China's Bo Xilai expelled from Communist Party

The Washington Post/

BEIJING — Disgraced Chinese politician Bo Xilai was expelled from the ruling Communist Party on Friday and will face corruption and other criminal charges, the latest step in a scandal that has overshadowed a political transition now set to take place in early November.

The party’s Politburo said that Bo, who had been a candidate for top office until caught up in a scandal that included a murder, will face charges for abuse of power, bribe taking and improper relations with a number of women.

More >>

‘The Communist’ Part I: Obama’s Mentor Frank Marshall Davis Exposed

NoisyRoom
Tiffany Gabbay

Imagine an American man so devout in his Communist beliefs, that during the Cold War the FBI placed him on its security index – meaning that if an armed conflict were to have erupted between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Federal authorities would have looked to him as a prime suspect for treason.
Now imagine that man mentored the leader of the free world.
(Related: Exclusive: See This Clip About Obama‘s Relationship With Communist Frank Marshall Davis From Dinesh D’Souza‘s ’2016′ Film)

On July 17^th, Mercury Ink and author Paul Kengor, PhD, will introduce the world to the real Frank Marshall Davis – the card-carrying member of the Communist Party U.S.A, and who all accounts indicate was Barack Obama’s closest role model and mentor. Devoid of outrageous conspiracy theories or sensational claims, Kengor painstakingly documents the historical facts of this dynamic, at times even sympathetic character, who walked the path from Republican roots clear through to the radical fringe of unfettered Marxism.

Presently, certain news and commentary outlets are focusing on the more outrageous aspects of Frank Marshall Davis’ life, such as his self-admitted penchant for perverse sexual escapades as well as for taking photos of naked women (including of Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother). In fact, the recently released documentary, “Dreams From My Real Father,” even posits that Davis is the president’s true biological father.  While much of Davis’ bizarre fetishes and sexual peccadilloes provide subject matter worthy of consideration, Kengor believes that his book, “The Communist,” focuses on the substantive ideological, rather than sensational aspects of Davis’ past.

At the end of the day, according to Kengor, mentors matter – and in no small amount.  The book opens by explaining how Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton’s role models were extremely influential in each of their lives, respectively. In fact, typically the first task of any biographer is to examine the mentors of the subject he or she is writing about.  Oddly, when it comes to our current president, left-wing biographers have somehow avoided this topic altogether.

Presidential mentors

During Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, the media and members of the far left ignored discussing his influences and role models, leaving conservatives in shock over how lax the vetting process turned out to be for the man who would come to hold the highest office in the land. As The Communist reveals that the “transformative change” Obama promised to deliver (and did) eerily find their origin in the words and deeds of his closest mentor.

And therein lies the rub. Examining the mentor is perhaps one of the most significant aspects of the presidential vetting process. Those who came before Obama all acknowledged the profound impact their mentors had on them, both growing up, and into adulthood. Of course the reason is clear – exploring who a presidential nominee’s influences are provides key insight into that candidate’s world-view.

Kengor notes that although both Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton’s role models were indeed of great import to each of them, their names were rarely mentioned in each of their biographies. Ironically, however, Obama mentioned “Frank” by name no less than 22 times in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father.”

“We’ve had 44 presidents and they’ve all had mentors,” Kengor told me during an exclusive Blaze interview. “Yet never before in the entire 200-plus year [presidential] history of this country, have we had a president with a mentor who was a card carrying member of the Communist Party.

Kengor takes issue with the fact that no liberal biographer acknowledges that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s mentor, yet those same biographers have never denied that Don Jones mentored Ronald Reagan, just as Ben Cleaver guided an impressionable, young Hillary Clinton until her departure to university. Perhaps the reason no one cares, according to Kengor, is because both Cleaver and Jones “loved America” and were not “pro-soviet members of the Communist Party.” He believes journalists, biographers, and the media in general are guilty of “scandalous neglect” when discussing Barack Obama.

“The problem with Obama,” said Kengor, “is that he was never vetted, so you have skeletons in the closet.” He explained that while there has been no shortage of coverage from the right in exposing Obama’s ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright or the Weather Underground’s Bill Ayers, “no one talks about Davis, and Davis was far more radical [than either Ayers or Wright].”

In fact, Kengor maintains that Ayer’s most radical university lecture, or Wright’s most flagrant sermon pales in comparison to any of the volumes Frank Marshall Davis espoused in his columns for various Communist newspapers across the country.

“When you read his columns it’s very clear you are dealing with a Communist Party U.S.A. member 

 from the ‘Daily Worker’ crowd — a loyal Soviet patriot.

“To think he had an influence on the president.”

“Imagine if there was a GOP nominee with a mentor this extreme to the right. They would never have escaped the media scrutiny.”

Historically, Kengor observed a pattern among the left in which its adherents are never vigilant when it comes to Communism. Even American Civil Liberties Union founder, Roger Nash Baldwin, wrote a book entitled, “Liberty Under the Soviets” demonstrating progressives’ sympathy for all things Communist.

As we near the July 17^th release date of “The Communist” The Blaze will be releasing two more “sneak preview” articles detailing some of the shocking revelations Kengor discovered along the way.

For instance, you will learn that Frank Marshall Davis actually started out as a member of the GOP, reviled Democrats (in particular Harry Truman and Franklin Delano Roosevelt) and only turned to Communism after being fully duped by a Soviet propaganda campaign that convinced him the USSR had abolished racism of all kinds.

You will also see laid out in black and white, the stark parallels between Frank Marshall Davis’ words and deeds and those of the Obama administration — from universal health care to the catch phrases, “hope and change” and “forward!” (all of which find origin in Obama’s Communist mentor).

If it sounds too unbelievable to be true, just remember the adage: “Truth is stranger than fiction.” The book can be found online here and here.

