s, working through the “peace movement” of the time, but became dissatisfied with lack of progress.

This in the middle 1950’s. And, of course, everybody was still terrified of McCarthyism, unwilling to do anything that appeared to recognize the existence of the Soviet Union and that they had a right to exist. It was interpreted as being against the Cold War. I was against the Cold War and I wanted it resolved. The reason why I wanted it resolved is so that nuclear weapons ought not to be used. So I became involved in National Committee For A Sane Nuclear Policy and various other organizations that were founded virtually every other year in response to various pressures.

Of course what we were working on then was the nuclear test ban. We’re still working on the nuclear test ban to try to complete it. But I was the one who became quite dissatisfied with the fact that we were essentially talking to each other in church basements and academic meetings, middle class, upper class, highly educated people. We weren’t reaching the public.

Founded in 1957,  the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, became known as SANE and later Peace Action. The organization has been guided by communists and socialists throughout its history. In the early days Communist Party supporters  like Abe Bloom and General Hugh B. Hester served alongside Socialist Party types such as James Farmer, Victor Reuther and Norman Thomas.

H. Stuart Hughes

Grossman decided to move into electoral politics to achieve his goals. In 1962, the Massachusetts Socialist Party promoted their own “peace” candidate in the Massachusetts Senate elections – Communist Party front activist, chair of the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy and Harvard Professor, H. Stuart Hughes. Jerome Grossman chaired the campaign committee, while ultra radical Chester Hartman was the organizer of the massive signature drive required to place Hughes on the ballot. Hughes gained only a tiny vote  in an election that first put Ted Kennedy into the senate, but the campaign had far reaching implications. According to Grossman;

In the process we built a town-by-town organization all over the state, a structure that remains in place today. A clear result has been the election over recent decades of so many progressive voices to the state’s first-rate Congressional delegation, including Michael Harrington, Father Robert Drinan, Gerry Studds,Jim McGovern, Barney Frank, Ed Markey, John Tierney, Michael Capuano andJohn Kerry.
The Hughes campaign built the strongest statewide peace movement in the country, a movement that changed the face and reputation of Massachusetts politics.

Grossman played a major role in recruiting “peace candidate” Eugene McCarthy in the 1968 presidential campaign.

My worry about the Vietnam War was that it could result in a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union or the United States and China. That was my main motivation. We were working in various ways. Then the presidential election of 1968 was looming. I worked with Allard Lowenstein and Curtis Gansto try to find a candidate who would run against Lyndon Johnson for the Democratic nomination on the issue of the Vietnam War. We went to George McGovern and he turned us down. He was Senator then. We went to Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas who was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and had had very good hearings. He turned us down. We went to Bobby Kennedy and he turned us down. We had nobody.
Then one day in August, 1967––I’ll never forget it–– I got a telephone call out of the blue from this obscure Senator from Minnesota, Eugene J. McCarthy, wanting to talk to me about his running for President. What do you think he said? He asked me all kinds of questions. I said, “You know, I’m thrilled that you called,” I said, “but we have to talk about this.” He says, “Can you come down to Washington tomorrow?” So I went down there the next day. I took with me people from the Mass Pax organization, the fellow who had been the organizer of the grassroots, Chester Hartman, he came with me; Marty Peretz and his wife, Ann Peretz , I took them down because they were the money people…

Well, everybody went crazy. It was a focus, right? And we worked very hard in the campaign. As you know, the prime issue was the Vietnam War. We propelled Bobby Kennedy into the race. Then, of course, Nixon was elected…

Fr. Robert Drinan

One of Grossman’s next projects was the recruitment of Jesuit priest, Fr. Robert Drinan, to run for Congress. Communist fronter Drinan turned out to be one of the  most far left Representatives to ever serve in the U.S. Congress. He played a lead role in ending U.S. government investigations into subversive activities. This campaign also led to Grossman’s connection to future U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate, the leftist John Kerry.

