A Steaming Pile Of Radical leaders, their Groups, And Associations Then and now….
2000 To Present
Part 9Â In the series, Â Politics, A Disgustingly Dirty Game Filled With Unbelievably Vile Things
By: Passionate Pachyderms
SEVERAL NEW GROUPS HAVE emerged during the so-called Age of Bush.
All of them have made sustained efforts to distort, denigrate, and demonizeÂ U.S. policy during this period. A close look at these various organizations
reveals a confluence of ideology as well as varying levels ofÂ coordination between them. The mainstream media have largely ignored
the interaction between the modern-day groups and their ties toÂ predecessor organizations.
INTERNATIONAL ANSWER (2001)
International ANSWER stands for Act Now to Stop War and EndÂ Racism (the name is shorted to ANSWER hereafter). The organization
formed just days after the terrorist attacks on Washington and NewÂ York in late September 2001. As indicated earlier, ANSWER owes its existence
to the Workers World Party (WWP) and the International ActionÂ Center (IAC).1 Conclusive proof of its orientation is found in its
directorship. Remember the troika of the IAC? Ramsey Clark is directorÂ of ANSWER, Brian Becker is on its steering committee, and Larry
Holmes is a major spokesman of the organization.
Further examination reveals that ANSWERâ€™s national office in NewÂ York City is the same as the national office of the IAC. The same
identical-address situation is also true for offices in Washington DC as well as Los Angeles. Moreover, the contact numbers for ANSWER in
several East Coast cities are the same as the contact numbers for IAC. InÂ other cities, the contact numbers for ANSWER are the same as those for
the WWP in those cities. In other words, â€œWhen a person calls ANSWER,Â he is in effect calling the International Action Center and the
Workers World Party.â€
Significantly, ANSWER has been the driving force in each of theÂ major demonstrations in Washington DC since 2002. It organized one
on October 26, 2002, was the main organizer of International MobilizationÂ Day on April 12, 2003, sponsored the one on January 18, 2003,
and chaired one on January 20, 2005. During the October 26, 2002,Â demonstration, each member of the IAC troika spoke. Becker and
Holmes were credited with organizing and orchestrating the January 18,Â 2003, demonstration, and Ramsey Clark addressed that gathering.
Becker and Clark addressed the January 20, 2005, demonstration, andÂ local ANSWER officials Peta Lindsey and Eugene Puryear were the local
At these demonstrations, which the media usually portrays as aÂ gathering of mainstream Americans, speaker after speaker condemns
the United States with traditional Communist rhetoric. Terms such asÂ struggle, oppressed peoples, imperialism, revolution, and liberation are
bandied about. One speaker once addressed her fellow protesters asÂ comrades.4 As Byron York puts it, â€œMore than a decade after the fall of
the Soviet Union, and long after most Americans stopped worryingÂ about the Red Menace,â€ a significant part of the movement that has
risen up in opposition to war in Iraq is, in essence, a Communist front.
This reflects the fact that some Islamic groups and their supporters haveÂ been working with various Communist-oriented groups over the past
thirty years, as they share a common enemyâ€”the United States.
At the same time there is widespread acceptance of the role of theÂ WWP and IAC. One reason is the organizational skills they bring. These
groups are able to outhustle and outorganize others in the practical workÂ of getting parade permits, organizing big events, and providing logistics.
One authority notes, â€œIt causes division among the non-authoritarianÂ Left groups. They say, â€˜Do we march at a rally organized by a group like
this? I donâ€™t feel comfortable with this, but itâ€™s the only game in town.â€™â€
These rallies are all conducted in the same way. There are informationÂ and merchandise tables put out by a variety of left-wing and Communist
organizations, those that have paid ANSWER a fee forÂ permission to distribute literature or merchandise. There is an elevated
stage with a massive sound system. After a musical prelude, theÂ speeches beginâ€”usually more than a dozen. The speakers may include
celebrities, politicians (such as those from the Democratic Progressive.)
NOTEWORTHY FIGURES AT WASHINGTON DEMONSTRATIONS
ORGANIZED OR SPONSORED BY ANSWER
October 26, 2002
Brian Becker (WWP, IAC, ANSWER) Jesse Jackson
Medea Benjamin (GE) C. Clark Kissinger (RCP, R&R! NION)
Ramsey Clark (IAC, ANSWER) Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
Leslie Feinberg (WWP) Al Sharpton
Sara Flounders (WWP) Lynne Stewart (IAC)
Larry Holmes (WWP, IAC, ANSWER)
January 18, 2003
Brian Becker (WWP, IAC, ANSWER) Sara Flounders (WWP)
Medea Benjamin (GE) Larry Holmes (WWP, IAC, ANSWER)
Ramsey Clark (IAC, ANSWER) Jesse Jackson
John Conyers (D-MI) Jennifer Wager (Cuban Five)
January 20, 2005
Brian Becker (WWP, IAC, ANSWER) Tom Hayden
Medea Benjamin (GE) Nathalie Hrizi (Cuban Five)
Phyllis Bennis (IPS) Jesse Jackson
Leslie Cagan (UFPJ) Dennis Kucinich
Ramsey Clark (IAC, ANSWER) Peta Lindsey (event co-chairman)
David Cobb (Green Party) Eugene Puryear (event co-chairman)
Jodie Evans (CodePink) Brenda Stokley
Kim Gandy (NOW) Zack Wolfe
Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) James Zogby (Arab-American Institute)
Graylan Hagler (Plymouth Cong. Church)
Caucus), or various activists. The speeches are often exercises in shrillÂ demonization of the United States and its policies. After the speeches,
the attendees march along the route to the location of the final rally,Â where they find more literature and merchandise. At various stages, the
ANSWER volunteers move through the crowd with large buckets forÂ cash donations.