Kengor was also interviewed about Frank Marshall Davis’ past, as well as his connection to the president in Dinesh D‘Souza’s upcoming documentary on Obama. An exclusive preview is featured below:

Soviets Funded Black “Freedom” Journal

 CFP/ By Cliff Kincaid

Newly declassified documents from Operation SOLO, an FBI program to infiltrate the Communist Party of the United States, reveal that a journal called
Freedomways, which was influential in the black community for decades, was subsidized by the Soviet and Chinese Communist Parties.

Freedomways has been called “one of the most influential African-American literary and political journals of the 1960s and 1970s.” It began in 1961 and ceased publication in 1986.

During the 25 years it served as a propaganda organ for the CPUSA and Soviet front organizations such as the World Peace Council, Freedomways published articles by such figures as:

More >>

Obama designated driver for 'road to socialism'

WND/ By Drew Zahn

The Communist Party USA isn’t always happy with the Democrats, but in the 2012 election, its chairman says, the best bet for advancing the Party’s goals is to back Barack Obama.

In a report called “Defeating the Rightwing on the Road to Socialism” delivered to the CPUSA annual conference, Party Chairman Sam Webb moved to squash sentiments that disgruntled communists should jump off the Democrat ship and back a third-party candidate for president.

“Some think the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. Others go further and say that the Democrats are worse because they create popular illusions that change is possible within the two-party system,” Webb said. “And finally there are advocates of running a third-party presidential candidate in this election.

“I can understand these sentiments, but only up to a point,” he said. “Like it or not, millions go to the polls in spite of their misgivings … and the Democratic Party is the vehicle of reform for tens of millions, the majority of whom are working and oppressed people.”

Therefore, Webb said, communists need to join other left-leaning allies in ensuring Republicans are defeated in November.

“A third-party presidential candidate would only help the extreme right, as well as isolate the left from the broader movement,” Webb strategized. “Only a closer alliance of a surging labor movement and its strategic allies – the African American people, Latino people, and other peoples of color, women and youth – have the wherewithal to turn back this corporate counterattack, while at the same time enact progressive measures.”

Other speakers at the conference threw their support behind Obama even more succinctly, including Executive Vice Chair of CPUSA Jarvis Tyner.

“These right-wing nut jobs need to understand, we are not going back,” Tyner said. “If Obama is elected, of course there will be a struggle; a struggle that the democratic forces could win, I would say. If he is defeated, the movement will suffer a big setback and the country will be pushed backwards.”

According to a report in CPUSA’s news source People’s World, Vice Chair Juan Lopez warned conference attendees that Republicans would use racism as a “powerful ideological weapon” to defeat Obama.

“There is no room for cynicism,” Lopez stressed, “if we expect to win against Republicans who are exhibiting fascist tendencies. The defeat of Obama would be a dangerous setback on every front of struggle, especially against racism and for equality for women. It would show that white people were not ready for an African American president, after all.”

Joelle Fishman, chair of the CPUSA Political Action Commission, further contrasted Obama and his “values … upholding the contribution of work and those who do it,” and Mitt Romney, who allegedly values “individualism and corporate greed.”

“The poll shows there is a lot of work to be done,” Fishman trumpeted, “but with a strong platform for jobs and fair taxes, Obama and Democrats can win voters in swing districts, including white voters who supported the tea party in 2010.”

Fishman and Webb each remarked on labor-union plans to put huge ground forces in play for the 2012 election and encouraged fellow communists to join, rather than fight, the efforts.

“Labor will throw itself into the campaign to elect Democrats, moderate as well as progressive,” Webb told the conference.

“The AFL-CIO grass roots crusade will engage 400,000 members to canvass their co-workers and neighbors with a unity message for Obama. SEIU will mobilize another 200,000 members with the same goal,” Fishman claimed. “Strengthening and enlarging union, civil rights, community and youth organizations during this election will lay the groundwork for year-round organizing and for future elections in which candidates who come out of the movements, including the Communist Party, run for office.”

China's Wen says corruption biggest danger to party

Military Space News/

Premier Wen Jiabao warned Monday the biggest danger facing China's Communist Party was corruption, as it struggles to contain the biggest political scandal to hit the country in years.

In a speech published in the top Communist Party periodical "Qiushi," Wen pledged to use his last year in power to attack rampant corruption in the ruling party and curb the unbridled powers of top leaders.

Wen's comments come after charismatic leader Bo Xilai was sacked as head of Chongqing city and dismissed from the powerful Politburo while his wife was named a suspect in the alleged murder of British businessman Neil Heywood.

The revelations, most announced last week, have shocked the nation and are seen as the biggest political scandal to strike China in years.

"We must deeply recognise that the biggest danger facing the ruling party is corruption," Wen said in the speech that was read at an anti-graft cabinet meeting on March 26 but only published Monday.

"If this problem is not resolved well, then the nature of political power can change and 'those who hold political power may perish'."

The speech played prominently in China's tightly-controlled media and mirrored numerous editorials that have urged the public to rally behind the party following the news of Bo's suspension from the Politburo and the investigation into his wife Gu Kailai for murder.

Xinhua news agency said last week Gu had been on good terms with Heywood, but fell out over economic interests, leading to the alleged November 15 murder.

The ruling party -- apparently nervous that the repercussions of the case will shatter its carefully crafted appearance of unity -- has tried to put a positive spin on the scandal.

"Recently, the central government decided to start an investigation into serious disciplinary violations by Comrade Bo Xilai," the Chongqing Daily said in a Monday commentary. More >>

Top China politician's wife named as murder suspect

From left: Gu Kailai, her husband Bo Xilai, and British businessman Neil Heywood. A fresh theory suggests Gu was having an affair with Heywood before his death. (Internet photo)

By msnbc.com staff and news services/

The Chinese Communist Party suspended high-flying politician Bo Xilai from its inner circle Tuesday following speculation that he is connected to the murder of a British businessman, China’s news agency Xinhua reported.