We decided that we wanted to elect a member of the House of Representatives who was against the Vietnam War… So we furthered our activities against the Vietnam War by using the most Democratic tactics, by bringing in all of the two thousand anti-Vietnam War activists in the fourth Congressional district; bringing them all into a school for an all-day session and selecting a candidate from people who ran.
I was a candidate, and I was the likely candidate, until I found a Jesuit priest, Father Robert F. Drinan, the Dean of the Boston College Law School… Okay. So when I heard that Drinan, a well known priest, the Dean of the Boston College Law School, might be interested in running, I called him up immediately and said, “I’m dropping my candidacy; I will work for you.” So we nominated him at the caucus, and we elected him. And electing him was part of the process.
While this was going on I got a telephone call from somebody I had never heard of… This fellow calls me up and he says, “You don’t know me, but I have a brother who is a natural politician, and he’s over in Vietnam now. He’s coming back. And he wants to run in the caucus that you are organizing.” And I said, “I already have a candidate.” He says, “Yes, but my brother is special.” I said, “Who’s your brother?” He says, “John Kerry.” This was Cameron Kerry who at the time was a junior at Harvard College. He interested me so I said, “Get over here.” He hopped a bus and he came over in his sweater and everything. And we talked. John Kerry did run in that caucus and did very, very well in the caucus. I was hard pressed to beat him. But John Kerry, after he lost, he stood up and he said, “I’m going to respect the wishes of the caucus. I’m not going to run in the primary. I will dedicate the rest of the campaign to working for Father Drinan.” And that’s why I have been a supporter of John Kerry every since.

In  1982, Jerome Grossman, was a member of the American Committee on East-West Accord. The A.C.E.W.A., based in Washington, D.C., was a tax-exempt “independent educational organization”, with the stated aim of “improving East/West relations, with special focus on U.S.-Soviet relations.”
One of the key pro-disarmament organizations of the “Cold war”, A.C.E.W.A., while attempting to maintain an aura of respectability was riddled with far leftists.

Prominent A.C.E.W.A. members included;

• Bernard Feld – A  member of President Nixon’s famous “Enemies list”, Feld was heavily involved with the communist influenced and Leo Szilard sponsoredBulletin of the Atomic Scientists and with the Council for a Livable World.
• Joseph Filner – A former Pennsylvania Communist Party  official  turned international businessman. Filner focused on metal and technology trading with the Soviet Union and was a major funder of leftist causes. He was the father of current Democratic Socialists of America-affiliated California Congressman, Bob Filner
• Philip Klutznik – Former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, who later served on far leftist Chicago Mayor Harold Washington‘s transition oversight Committee. It was Washington’s election that inspired Barack Obama to first move to Chicago
• Bernard Lown – A lifelong Communist Party front activist and co-president of  International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
• George Mcgovern – Far left U.S. Senator
• Erwin Salk – A communist affiliated, F.B.I. monitored  Chicago lawyer, and President of  the Board of Directors of the Chicago Center for US/USSR Relations and Exchanges, where he worked with Communist Party USA member Larry McGurty and Democratic Socialists of America member and future Progressives for Obama supporter Betty Willhoite



Joseph Filner

• Jeremy Stone -  President of the far left and pro-disarmament Federation of American Scientists, affiliate of the even further left Institute for Policy Studies and son of alleged one time Soviet agent I. F. Stone. In November, 1983 the F.A.S. sent a party to the Soviet Union, which included Jeremy Stone, and future Obama “Science Czar”, John Holdren

There is some evidence also that Grossman, a former member of the Democratic National Committee may also be a member of Democratic Socialists of America – the U.S.’s largest Marxist organization.

In 2010, Jerome Grossman’s son Steve Grossman, was endorsed by the Boston Democratic Socialists of America, in his run for the Massachusetts treasurer job.

Son of CPPAX founder Jerome Grossman (one of DSA’s first Debs-Thomas honorees),  Steve Grossman has strong labor backing and says he will use this office to leverage progressive issues.

Jerome Grossman is also listed on the advisory board of the Democratic Socialists of America-affiliated National Jobs For All Coalition, alongside identified D.S.A. members Elaine Bernard, Noreen Connell, Staughton Lynd, Manning Marable, Lawrence Mishel,Rep.  Jerrold Nadler, Juliet Schor, Ruth Sidel,  Victor Sidel, Theda Skocpol, Joseph B. Uehlein, Cornel West (Barack Obama’s Black Advisory Council 2008), and William Julius Wilson (a panelist with Obama at a D.S.A. sponsored forum in Chicago in 1996).

Though little known nationally, Jerome Grossman has probably had more influence on U.S. disarmament policy than any living person in the country.