Many of these groups are drawn togetherâ€”and overlook the pedigreeÂ of ANSWERâ€”because of their hatred for George Bush. The signs
they carried at one event â€œseethed with rage and condescension.â€ TypicalÂ of those found in January 2003 were: â€œHe Is A Moron . . . And A
Bully,â€ or â€œBush, Cheney, Rumsfeld: The Real Axis of Evil.â€ By now youÂ get the picture.
NOT IN OUR NAME (2002)
Not in Our Name (NION) is a Hard-Leftist group founded in MarchÂ 2002 to resist the U.S. governmentâ€™s course of action after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. The beginnings of NION track rightÂ along with the founding of ANSWER. Members of the Workers World
Party (WWP) founded the latter group on the eve of the U.S. militaryÂ campaign against Afghanistan. NION was founded six months later
mostly by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA (RCPÂ USA), which continues to be prominent among its leadership.8 C. Clark
Kissinger is a spokesman for NION, and Mary Lou Greenberg is a directorÂ of the group.
One difference between the groups is that NION is believed to beÂ less specifically a front group. Compared with ANSWER, NION has a
broader set of endorsers and is generally seen as a cooperative participantÂ in the broader antiwar movement. Moreover, the RCP USA does
not impose its specific positions on NION to the degree that the InternationalÂ Action Center (IAC) does on ANSWER, according to writers
Michael Albert and Stephen Shalom. In addition, NIONâ€”unlike ANSWERâ€”Â is itself a member of United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ).
NIONâ€™s statement of conscience, drafted in early 2002, lists a seriesÂ of criticisms of the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress and calls
on the people of the United States â€œto resist the politics and overallÂ political directionâ€ that have emerged since 9/11, which pose â€œgrave
dangers to the peoples of the world.â€ The statement deplores the U.S.Â â€œspirit of revengeâ€ and â€œsimplistic script of good vs. evil,â€ and refers to
the USA PATRIOT Act as symbolizing repression. The statement concludes,Â â€œWe will resist the machinery of war and rally others to do everything
possible to stop it.â€
Various signers of the statement collectively made up a whoâ€™s who ofÂ the Far Left. Among others, they include Medea Benjamin, Noam
Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Angela Davis, Carl Dix, Bernardine Dohrn,Â Daniel Ellsberg, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee,
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rev. AlÂ Sharpton, Martin Sheen, Gloria Steinem, Oliver Stone, Kurt Vonnegut,
Howard Zinn, and some fifty-three Maryknoll priests and brothers.
At the time of the second inauguration of George Bush in 2004,Â NION could not resist making another public statement. First, the group
noted that George Bush does not speak for or represent the NION signersÂ and does not act in their name. This statement adds, â€œNo election,
whether fair or fraudulent, can legitimize criminal wars on foreign countries,Â torture, the wholesale violation of human rights, and the end of science
and reason.â€ By reading the latest statement, you would discoverÂ that our government is sending our youth â€œto destroy entire citiesâ€ and
has â€œcarried out torture and detentions without trial around the world.â€
(Hmm, in all 192 countries?) The groups also states, â€œNot in our nameÂ will we allow further crimes to be committed against nations or individuals
deemed to stand in the way of the goal of unquestioned world supremacy.â€
This statement was paired with a reference to Syria, Iran, andÂ North Koreaâ€”a tacit admission that NION would give a free pass to any
of those countries and their policies. The Bush regime, after all, is â€œnothingÂ but a nightmare for humanity,â€ according to the recent statement.
This statement was yet another sentimental gathering of lefties.
The signers this time included Ed Asner, Michael Avery (president ofÂ the National Lawyers Guild), Medea Benjamin, Phyllis Bennis (Institute
for Policy Studies), Leslie Cagan (United for Peace and Justice),Â Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Angela Davis, Daniel Ellsberg, C.
Clark Kissinger (Revolutionary Communist Party and Refuse and Resist!),Â Rep. James McDermott (D-WA), Michael Ratner (Center for
Constitutional Studies), Roberta Segal-Sklar (National Gay and LesbianÂ Task Force), â€œStarhawkâ€ (a woman who claims to be a witch),
and Howard Zinn. If anything, this gathering likely was more colorfulÂ than the one in 2002.
But NION does more than issue signed statements. In August 2004Â the group planned a confrontational demonstration in New York City
on the night President Bush was to accept the nomination of the RepublicanÂ Party. NION hoped to disrupt the convention by having its march
leaders follow a route different from the one that had been submitted inÂ advance to the police. This was a planned provocation that had a good
chance of ending in violence. Mary Lou Greenberg, a director of NIONÂ and a Revolutionary Communist Party USA (RCP USA) member, developed
the idea of the march, along with Joe Urgo (also an RCP USAÂ member). This event pointed out that NION believedâ€”as do other
antiwar groupsâ€”â€œthat Republicans are more of a threatâ€ than al-QaedaÂ or the Baathists,â€ according to Michael P. Tremoglie. He notes, â€œPeace is
not even a tertiary consideration for themâ€”destabilizing the UnitedÂ States is. NION, and the other â€˜peaceâ€™ groupsâ€ are linked to Communist,
Islamist, and anti-capitalist groups.â€
Some who have worked with NION have become disillusioned.Â One individual stated, â€œI have worked with all three major groups, ANSWER,
UFPJ, and NION, and know how they work together.â€ He wasÂ fed up with NION because it is a â€œvanguard groupâ€ whose real objective
is to lead people to their ideology and â€œnot do anything for peace.â€ HeÂ was particularly upset with the â€œCommunists who run the show.â€ The
same person also noted that the leaders of UFPJ, ANSWER, and NIONÂ ensured that violence would take place at the Republican National Convention
in New York City.