In addition, Bo’s wife, Gu Kailai, once a celebrated lawyer, was jailed, as was a Zhang Xiajun, who worked in the family’s home, the Guardian of London reported.

Bo, 62, had been suspended from his position as Communist party boss in Chongqing last month after the city’s former police chief defected to the U.S. Consul and alleged that Bo had ties to the murder.

The British businessman, Neil Heywood, was found dead in a hotel room in Chongqing on Nov. 15. At the time, police said he died of alcohol poisoning, but doubts were raised later and the U.K. embassy asked Chinese authorities to investigate further, the BBC reported.

The news agency said that Chinese law enforcement determined that Heywood had been killed and that Gu and Heywood had been fighting over unspecified “economic interests.”

Days before he was dismissed, Bo said at a news conference that some people were pouring “filth on my family.” He and his wife later disappeared from public view.  More >>

A split in China's leadership

 

Hu Jintao (C), Wu Bangguo (4th R), Wen Jiabao (4th L), Jia Qinglin (3rd R), Li Changchun (3rd L), Xi Jinping (2nd R), Li Keqiang (2nd L), He Guoqiang (1st R) and Zhou Yongkang (1st L), who are members of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the 17th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), meet the press at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Oct. 22, 2007. (Xinhua/Li Xueren)

Michael Auslin* | National Review Online

China watchers have been digesting the news from last week that Bo Xilai, long considered one of the Communist party’s future stars, was dismissed from his post as party boss of Chonqing, colloquially known as “China’s Chicago,” a sprawling city of nearly 30 million in the southwest of the country. Bo had become symbolic of an old-fashioned, hard-line approach to administration and reform, openly spouting Mao-era songs and slogans. Some in the Western media labeled him a populist, but publicly, this manifested itself in attempts to rally support for tighter government control. The proximate reason for Bo’s dismissal was the apparent attempt by one of his close allies, the vice mayor of Chongqing, to seek asylum in the United States; when this attempt was rebuffed by an American consulate to which he had fled, the official, Wang Lijun, was arrested by Chinese police. In the wake of this incident, China’s premier, Wen Jiabao, began indirectly criticizing Xilai, and from then, the writing was on the wall. This may seem like a bit of inside baseball to those who aren’t steeped in Chinese politics, but the episode is significant, and a rare opportunity to peer behind the veil of the Communist party’s internal workings.

The dismissal of such a senior and well-connected official would be news enough in a regular year. As a son of one of the founders of the People’s Republic, Bo was a charter member of the group known as the “princelings,” whose rise to the heights of power seemed preordained. But this is the year of China’s leadership transition, and Bo, a former Minister of Commerce, was widely expected to be elevated to the Communist party’s Standing Committee — which essentially runs China — later this year. Bo’s fellow princeling Xi Jinping is also in the final months of his assumed ascension to leadership of the Communist party and presidency of China. The spotlight was on Xi earlier this year when he traveled to Washington, D.C., for his inaugural meeting with the Obama administration. As the leadership transition draws near, analysts and pundits have been looking for signs of dissension within the ruling circle, partly as a way to assess the resilience of a regime that is soon to give the reins of power to its fifth generation.

"There is little talk of greater political freedom, and reaction against dissidents and activists remains as quick and brutal as ever." -- Michael Auslin

The public sacking of Bo clearly reveals that such fissures do exist. Granted, the party seems to handle these things better than it did in the old days, when Mao’s heir apparent, Lin Biao, after an apparent coup attempt, died in a mysterious mid-air explosion while trying to flee to Mongolia or Russia. But Bo’s dismissal cuts to the core of both personality politics and competing visions among China’s leaders. At the center of the divergence is the interlinked question of economic liberalization and political openness. China has successfully pursued the former while strictly controlling the latter since the Tiananmen uprising in 1989. Yet two parallel pressures are impinging on the government’s leadership and their efforts to control this dynamic: The first is the rollback in economic liberalization and the corresponding increase in the role of the state-owned sector in China; the second is the continued demand for more political space for China’s citizens, spurred by social media and some of the more abject failings of the party and government (such as the response to last year’s high-speed-rail accident).

Western media like to highlight the difference between Bo’s Mao-inspired approach in Chongqing with that of Wang Yang, party chief of the vibrant southern province of Guangdong. Wang pursued economic liberalization in Guangdong, while Bo favored state-owned enterprises. While Bo whipped up the masses with Mao-era songs, Wang took a decidedly low-key response to protests in the small village of Wukan last year. The “Guangdong model” has made Wang a favorite among those who believe that China can continue to evolve toward a more liberal model of governance. As proof of its effectiveness, they point to the fact that Wang, too, is expected to be made a member of the all-powerful Standing Committee this autumn.

Yet it would seem that Bo’s fall is due less to an open ideological war between reformist and reactionary factions among China’s leadership and more to traditional power politics. With his grandstanding and de facto criticism of their staid leadership, Bo appears to have alienated many powerful members of the current leadership, including party chief Hu Jintao and Premier Wen. Allegations of malfeasance against him are now indicating that vice mayor Wang Lijun’s asylum bid was an attempt to escape from Bo’s reach; apparently, Wang, who was also police chief for Chongqing, may have been investigating Bo’s family for corruption. If true, then Bo was dismissed not because of high-minded theoretical disputes, but for typical political skullduggery. Bo had made himself inconvenient and vulnerable, and his opponents jumped at the chance to rid themselves of a thorn in their side.

Western analysts should not read too much into the saga of Bo Xilai. While it is a fascinating story, and more may come out about corruption and the like, there is little here to indicate that the episode heralds any kind of reckoning among China’s leaders over the future of the country. The party, largely reviled by most of society, remains firmly in power, and has at least implicitly endorsed the growth of the state-owned sector over the past decade. There is little talk of greater political freedom, and reaction against dissidents and activists remains as quick and brutal as ever. Nor does there seem to be disagreement over China’s foreign policy, its support for pariah regimes, and its increasing reliance on military strength to assert its interests in its region.

Perhaps the real question mark hanging over China’s future is one that is entirely absent from the Bo story: After nearly two decades of phenomenal growth in power and influence, what role does China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army, see itself playing in Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of the Communist party? That is a question that can only become clear in the aftermath to the civilian political transition that, while troubled by Bo’s antics, is still on target for the autumn.

Western analysts should not read too much into the saga of Bo Xilai. While it is a fascinating story, and more may come out about corruption and the like, there is little here to indicate that the episode heralds any kind of reckoning among China’s leaders over the future of the country. The party, largely reviled by most of society, remains firmly in power, and has at least implicitly endorsed the growth of the state-owned sector over the past decade. There is little talk of greater political freedom, and reaction against dissidents and activists remains as quick and brutal as ever. Nor does there seem to be disagreement over China’s foreign policy, its support for pariah regimes, and its increasing reliance on military strength to assert its interests in its region.

Perhaps the real question mark hanging over China’s future is one that is entirely absent from the Bo story: After nearly two decades of phenomenal growth in power and influence, what role does China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army, see itself playing in Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of the Communist party? That is a question that can only become clear in the aftermath to the civilian political transition that, while troubled by Bo’s antics, is still on target for the autumn.

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

*Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at AEI.

 

Bo Xilai and coming changes in China

Dan Blumenthal, Lara Crouch | Foreign Policy

Bo Xilai attends a meeting during the annual National People's Congress at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China on Mar. 6, 2010.

In the last couple of days, Western media has been abuzz with rumors sourced from Chinese social media websites, Falun Gong-sponsored news outlets, and analysts in Hong Kong of an attempted coup in Beijing. The only thing lending credence to these rumors is the seeming existence of a power struggle that resulted in the sacking of Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai. This is the most significant removal of a government official since 2006 when Shanghai Party Chief Chen Liangyu was fired during a corruption probe.
The recent string of events have made for exciting political drama, but let's remember that only nine men in China know what is really going on. This holds true in the case of Bo Xilai and his deputy Wang Lijun, as well as the current status of security chief Zhou Yongkang (some of the recent rumors are swirling around him). Given the uncertain political environment, those nine will not be talking much anytime soon.
While we do not know why Bo was removed and other bits of "Zhongnanhaiology," recent incidents have revealed some useful information about the respective roles of power and ideology in China. And these, in turn, show that change is coming to China, even if we don't know what that change will look like. Power struggles are real as party leaders fight over an inverted Golden Rule -- in China, he who makes the rules gets the gold.
First, Bo Xilai's ouster was about power, rather than ideology. From the central leadership's rhetoric, especially Wen Jiabao's statements about the need to avoid another Cultural Revolution, one would think that Bo's fall from grace had mostly to do with his embrace of some form of Maoism. Indeed, it's a convenient picture for the central leadership to paint for an international audience -- that they ousted Bo to prevent China from making a "left turn." While there may be a kernel of truth to this, the "red songs" were more of a means to an end for Bo. Likewise, Bo's supposed "red ideology" provided Chinese leaders a good pretense to remove a threat to central power.
Bo was aiming for a place in the Standing Committee to increase his own power. And his real "crime" according to the leadership is not what he did in Chongqing, but how he did it. In executing his dual "sing red strike black" campaigns, Bo established a separate center of power around himself that did not rely on the central leadership. Bo was establishing his own power base and as a result became somewhat of a national sensation (some Chinese citizens were even writing songs about him). His power resulted from his own self-promotion, and not because he was favored by the leadership. He was a populist, but more importantly he was a populist operating as the face of the party and demonstrating a way of governing that was different from the central leadership.    
Second, power is what is propelling Chinese politics during this time of transition. China is now run more like a mafia state with a dozen or so powerful families in charge. Bo's was one of them. The rules of the game are as such: "If you go after us, then we will go after you." This might be another contributing factor to Bo's demise. His deputy was allegedly probing Bo's own family for corruption, and Bo responded by allegedly interfering in the investigation and attempting to sideline his once powerful chief. Unfortunately for Bo, his power struggle with Wang was not as important as Beijing's struggle with him. The leadership's longtime reservations about Bo's political style combined with his sudden vulnerability made for an excellent pretext to "go after" him.
While Bo's story is about power, it should not obscure the fact that there is an ideological struggle going on inside China. The struggle is a competition of ideas pitting those aligned with Chinese reformers and the "real" Chinese private sector against very powerful state owned enterprises and the party bosses who benefit from them. The former know that Beijing's growth model will come to an end unless serious capitalist reform is enacted. The latter know that if those reforms are enacted the party (and party) is over for them.
Even more so than the sacking of Bo and the evident tension it is creating, the existence of a struggle over the future of the Chinese economy demonstrates a lack of consensus in China, notwithstanding the intellectual faddishness about the "Beijing Consensus." This intellectual fad -- a battle between Beijing's model of state-led economics and Western liberal economics -- is a creation of the West. But the real battle is inside China -- will it become more capitalist and grow or will it sputter?
This lack of consensus shows that while it is impossible to predict what will happen in China (muddling along, collapse, stagnation), one thing is becoming clear -- China will change over the next decade. As the economic model comes increasingly into question, other internal problems will come home to roost, including disastrous population policies, widespread corruption at the highest levels of government, and inert political leadership.
As we watch these events unfold, it behooves us to remember that one of the reasons outsiders are paying attention to the idea that there may be a coup in China is that the military is the only institution that can keep the country together. Political crisis in China could pave the way for a PLA-led China. If anything, the downfall of Bo tells us is that the transition in China is not as smooth as it seems. Power struggles are real as party leaders fight over an inverted Golden Rule -- in China, he who makes the rules gets the gold. While the particulars of the Bo case are uncertain, two things are clear: The leaders are no longer all powerful and reform is badly needed. The question is, will China make the kind of changes it objectively needs or will it become a stagnating PLA-led state?