PROGRESSIVE DONOR NETWORK (2002)
The Progressive Donor Network (PDN) was formed in April 2002. It remainsÂ a little-known group but has the potential to be a key asset for
liberal causes. According to Business Week and SourceWatch, formerÂ Clinton White House staffer Mike Lux (a co-founder of the PDN) had
begun meeting with some 150 liberal groups. This so-called ProgressiveÂ Donor Network had hoped to become a â€œone-stop accountâ€ for liberal
givers who once wrote large checks to the Democratic National CommitteeÂ (DNC).
Early on this group was aligned with the most powerful of theÂ Democratic Partyâ€™s special-interest groups. These included People for
the American Way (PFAW), NARAL (formerly the National AbortionÂ and Reproductive Rights Action League), the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the League of ConservationÂ Voters (LCV), and labor groups.
During the time of the groupâ€™s opening conference in WashingtonÂ DC, it received public support from selected members of Congress: former
Senate majority leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Senators BarbaraÂ Boxer (D-CA) and John Edwards (D-NC), House minority leader
Richard Gephardt (D-MO), and former Democratic National CommitteeÂ (DNC) chairman Terry McAuliffe. Boxer has stated that the group
will be â€œvital for liberal candidates.â€
Former Clinton administration officials attending the conferenceÂ included James Carville, Paul Begala, Joe Lockhart, and Gore 2000 campaign
manager Donna Brazile.
PDN documents suggest that the group will raise and spend moneyÂ on targeted television and radio markets and by phone and mail solicitation
â€œusing a network of allied organizations,â€ according to SourceWatch.
The groupâ€™s goals also include forming what are called â€œrapid responseÂ teamsâ€ to plant news stories critical of Republicans and the Bush
administration. One example from 2004 was the series of negative newsÂ stories about the collapse of Enron, which had ties to the White House.
Some opponents of this group have called its formation hypocritical.
Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition, stated, â€œJustÂ weeks after campaign finance reform was signed into law, Democrats
are trying to circumvent it. The Democratic Party is now trying to ensureÂ that their own special interests gain even more power.â€ Rep. Bob
Barr (R-GA) stated that he was not surprised: â€œItâ€™s sort of the ultimateÂ Washington hypocrisy that you work to support reform publicly but
undermine it privately.â€
UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE (2002)
One of the most influential groups to emerge in recent years is UnitedÂ for Peace and Justice (UFPJ). The group describes itself as a â€œcoalition
of more than 800 local and national groups throughout the UnitedÂ States who have joined together to oppose our governmentâ€™s policy of
permanent warfare and empire building.â€20 According to its Web site,Â since its founding in October 2002, it has spurred hundreds of protests
and rallies around the United States and organized the two largestÂ demonstrations against the Iraq War.
At an initial meeting in Washington DC, more than seventy peaceÂ and justice organizations agreed to form UFPJ and coordinate their efforts
to oppose the war in Iraq. The UFPJ Web site claims that in FebruaryÂ 2003 it organized a rally at the UN headquarters in New York City
that drew more than five hundred thousand participants. It furtherÂ claims that in March 2003 it mobilized more than three hundred thousand
people for a protest march down Broadway in New York City.
The highlight for 2004 was its march in March on the one-year anniversaryÂ of the start of the Iraq War. UFPJ claimed that more than two
million people worldwide took to the streets in more than sixty countries.
By contrast, in March 2005, various sources reported that antiwarÂ marches in major U.S. cities drew â€œhundredsâ€ on the second anniversary
of the start of the Iraq War.
The organization jelled in June 2003 when many representativesÂ from diverse groups gathered in Chicago at its first strategy and planning
conference. The gathering was aimed to help stop the Bush administrationâ€™sÂ program of â€œpermanent warâ€ as well as to solidify UFPJâ€™s
The guiding force and elected leadership body is the steeringÂ committee, which has authority over all financial instruments and
media (Web sites, Listservs, and e-mail accounts). Some thirty-fiveÂ people were elected in 2003 to serve on the groupâ€™s national steering
committee. Among them were Andrea Buffa of Global Exchange, JenÂ Geiger of the Womenâ€™s International League for Peace and Freedom
(WILPF), Judith LeBlanc of the Communist Party, Kevin Martin ofÂ Peace Action, Ignacio Meneses of the National Network on Cuba,
Gael Murphy of CodePink, Baltazar Pinguel of the American FriendsÂ Service Committee (AFSC), and Amy Quinn of the Institute for Policy
A look at the groupâ€™s criteria for selecting the steering committeeâ€™sÂ structure tells something about its mind-set. â€œTo ensure that the Steering
Committee of UFPJ represents the diversity of the peace and justiceÂ constituencies in the United States,â€ it adopted the following criteria: at
least 50 percent of the steering committee must be women, at least 50Â percent must be â€œpeople of color,â€ at least 20 percent must be youth and
students (under age twenty-five), and at least 15 percent must be â€œLesbian/Â Gay/Bi/Transgender-identified persons.â€
Even the choice of the words steering committee and peace and justiceÂ is suggestive, indicating that some terms never go out of style. The
former Vietnam Veterans Against the War also had a steering committee.
Moreover, there was an earlier group called the Peopleâ€™s CoalitionÂ for Peace and Justice (PCPJ), a militant antiwar group with clear-cut
As of August 2004 there were noteworthy groups within the organization.
â€¢ Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (AAADC)
â€¢ American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)
â€¢ Center for Constitutional Rights
â€¢ Communist Party USA (CPUSA)
â€¢ Global Exchange
â€¢ Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)
MIGRATION OF REVOLUTIONARY TERMINOLOGY
Peace and Justice
Peopleâ€™s Coalition for
Peace and Justice
Against the War
â€¢ International Socialist Organization (ISO)
â€¢ Not in Our Name (NION)
â€¢ National Council of Churches (NCC)
â€¢ National Lawyers Guild (NLG)
â€¢ National Organization for Women (NOW)
â€¢ Peace Action
â€¢ Rainbow/Push Coalition
â€¢ Refuse & Resist!
â€¢ War Resisters League
Seen in this way, UFPJ is a unique commingling of antiwar groups,Â social justice militants, declared Communists, those fronting for Communist
countries and movements, and apologists and supporters of radicalÂ Islamic movements. Thus it is not surprising that UFPJ argues,
â€œThe war on Iraq was the leading edge of a relentless drive for a U.S.Â empire,â€ and that the U.S. government seeks to â€œimpose right-wing
policies at home under the cover of fighting terrorism.â€
The origins of UFPJ are worth noting. According to Ben Johnson,Â People for the American Way (PFAW) created UFPJ and also chose
Leslie Cagan as its leader. PFAW reportedly was in search of a groupÂ other than ANSWER to sponsor peace rallies when the radical nature of
ANSWER became known. This information is not reflected in the WebÂ sites of either PFAW or UFPJ.
UFPJ founder and thus-far only leader Cagan is clearly one of theÂ most dedicated, militant, and hard-line activists of all those opposed to
current U.S. policies. Cagan has remained a Communist even after the fallÂ of the Berlin Wall. She was earlier in Cuba with the Venceremos Brigades
(a volunteer group of young people who elected to help with the sugarÂ harvests). She had earlier worked for Sidney Peck and Terry Provance in
the Mobilization for Survival. Peck and Provance are two seasoned andÂ veteran pro-Communists who are passionately opposed to U.S. policies.
Cagan is also described as a lifelong devotee of Fidel Castro and the SocialistÂ Party, USA. Along with Medea Benjamin, Cagan is described as a
â€œhard-core Communist,â€ and she and Benjamin are â€œlongtime comradesâ€Â (they both have deep ties with Cuba, among other things).
Significantly, UFPJ has joined with a host of other radical groups inÂ recent years. It has teamed up with Global Exchange (Medea Benjamin),
one noteworthy result of which was the creation of a groupÂ called Iraq Occupation Watch (IOW, see below). IOW has Cagan, Benjamin,
and Phyllis Bennis of the IPS on its current board. IOW operatesÂ a group called the International Occupation Watch Center (IOWC) in
Iraq, which is led by Gael Murphy. In addition, UFPJ works closely withÂ CodePink. UFPJ collaborates with MoveOn, and MoveOn is a member
group of the UFPJ coalition.
UFPJ states that it is not a single-issue organization. It issued aÂ blanket statement describing itself as a â€œmovement-building coalitionâ€
that coordinates and supports the work of existing groups and buildsÂ linkages and solidarity where none exist. â€œWe will link the wars
abroad with the assaults at home, and U.S. militarism to the corporateÂ economic interests it serves.â€ The code words here are solidarity and
corporate economic interests, which say everything about its orientation.
The group had prepared a No Stolen Elections campaign and wasÂ prepared to take up widespread protest and civil disobedience in the
event of significant fraud in the 2004 election. But no such fraud wasÂ detected.
Four individuals formed CodePink in November 2002: Jodie Evans,Â Medea Benjamin, Diane Wilson, and â€œradical Wiccan activistâ€ Starhawk.
They and about one hundred other women quickly became a presenceÂ on the streets of Washington DC and established a four-month vigil in
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS
UFPJ = United for Peace and Justice
IOW = Iraq Occupation Watch
CodePink UFPJ Global Exchange
front of the White House. The group is self-described as a â€œwomaninitiatedÂ grass-roots peace and social justice movement that seeks positive
social change through proactive, creative protest and nonviolentÂ direct action.â€
Evans made headlines at the Republican National Convention inÂ 2004 when she was ejected from Madison Square Garden after disrupting
the prime-time addresses of speakers at the podium. Earlier in theÂ week Benjamin was dragged out of the convention for the same reason.
Evans also sits on the board of directors of the Rain Forest ActionÂ Network (RAN), a coalition of anti-capitalist, anti-corporate environmentalist
groups. The co-founder of RAN, Michael Roselle, alsoÂ founded the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which the FBI ranks alongside
the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) as the primary domestic terrorismÂ threats in the United States.