Communist Leader: “Six Crucial Tasks for the Left and Progressive Community”

TrevorLoudon
Communist Party USA National Chair Sam Webb has laid out six key points he believes  the US left must take up in order to emerge victorious in the battle for America’s future.

Sam Webb

Since Ronald Reagan was elected president more than three decades ago, right-wing extremists gathered in the Republican Party have been attempting to restructure the role and functions of government to the advantage of the top layers of the capitalist class.
One of their main aims has been to dismantle the bundle of social programs and rights (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and voting, civil, disability, women’s and labor rights, and much more) that were legislated over the past eight decades. These progressive breakthroughs are anathema to them. Instead of triumphs, the right wing sees them as sorry episodes in American history….
What will it take to save these core components of our social compact? The same thing that it took to win them – sustained mass struggle of a broad-based labor-led multiracial movement. Without such a movement it is hard to see how these social protections will be maintained – not to mention improved upon.
Yes, in the White House and Congress there are supporters of social entitlements and rights (and that too is necessary for a winning struggle) but it’s not sufficient. They don’t have the social power to stand up to a right-wing-driven offensive that includes nearly every section of the capitalist class. That social power resides with the masses of people who put elected officials into office.
In these circumstances, the left and progressive community has a crucial role. Here’s what it can, and must, do:
1) Bring to light the linkages between capitalism’s inner dynamics, the capitalist economic crisis and the current onslaught on people’s living standards and rights. In particular, remind everyone that unregulated “free enterprise” that got us into this mess won’t get us out, and that’s where the need for a proactive, pro-people government comes into the picture.
2) Make the case that job creation is the nation’s immediate and overarching priority. In fact, austerity measures at this moment are harmful for working people, for the economy and for our fiscal health in the long term. Indeed, chipping away core social programs would be a dagger to the heart of working people, especially people of color, and exactly the wrong medicine for an economy that limps along due to lack of consumer spending.
3) Put together a strategy that singles out the main obstacle to positive change – right-wing extremism – as well as the main social groups that have to be assembled to preserve America’s social compact and expand it.
4) Elevate the struggle against racism – an ideological and social practice that feeds the corporate bottom line, interweaves with the political project of the far right, and gravely weakens the struggle to defend past gains and win future victories. Qualitative turns in a progressive and radical direction are organically bound up with growing anti-racist thinking and action on the part of white people, especially white workers.
5) Find the forms to unite the broadest possible movement in defense of these programs and rights. Narrow approaches that bypass allies, even temporary ones, set radical against more immediate demands, and minimize the danger from right-wing extremism, are of no help. The task is not to propose the most radical solutions to every problem, but, in the first place, to organize struggles around the demands that millions are ready to fight on.
6) Connect every struggle against the right to the coming national elections.
Not for a long time has the left and progressive community been so badly needed to play its historic role. Let’s do it.

Stripping away the Commspeak, Sam Webb’s message is clear.
Free enterprise, rather than the socialism which actually caused them, must be blamed for America’s economic problems. This lie must then be used to rally and unite all who stand to lose income or jobs in the short term, if government programs are cut. government jobs programs, which will be controlled and robbed blind by the communists and their allies, must be put forward as the best way out of the “jobs crisis.”
Fighting “racism” must be a priority. This actually means promoting racism. Blacks must used exploited  as a voting bloc for the Democrats, “empowered” to demand ever more from Federal  and state governments and used to intimidate and harass the left’s opposition.
All who fight for rational and responsible government, confined and restored to its limited Constitutional roles, must be demonized and smeared as “right wing” and “extreme.”
This war will be fought on the streets of America, by a handful of communists and tens thousands of their dupes.
More importantly though, this will be a propaganda war. And that is where the left, trained in the black arts of smearing and demonizing their enemy, and with a largely complicit media,  has an advantage.
If you think US left rhetoric has been pretty harsh lately, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

King, Kennedy and Communism

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

As the official dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial in Washington, D.C. approaches, liberals in the media are in damage control over a revelation about the civil rights leader from an unlikely source—Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK and Jackie Kennedy. Her new book, Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy, makes it abundantly clear that Jack and Bobby Kennedy, as well as Jackie, saw through the public façade of the Reverend King and knew him to be a proven liar about his communist connections and a scoundrel in terms of his personal life. Jackie called King a “phony” in the taped conversations that form the basis of the book.

This has created a dilemma for the media, who adore the Kennedys and King. So media figures such as Andrea Mitchell of NBC News and Diane Sawyer of ABC News have decided to blame the whole mess on former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. But the misdirection won’t work. The book stands on its own and constitutes a major indictment of a man considered a national icon.

On Monday night, Mitchell was on the NBC Nightly News covering the controversy by claiming that the “phony” comment was because of political games being played by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. In fact, the evidence shows that both JFK and his brother Bobby had themselves obtained and passed on information about King’s extramarital affairs and womanizing. It was information that had been obtained from wiretaps on King authorized by Bobby himself.

The book is based on recorded interviews conducted in 1964 by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. with Jacqueline Kennedy. It quotes Jackie as saying that JFK had told her “of a tape that the FBI had of Martin Luther King…how he was calling up all these girls and arranging for a party of men and women, I mean, sort of an orgy in the hotel, and everything.” Jackie said her response to this was that such conduct was “terrible” and that King was “such a phony.” Jackie adds, “Since then, Bobby’s told me of the tapes of these orgies they have and how Martin Luther King made fun of Jack’s funeral.”

Mitchell’s false narrative ignored how the Kennedy brothers, both anti-communist Democrats, were alarmed by King’s communist associations. She explained: “At the time, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was trying to incite divisions between the Kennedys and Dr. King, telling Bobby Kennedy that Dr. King was overheard on FBI wiretaps making crude comments about Jackie Kennedy kissing her husband’s coffin on the day of Jack’s funeral.”