CodePink describes itself as an outrageous group: â€œWe call onÂ women around the world to rise up and oppose the war in Iraq. We
call on grandmothers, sisters and daughters, students, teachers, healers,Â artists, singers, poets, and every ordinary outraged woman willing
to be outrageous for peace.â€ CodePink calls for â€œall outraged women toÂ join us in taking a stand nowâ€ and engages in â€œoutrageous acts of dissent.â€
One of the groupsâ€™ most outrageous acts was the joint effort withÂ Global Exchange to deliver some $600,000 in money and medicine to
the hard-core insurgent center of Fallujah. (See Global ExchangeÂ above.) CodePink and Global Exchange thus teamed up to provide substantial
aid and comfort to Americaâ€™s enemies. This brought back memoriesÂ of those unofficial U.S. delegations to North Vietnam that were so
fashionable in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Never feeling a shortageÂ of self-importance, those who participated in this effort of December
2004â€“January 2005 noted the â€œhistoric natureâ€ of the delegation andÂ were thrilled that Aljazeera, Dubai television, and Iranian television followed
the group â€œassiduouslyâ€ from the moment they arrived inÂ Amman, Jordan. If anything, this smacks of pandering to hostile media
abroad. Possibly the most ludicrous statement to emerge from that tripÂ was the comparison between the tsunami in Southeast Asia of December
26, 2004, which killed well over 270,000 persons, and a â€œman-madeÂ disaster of similar proportions: the invasion and occupation of Iraq.â€
This statement is doubly insulting to anyoneâ€™s intelligence, as it trivializesÂ the deaths of the tsunami victims as well as extraordinary efforts by
the U.S. military to limit collateral damage beyond immediate combatÂ areas.
Another outrageous act is the groupâ€™s propensity to send peace delegationsÂ to other hot spots. Its Web site notes that it generates such
delegations to â€œIsrael-Palestineâ€ as well as to both North and SouthÂ Korea. It remains uncertain whatâ€”if anyâ€”good has come from
CodePinkâ€™s interjecting itself into the delicate balance of powers thatÂ are trying to work out a cease-fire and ultimate resolution to the Israel-
Palestine issue. It is equally difficult to imagine what leverage it couldÂ have on the tyrannical regime of Kim Jong-il in North Korea. Perhaps
the peace delegates might tell him to be resolute in standing up to theÂ â€œU.S. imperialists.â€
According to John Perazzo, in addition to scorning Americaâ€™s militaryÂ action in Iraq, CodePink members also condemn the racism, sexism,
poverty, corporate corruption, and environmental degradation theyÂ claim are rampant in the United States. â€œIn this respect, CodePink is
like other prominent peace movements in our countryâ€”portrayingÂ America as a moral cesspool and an imperialist aggressor, while remaining
mute about whatever barbarities occur anywhere else on earth. NotÂ even the pre-war atrocities of Saddam Hussein drew a scintilla of condemnation
A system of interlocking leadership positions has emerged in recentÂ years. Medea Benjamin, for example, is a founder of United for Peace
and Justice (UFPJ), the head of Global Exchange, a founder of Code-Â Pink, and a member of the board of directors of Iraq Occupation Watch.
Leslie Cagan is a founder and a steering committee member of UFPJ.
Andrea Buffa is on the steering committee of UFPJ, a member of GlobalÂ Exchange, and also serves with CodePink. Finally, Gael Murphy is on
the steering committee of UFPJ, on the executive committee of Code-Â Pink, and on the board of Iraq Occupation Watch. This type of meshing
guarantees a level of coordination. It is inevitable that these individualsÂ see eye to eye on most issues, united in their venomous contempt for
U.S. policies, the Bush administration, and just about everything thisÂ country attempts abroad. (See this example of matrix analysis in chapter
IRAQ OCCUPATION WATCH (2002)
An organization called Iraq Occupation Watch (IOW), believed to haveÂ been formed in 2002, operates the International Occupation Watch
Center, or IOWC, which is based in Baghdad. The center is designed toÂ monitor both the U.S. and the British occupation forces in Iraq as well
as the American corporations that have been tasked by the Bush administrationÂ â€œto rebuild and profitâ€ from repairing the infrastructure of
Iraq.37 IOW is dedicated to â€œexposing the impact of military and economicÂ occupation of Iraq,â€ according to its Web site. Gael Murphy is
head of the center in Baghdad.
IOW is closely tied to Global Exchangeâ€”formed much earlierâ€”asÂ both have an overseas orientation. IOW (sometimes called Occupation
Watch or OW) grew out of a collaborative effort between Leslie Caganâ€™sÂ United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and Medea Benjaminâ€™s Global Exchange.
The members of the board of directors of IOW include Cagan,Â Benjamin, and Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).
This group evidently relies on selected Iraqi sources for much of theÂ â€œnewsâ€ it provides. Working with a few aspiring Iraqi journalists, it has
arranged to provide views of the occupation through articles â€œgivingÂ voice to those Iraqis who are frequently not heard.â€ The Iraqi journalists
write in English, and the groupâ€™s editorial staff edits their articles,Â checking with the Iraqi correspondents to ensure the accuracy of the
editing. The names of their correspondents and the people they interviewÂ are pseudonyms, and the Iraqi correspondents are â€œquite enthusedâ€
about having an outlet for what they consider are importantÂ stories about the occupation. All of this verbiage suggests controlled,
packaged, or directed information from hard-core insurgent sources,Â perhaps direct from the heart of the Sunni Triangle, which has violently
fought against U.S. and allied occupation forces.
Even before the January 30, 2005, election in Iraq had run itsÂ course, IOW was questioning its purpose and utility. One headline in its
Web site read, â€œThe Iraqi Elections: Is This Really â€˜A Grand Moment inÂ Iraqi Historyâ€™?â€ On the day after, February 1, 2005, there were articles
entitled â€œTrain Wreck of an Election,â€ and â€œWhat Theyâ€™re Not TellingÂ You About the Election.â€ It took no prompting for this group to mock
and belittle millions of brave Iraqi men and women who turned out toÂ voteâ€”in defiance of numerous death threatsâ€”and proudly wave their
purple index fingers.
This is the election that sent shock waves throughout the MiddleÂ East, shock waves that continue to be felt in Egypt, Lebanon, and beyond.
This very effort to denigrate the Iraqi election displays the bankruptcyÂ and ultimate irrelevance of the ideas of such radical groups.
MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA (2003)
Media Matters for America (MMA) is a nonprofit organization foundedÂ by David Brock to refute or otherwise analyze conservative influence on
the media. Its Web site was launched in October 2003. MMA is describedÂ as a â€œWeb-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information
center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing,Â and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.â€
According to the New York Times, the group has received more thanÂ $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals, and â€œwas developed with
help from the newly formed Center for American Progress.â€Â MMA has attracted some unfavorable comments from conservatives.
One of its targets is Rush Limbaugh, who has called it â€œa clearingÂ house for lib propaganda.â€ Another of its targets is Bill Oâ€™Reilly, whose
terminology for MMA includes â€œfar-left bomb thrower Web site,â€ â€œdeceitfulâ€Â and â€œdisgusting,â€ and â€œcharacter assassins.â€
Founder David Brock was a conservative journalist in the 1990s butÂ converted to liberalism in 1998 and is now trying to take apart the conservative
â€œmachineâ€ that he once served. He had once written forÂ American Spectator magazine and had attacked Anita Hill (the accuser
of Clarence Thomas) as well as thenâ€“Arkansas governor Bill ClintonÂ (accusations that bred Troopergate and had the first printed reference to
Paula Jones). In 1997 he published a confessional piece in EsquireÂ magazine titled â€œI Was a Conservative Hit Man,â€ in which he recanted
much of what he had said in his two American Spectator pieces. Brockâ€™sÂ main book is entitled Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-
Conservative. His 2004 book is entitled The Republican Noise Machine.
This attempts to detail a massive, interconnected, concerted effortÂ to raise the profile of conservative opinions in the press through allegedly
false accusations of liberal media bias. Brockâ€™s effort underlinesÂ one of the most ambitious of the big-lie projects of the Hard Left: making
a case that conservatives essentially dominate the news media.
A number of commentators have questioned Brockâ€™s veracity sinceÂ his â€œtransformation,â€ and many have concluded that he is â€œunable to
tell the truth regardless of what his professed political motivations are atÂ any particular time.â€
Add to these groups the most recent births of the following:
Organizing For America
Organizing For Action
Move On. Org
Acorn Re-birthed under numerous different names, many associated in various ways with Obama’s “Affordable Healthcare act”
IN STEP WITH
THUS FAR I HAVE examined twenty-nine organizations, but that is onlyÂ part of the story. To draw a more complete picture, we need to see
how these groups relate to other institutions, and we need to see whichÂ issues the members of the Far Left have in common. Accordingly, this
chapter will examine the role of opinion makers and policy makers. Letâ€™sÂ first review the political leanings of the entertainment industry and selected
Hollywood figures, the feminist movement, the black movement,Â the gay movement, the education establishment, and the legal establishment.
Letâ€™s then take a hard look at the media and then finally at ourÂ own Congress.
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY AND SELECTED HOLLYWOOD FIGURES
With few exceptions, Hollywood producers, directors, writers, studioÂ executives, and actors are decidedly liberal, especially when compared
with the general public. When asked to self-identify as liberal or conservative,Â the Hollywood liberals hold a four-to-one ratio over conservatives.
Democrats in Hollywood outnumber Republicans by a greaterÂ marginâ€”five to one. In general, Hollywood elites are far out of step
with mainstream America in that few describe themselves as religiousÂ or anti-Communist and most support gay rights. There is no gay conspiracy,
but there is a definite gay influence. In 1991 executives fromÂ four television networks and eight of the largest studios threw their
support to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF).
According to Michael Medved, the predominant themes in U.S. filmsÂ today include antipathy to the military, evil industrialists, corrupt cops,
â€œAmerica on trial,â€ poisoning the past (such as the film JFK in 1991),Â and â€œvicious vets and pristine protestersâ€ (as in The Big Chill of 1983).
Other current themes include promiscuity, the decline of marriage, theÂ urge to offend, foul language, hostility to heroes, and U.S.-bashing.
Hollywood has no shortage of hate-America and blame-AmericaÂ figures. Many actors and actresses have joined the anti-Bush jihad, and
many have taken on some kind of organizational role in the Far-LeftÂ movements.
There are so many radical figures populating Hollywood that weÂ can only look at a few of the high-profile individuals. These would include
filmmakers Michael Moore and Oliver Stone as well as actorsÂ Danny Glover and Sean Penn.
Moore is, of course, well known as a major spokesman for theÂ hate-America and blame-America school of thought. Many Americans
view Moore as the head vulgarian at the gate. He has cast George BushÂ as less trustworthy than Saddam Hussein, and he has demonized Bush
to the point of trying to influence the 2004 election through his filmÂ Fahrenheit 9/11.