But Mitchell’s talk of Hoover stirring up divisions was nonsense. Hoover targeted King because of high-level concern about his communist connections, with the information about his extramarital affairs coming out as a result of the surveillance of the civil rights leader. The book makes it clear that the report that Jackie said King was a “phony” was not based on something said about a coffin; it was based on revelations provided to Jackie Kennedy by her husband that King, a reverend who quoted the bible, was a notorious adulterer and partier. And Bobby Kennedy, according to the book, shared the disgust for King’s secret sexual perversions.

It appears that Mitchell either did not read the book or deliberately misrepresented what was in it. This is the true mark of a liberal journalist worried about besmirching the reputation of a liberal icon.

In the September 13 two-hour ABC special on the Jacqueline Kennedy tapes, “Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words,” there is also an attempt to spin the damaging revelations about King and blame Hoover for them.

Diane Sawyer, anchor of the special program, said Hoover “had told the president that King was present at parties involving a lot of sex.” Sawyer said the reported comment about the funeral was “a malicious rumor” planted by Hoover with Bobby. Hence, Sawyer depicted the Kennedy brothers in an unflattering light as mere puppets of Hoover’s FBI. In fact, Hoover was doing their bidding.

Michael Beschloss, who wrote the introduction to the book, insisted on the air that “There is dispute on whether it’s Martin Luther King who’s on those FBI tapes or not. But Robert Kennedy thought it was.” It is apparent that Bobby had listened to some of the tapes, read the transcripts, or relied on summaries provided by the FBI. Equally important, Beschloss knows that King was wiretapped by the FBI (and that the wiretaps were approved by Bobby, the Attorney General) because of King’s communist connections and links to the Soviet-funded Communist Party USA. But this, too, is a taboo subject for the liberal media.

Rep. John Lewis appeared on the ABC program to blame J. Edgar Hoover for bad opinions of King, saying Hoover despised King and wanted to “destroy the man.” Caroline Kennedy was brought on to say that, despite her criticism of the civil rights leader in the book, her mother admired King.

These attempts at spin fly in the face of the evidence in the book and provided even by King’s former associates. For example, Ralph David Abernathy, the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in his book, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down, acknowledges King’s extramarital affairs.

On the NBC Nightly News, Andrea Mitchell apparently felt obliged to report the explosive “phony” comment about King but decided to ignore the actual evidence in the book and blame it on Hoover. Such conduct is further evidence of the media’s blatant disregard of the facts in order to serve a political agenda. ABC News tried a variation of this strategy.

The New York Times at least got the basic facts right, noting that Jackie’s comment about King being a “phony” was based on “electronic eavesdropping” which found King “arranging encounters with women.”

But the reason for the wiretaps was not disclosed. And the fact that they were approved by Bobby Kennedy, the Attorney General, was conveniently left out.

David J. Garrow explained some of the controversy in his 1981 book The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as a 2002 Atlantic magazine article based on it. He notes that Bobby authorized the FBI to begin wiretapping the telephones of King because he “believed that one of King’s closest advisers was a top-level member of the American Communist Party, and that King had repeatedly misled Administration officials about his ongoing close ties with the man.” The associate was Stanley Levison, who had been involved in Communist Party USA financial affairs and was helping to arrange funding of the party by Moscow.

Since the Kennedys were among a dwindling number of national Democrats who opposed international communism and wanted to see it defeated, these reports greatly concerned them.

But Levison wasn’t the only concern. Garrow writes, “Levison, the FBI told Kennedy and Marshall [Burke Marshall, the assistant attorney general for civil rights], had recently installed as head of the SCLC’s small New York office a young African-American man named Jack O’Dell, whose publicly documented record of affiliation with the CPUSA had drawn the attention of hostile congressional committees just a few years earlier. Kennedy’s inner circle resolved that every Administration aide acquainted with King would warn him fervently but vaguely about the political danger of continuing his association with Levison and O’Dell. King politely accepted and then privately dismissed warning after warning.” (O’Dell would later go to work for King associate Jesse Jackson).

Hence, King was deceiving the Kennedys, his allies in the civil rights struggle.

In his book, Garrow quoted Marshall as saying that King’s deception on this matter was important and that the wiretaps were therefore justified. “I mean,” said Marshall, “if you accept the concept of national security, if you accept the concept that there is a Soviet Communist apparatus and it is trying to interfere with things here—which you have to accept—and that there’s a national security issue and that taps are justified in that area. I don’t know what could be more important than having the kind of Communist that this man was claimed to be by the Bureau directly influencing Dr. King.”

The communists were manipulating the civil rights movement in directions that benefited them, such as by influencing King to be critical of the war against communism in Vietnam and the system of free enterprise capitalism in the U.S.

Garrow, who was sympathetic to King and critical of the FBI, explained, “Hence the primary reason behind the decision to wiretap Dr. King was, for Robert Kennedy and Burke Marshall, just as it was for the FBI, honestly held fears about what Stanley Levison represented and why Martin Luther King was remaining in contact with him despite numerous warnings not to and King’s own promise that he would end the relationship.”

This information, which has long been on the public record, provides a much-needed perspective on the wiretap controversy. Authorized for the purpose of documenting King’s communist connections, the surveillance turned up evidence of his adultery, which contradicted his stance as a minister of God preaching virtue in public life. But viewers of Andrea Mitchell’s report about Jackie Kennedy calling King a “phony” had no way, based on her broadcast, to understand what the controversy was really all about. Instead, they came away thinking the comment was based on some crazy scheme cooked up by Hoover.

It is truly bizarre that Mitchell would so brazenly lie about the matter when the daughter of JFK and Jackie had put it in her book for all to read and see.