As Trevor Bothwell points out, Moore â€œbears no shortage ofÂ responsibility for fomenting the hatred that encourages our enemies to
attack and kill American troops.â€ He notes that when the DemocratsÂ made Moore the poster boy for the party by giving him a seat next to
SELECTED HOLLYWOOD LEFTIST CELEBRITIES
Robert Altman Jane Fonda Vanessa Redgrave
Ed Asner Richard Gere Julia Roberts
Alec Baldwin Danny Glover Susan Sarandon
Harry Belafonte Woody Harrelson Martin Sheen
Chevy Chase Jessica Lange Oliver Stone
Tom Cruise Michael Moore
Mike Farrell Sean Penn
Jimmy Carter at their convention, â€œThey neatly framed for all ordinaryÂ Americans a snapshot of everything that is wrong with the Democratic
Party: the fusion of todayâ€™s current vulgarity and contempt for AmericanÂ traditions and values, and yesterdayâ€™s misery and despair personified
by timidity in the face of foreign threats.â€ According to Bothwell,Â Democrats â€œobviously canâ€™t understand that itâ€™s Mooreâ€™s arrogance, vitriol
and incessant dishonesty that Americans consequently associateÂ with their party.â€
Oliver Stone joined many in the arts who signed the pubic statementÂ of conscience drafted by Not in Our Name (NION), in which the
signatories promised to resist the U.S. policies â€œwhich pose grave dangersÂ to the people of the worldâ€ and pledged alliance to those who
come under U.S. attack. Stone has also accused the U.S. government ofÂ purposefully allowing Osama bin Laden to escape unharmed while
pretending to be hot on his trail. Stone claims that Bin Laden â€œwasÂ completely protected by the oil companies in this country who told
[President] Bush not to go after him because it would piss off theÂ Saudis.â€
Antipathy to the U.S. military is most evident in a revealing remarkÂ by director Stone. In September 1987 he said, â€œI think American boys
have to die again. Let the mothers weep and mourn. I think AmericaÂ has to bleed.â€ That very year Stone received an award from the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Actor Danny Glover has taken up the anti-American cause as well.
While attending a film festival in Cuba, he condemned U.S. sanctionsÂ and threats of war against Iraq: â€œOur government has declared itself an
uncontested empire.â€ At a New York peace rally, he had nothing bad toÂ say about Saddam Hussein but condemned President Bush and his â€œadministration
of liars and murderers.â€
Sean Penn visited Saddam Husseinâ€™s Iraq twice. His first visit was inÂ late 2002, set up by Norman Solomon of the left-wing Institute for Public
Accuracy (IPA). His second visit in late 2003 was orchestrated withÂ the help of both Solomon and Medea Benjamin, head of Global Exchange.
In this type of trip, Global Exchange leads credulous AmericanÂ leftists through staged scenes meant to demonstrate the progress of
regimes it favors and the devastation done by the American interventionÂ it opposes.
IN STEP WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS
FEMINIST MOVEMENT AND THE NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (NOW)
The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest group ofÂ feminist activists in the United States. It has more than 600,000 contributing
members and 450 chapters. Since its founding in 1966, itsÂ goal has been to bring about equality of all women. NOW describes itself
as a â€œmulti-issue, multi-strategy organization.â€ Its current prioritiesÂ include a constitutional equality amendment, reproductive rights
(NOW supports abortion), fighting racism (NOW is committed to ethnicÂ diversity), lesbian rights (NOW seeks to â€œcombat the adverse effects
of homophobiaâ€), and economic justice.
Going far beyond its original charter, NOW has joined the ranks ofÂ those groups that stand against the war in Iraq as well as the USA PATRIOT
Act. Perhaps the best indication is a statement by NOW presidentÂ Kim Gandy in March 2003: â€œWe must keep raising our voices for
peaceâ€”and the harder that becomes, the more necessary it is.â€ GandyÂ is a former senior assistant district attorney in New Orleans and was active
in groups such as the Association of Democratic Women and theÂ Lesbian and Gay Political Action Committee (LAGPAC).
NOW seeks to expose the Bush administrationâ€™s â€œexploitationâ€ ofÂ 9/11 â€œto advance a right-wing political agenda.â€ It also seeks to end the
â€œU.S. campaign of militarism and corporate profit that has contributedÂ to anti-American sentiment around the world.â€ Moreover, NOW calls
for an end to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East â€œthat exacerbatesÂ the plight of women and children in these countries, including U.S.
When NOW issued a proclamation denouncing the liberation ofÂ Iraq, it included a line that condemned â€œthe draconian homeland defense
policies promoted by the Bush administration, and already enactedÂ by Congress in the form of the Patriot Act.â€ Accordingly, NOW
called on its members to â€œexpose the stifling of political dissentâ€ by theÂ Bush administration.
NOW had earlier strongly opposed the nomination to the SupremeÂ Court of Clarence Thomas. One source notes that NOW was part of the
â€œlynch mob that conducted the most disgraceful campaign of characterÂ assassination in American historyâ€ during the Thomas hearings. NOW
teamed up with People for the American Way (PFAW) and other groupsÂ that spared no effort to discredit Thomas.
Seen in this way, NOW has taken an irrevocable hard left turn. Accordingly,Â there should be little surprise that NOW works coherently
with many of the other groups noted earlier in this book.
BLACK MOVEMENT AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THEÂ ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP)
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored PeopleÂ (NAACP) describes itself as Americaâ€™s â€œoldest and largest civil rights organization.â€
The groupâ€™s roots reach back to 1905, with the NiagaraÂ Movement founded by W. E. B. DuBois. In 1909 the American Negro
Committee was formed, which was soon renamed the NAACP. DuringÂ the 1960s the group was seen by millions as a bipartisan beacon of hope
for equality of the races, and its membership bridged the political spectrumÂ from left to right.
But the NAACP grew from left-bent roots, and â€œthose roots have inÂ recent years killed the moderate branches that were briefly grafted to
this twisted tree,â€ according to Lowell Ponte. DuBois himself was a socialistÂ who traveled to the USSR twice and praised the â€œracial attitudes
of the Communists.â€ In 1938 the NAACP was represented at the Soviet controlledÂ World Youth Congress, and during the 1940s it was affiliated
with the Soviet-front World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY).
In 1946 it supported the establishment of the Communist-influencedÂ Progressive Party, which ran Henry Wallace for president in 1948.