But the liberal media are not alone in obscuring the facts. On the Fox News Channel, Bill O’Reilly blamed Hoover for the wiretaps. “He felt that the doctor was a communist,” O’Reilly said, ignoring the evidence of King’s communist associates and Bobby Kennedy’s role in approving the surveillance. His guest on the program was left-wing historian Kenneth C. Davis, who noted that the Kennedys were “very anti-communist.” Pressed on what was in the tapes, Davis said it apparently had to do with arranging a party with prostitutes. “We know that that’s part of the Martin Luther King legacy,” Davis acknowledged. But O’Reilly would have none of it. “Dr. King was a great man,” he countered, dismissing what the “gossip mongers” say, and “we don’t want to besmirch him in any way, shape or form.” Later, O’Reilly reiterated, “In totality, believe me, ladies and gentlemen, Dr. King was a great man.”

One reason for the inability to face facts could be that President Obama is scheduled to preside over the official unveiling of the King memorial in Washington, D.C. on October 16, an event that will lead to tons of coverage about King and his legacy. Telling the truth about King, even though Caroline Kennedy has opened up this can of worms, could ruin journalism careers. Conservative media figures could find themselves accused of racism for talking about the black civil rights leader’s personal indiscretions and far-left associations.

The MLK memorial is already mired in controversy because $10 million in taxpayer funds (out of the $120 million cost) and four acres of federal land were donated for a 30-foot tall socialist-type statue of King made in communist China by a Chinese artist with Chinese granite. It would appear that another scandal over King himself has to be avoided so the event can go forward without further embarrassment.

One can be sure that the Mitchell method of slanting the news will be in full swing leading up to the King memorial dedication, and Obama and his media allies will strive to make sure that any mention of King’s communist connections and adultery is stricken from the public record.

Communist Party Endorses Obama For 2012

By Aaron Klein, World Net Daily/

It may be early in the campaign season, but the Communist Party USA already has seen fit to endorse Barack Obama for th...More >

US Communist Party Amps up Rhetoric: “Prepare for War”

by Trevor
The Communist Party USA is amping up its rhetoric as it prepares to confront the “Tea Party” and the GOP in the coming months.

Rick Nagin

Ohio Communist Party leader Rick Nagin sets the tone in today’s Peoples World:

The best thing that can be said about the distasteful debt ceiling deal is that it is behind us and hopefully the real challenges and issues facing the American people can now be frankly addressed.
The AFL-CIO leadership, which met with President Obama the day after the agreement was reached, correctly said the deal ignores and undermines the nation’s ability to confront the real problem – America’s job crisis. They blasted it as “a product of extortion by House Republicans,” one that is “even more right-wing than the average Republican.”
The labor leadership recognized that, given the balance of forces in Congress, Obama had no choice but to negotiate. Not to do so would have been politically disastrous, but doing so meant that Republican demands to slash essential programs and weaken Social Security and Medicare were on the table.
While threatening to eliminate nearly 2 million jobs in 2012 (according to the Economic Policy Institute), the deal spared the basic entitlements for the time being. But the battle over these, as well as Democratic demands to increase revenues through taxes on the wealthy and the corporations, will be shifted to November when the fight will resume in the deficit super-committee.
This gives a few months for the president and his allies to rally people and expose the Republican aims, which polls show are highly unpopular. During the negotiations, Obama had no choice but to be diplomatic. The Republicans took the hits for throwing tantrums and walking out while Obama gained in stature and respect.
But now that the unsavory deal is done, the time for diplomacy is over and the time has come to take off the gloves and tell the truth. The Republicans are no ordinary opposition party with whom the Democrats can have amicable and respectful differences. They are racist, anti-labor, anti-democratic extremists, beholden to fascist-minded billionaires. They are hell-bent on wrecking the economic security of working people and turning the government into an open tool for corporate plunder.
Last November, working people suffered a major setback. The right wing was able to play on mass anger and frustration over the slow recovery and blame the Democrats for the crisis caused and sustained by Republican policies. In Ohio, Wisconsin and other states the Democratic base, pounded by right-wing media, did not turn out in sufficient numbers to overcome the frenzied, corporate-funded Republican campaign of bigotry and Big Lies.
The result was a Republican takeover in these states as well as in the U.S. House of Representatives, and an immediate, unprecedented, far-flung attack on civil, democratic and trade union rights.
In Ohio, in just six months Gov. John Kasich outlawed collective bargaining for public employees, slashed funds for education, health care and local government services, enacted a voter suppression law, put key state assets up for sale, restricted reproductive freedom, expanded gun rights and opened state parks to reckless plunder by gas companies.
If the Republicans take over the White House in 2012, it will be Kasich on steroids for the entire country. As Vice President Joe Biden warned the AFL-CIO in March, every effort must be made to “keep the barbarians from the gate.”
It is urgent for President Obama, the Democrats, the labor movement and all progressive allies to rally the troops, expose the danger and prepare for war.

Communist Party rhetoric is not usually this extreme. The fact that they are throwing caution to the wind, tells us they understand the huge stakes in next year’s election cycle.
If the Communist/Dems win in 2012, America’s march towards socialism will be almost impossible to stop.
If the “Tea Party” wins (NOT the GOP),  Americans will have a fighting chance to save their country.
The Communist Party USA understands this.
Do you?

Chinese Communist Party Membership Tops 80M

From the Communist Party of China International Party website:

The number of Communist Party of China (CPC) members has exceeded 80 million, a senior CPC official said Friday.
The CPC had 80.269 million members by the end of last year, Wang Qinfeng, deputy head of the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee, said at a press conference.
The Party grew from only about 50 members at its birth to nearly 4.5 million when the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949.
Last year, 3.075 million people joined the CPC, the world’s largest political Party — a net increase of 2.274 million taking into account members who died or left the party.
The two leading groups in new members were college students and people at the frontline of production or work, such as industrial workers, farmers, herders, and migrant workers, both accounting for more than 40 percent of the total new Party members.
The CPC received 21.017 million membership applications last year, a year-on-year increase of 861,000.
Of the Party’s members, 18.03 million were women and 5.338 million were from ethnic minority groups in 2010, accounting for 22.5 percent and 6.6 percent of the total respectively, according to Wang.
In terms of occupation, the group of farmers, herders and fishermen, numbering 24.427 million, was the largest, while 6.989 million Party members were workers, he said.
Another 6.812 million members worked in Party and state agencies, and 18.413 million were managerial staff and professional technicians working in enterprises and non-profitable organizations, and 2.539 million were students, according to Wang.
Meanwhile, a total of 32,000 people were expelled or withdrew from the Party last year, most of whom were forced out to ensure the advanced nature and purity of the CPC, Wang said.
Besides enlarging its membership, the CPC continued to expand both in public and private sectors last year.
Party organizations had been established in nearly all government agencies, state-owned and private enterprises, and social organizations.
They had also been set up in 99.9 percent of villages and urban communities and in all associations of lawyers and certified accountants, Wang said.
Regarding the 3 million migrant worker Party members, Wang said that the Party had managed to have them join Party organization activities in their current place of residence so that they could stay connected with the Party.
About the ongoing elections of all Party committees at the provincial, municipal, county, and township levels nationwide, Wang vowed zero tolerance on people who acted in corrupt way in the process.
Reelections of Party committees have been completed in 47 percent of China’s 34,000 townships and about 10 percent of 2,700 counties, according to Wang.

The death of communism, is unfortunately, a dangerous illusion.

"Hello, Communist Party calling"

From Babalú Blog

The Communist Party, USA conducted it's first national phone bank to 1500 new CPUSA and Young Communist League members March 19. The members had all signed up online at the CPUSA and YCL websites. They were asked to renew their membership, sign up for the People's World, Political Affairs and CPUSA News and Views and pay their dues.

#China Begins Preparing for #Successor to Hu

BEIJING — President Hu Jintao of China returned home this weekend after a trip intended to repair relations with the United States. But the next time the White House marches out the honor guard and polishes the crystals for a Chinese leader, it is unlikely to be for Mr. Hu.

Enlarge This Image

Andy Wong/Associated Press

President Hu Jintao of China, left, spoke with Vice President Xi Jinping in 2009.

Following a secretive succession plan laid out years ago, Mr. Hu has already begun preparing for his departure from power, passing the baton to his presumed successor, a former provincial leader named Xi Jinping, now China’s vice president. While Mr. Xi is expected next year to formally take the reins in China, the world’s second-largest economy and fastest-growing military power, he remains a cipher to most people, even within China.
But an extended look at Mr. Xi’s past shows that his rise has been built on a combination of political acumen, family connections and ideological dexterity. Like the country he will run, he has nimbly helped maintain the primacy of the Communist Party, while making economic growth the party’s main business.
There is little in his record to suggest that he intends to steer China in a sharply different direction. But there are also signs that he may have broader support within the party to experiment with new ideas than Mr. Hu has had — injecting uncertainty about how he may wield authority in a system where power has grown increasingly diffuse. Mr. Xi also has deeper military ties than his two predecessors, Mr. Hu and Jiang Zemin, had when they took the helm.
For much of his career, Mr. Xi, 57, presided over booming areas on the east coast that have been at the forefront of China’s experimentation with market authoritarianism: attracting foreign investment, helping put party cells in private companies and expanding government support for model entrepreneurs — the kind of political and economic experience that Mr. Hu lacked when he ascended to the top leadership position.
He is less of a dour mandarin than Mr. Hu is. The tall, stocky Mr. Xi is a princeling — the aristocracy of descendants of revolutionary party elites — and his second marriage is to a celebrity folk singer, Peng Liyuan.
Unlike the carefully scripted Mr. Hu, Mr. Xi has dropped memorable barbs against the West into a couple of recent speeches, warning critics of China’s rise to “stop pointing fingers at us.” But he also enrolled his daughter in Harvard, under a pseudonym, last fall.
Mr. Xi climbed the ladder by building a network of support among top party officials, particularly those in Mr. Jiang’s clique. He has sought to cultivate an image of humility and self-reliance despite his prominent family ties, political observers say.
His subtle and pragmatic style was seen in the way he handled a landmark power project teetering on the edge of failure in 2002, when he was governor of coastal Fujian Province. Bechtel, the American contractor, and other foreign investors had poured in nearly $700 million. But the investors became mired in a dispute with planning officials.
After ducking repeated requests by foreign executives for a meeting, Mr. Xi finally agreed to meet one night in the governor’s compound with an American business consultant on the project whose father had befriended Mr. Xi’s father in the 1940s. Mr. Xi explained that he could not interfere in a dispute involving other powerful officials. But he sent signals that he expected both sides to come to terms and promised to meet the investors “after the two sides have reached an agreement.”
That spurred a compromise that allowed the plan to begin operating. “I thought, This person is a brilliant politician,” said the consultant, Sidney Rittenberg Jr.
Mr. Xi’s political skills paid their greatest dividend last October, when he was appointed vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, a move that means he will almost certainly succeed Mr. Hu as party secretary in late 2012 and president in 2013.
Over the years, Mr. Xi had built his appeal on “the way he carried himself in political affairs,” said Zhang Xiaojin, a political scientist at Tsinghua University. “On economic reforms and development, he proved rather effective. On political reforms, he didn’t take any risks that would catch flak.”
Mr. Xi also emerged as a convenient accommodation to two vying wings within the party — those loyal to Mr. Hu and those allied with Mr. Jiang, who in China’s collective leadership had an important role in naming Mr. Hu’s successor.
Mr. Xi’s elite lineage and career along the prosperous coast have aligned him more closely with Mr. Jiang. But like Mr. Hu, Mr. Xi also spent formative years in provincial boondocks. Mr. Hu was once close to Mr. Xi’s father, a top Communist leader during the Chinese civil war.