Since the glory days of the 1960s, the NAACP has taken a hardÂ left turn. Recently the group has been in the hands of Julian Bond
(chairman of its board of directors) and its current president and CEOÂ Bruce S. Gordon. During 2001 Bond told one audience that President
Bushâ€™s nominees to various positions in the judiciary and his administrationÂ were from the â€œTaliban wing of the GOP.â€ Bond further stated,
â€œWe knew that he was in the oil business. We didnâ€™t know it wasÂ snake oil.â€
The NAACP is opposed to school vouchers, which is a strange turnÂ of events. In forty years it has gone from opposing segregated schools to
opposing school vouchers for inner-city children in failing and bankruptÂ schools. In this effort it has teamed up with the National Education Association
(NEA). To many black parents this is unfortunate, becauseÂ blacks as a group are very fervent supporters of vouchers.
Today the NAACP functions as nothing more than a â€œleft-wing auxiliaryÂ of the Democratic Party,â€ according to one account. The NAACP
Foundation in 2000 ran a notorious political television ad showing aÂ chain being dragged behind a pickup truck and claiming that George
Bush, as Texas governor, had not signed â€œhate crimesâ€ legislation toÂ punish the racists who dragged a black man behind their truck and
murdered him. The NAACP did not mention that the killers had alreadyÂ received the maximum penalty permitted under Texas law and
that this â€œhate crimesâ€ legislation would add nothing to their punishment.Â This was an â€œutterly dishonest, deceitful emotional appeal to
frighten, anger, and activate voters.â€
The NAACP seems to be incapable of a reasonable and respectfulÂ exchange of ideas on race, and many African Americans note that it has
done nothing for the poor communities in the United States. WardÂ Connerly has asked whether anyone other than the NAACP can really
take this organization seriously anymore. The group has becomeÂ â€œlargely irrelevantâ€ in the ongoing dialogue about race, and some, according
to Connerly, even see it as a â€œtragic farce.â€ â€œHow can a groupÂ like this survive? Or, more importantly, why should a group like this
The percentage of NAACP members who also participate in Far-Left movements has not been determined. It is clear, however, that
some Far-Left groups make special efforts to include black membersÂ when they can. For example, the United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ)
steering committee must have at least 50 percent of its membershipÂ composed of â€œpeople of color.â€ Some African Americans who currently
sit on the UFPJ steering committee include Ajanu Dillahunt of BlackÂ Solidarity Against the War, Danu Smith of Black Voices for Peace, and
Graylan Hagler of the Plymouth Congregational United Church ofÂ Christ of Washington DC.
Far more significant is the dual membership of some radical membersÂ of Congress in both the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and
the Progressive Caucus (discussed below). Also significant is thatÂ prominent black political leaders have occasionally had some â€œcoach-
ingâ€ from radical groups. For example, in 1984 Robert L. Borosage ofÂ the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) was the foreign affairs adviser for
Jesse Jacksonâ€™s presidential bid.
GAY MOVEMENT AND THE NATIONAL GAYÂ AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE (NGLTF)
Founded in 1973, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) isÂ the principal organization that represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) individuals. It was also the first such organizationÂ in the country. The NGLTF organizes broad-based campaigns to defeat
anti-LGBT initiatives and advance pro-LGBT issues. The organizationâ€™sÂ research institute provides analysis â€œto support the struggle for complete
equality.â€ The NGLTF sees itself as â€œpart of a broader social justiceÂ movementâ€ and the â€œunwavering and uncompromising national voice
within the LGBT movement.â€
The gay vote is heavily Democratic. In the 2000 presidential andÂ congressional elections, more than 67 percent of gay, lesbian, and bisexual
voters cast their votes for Democratic candidates. The Web site ofÂ the NGLTF urged its members to vote for John Kerry in November
2004. The support for Democrats among gay, lesbian, and bisexual votersÂ has been quite consistent over time. In 2002 Democrats received 71
percent of the gay vote. Overall, the gay vote accounts for 4 to 5 percentÂ of the voting electorate.
The gay movement in the United States is very well organized andÂ sharply focused on building political power. The NGLTF uses four primary
strategies to build political power for the LGBT community,Â among which are:
â€¢ Strengthening state and local grassroots activistsâ€™ power by buildingÂ their capacity to organize and to initiate and respond appropriately
and effectively to a range of political struggles.
â€¢ Acting as the movementâ€™s primary convener and coalitionÂ builder, including working with non-LGBT allies.
Gay activists charge that the Bush administration is resolutely antigay.
The typical view from the gay Left sees the Bush administration andÂ some members of Congress signaling that they will advance legislation
that could override existing state and local laws that ban discriminationÂ based on sexual orientation and gender identity. As one NGLTF
spokesman put it, â€œThe Bush administration now thinks it has carteÂ blanche to run roughshod over the LGBT community and others.â€
Seen in this light, it is no surprise that gay groups tend to gravitateÂ toward the left of the political spectrum and make alliances with some
of the groups depicted in earlier chapters. For example, Roberta Segal-Sklar, the communications director of NGLTF, signed the Not in Our
Name (NION) statement in late 2004. As a senior officer, she committedÂ the NGLTF to support NION and its goals.
Other radical groups make special amends to include groups suchÂ as the NGLTF. For example, according to its bylaws, United for Peace
and Justice (UFPJ) maintains that at least 15 percent of the membershipÂ of its steering committee must be LGBT-identified persons.
EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT AND THEÂ NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (NEA)
The National Education Association (NEA) began in 1850 and adoptedÂ its present name in 1857. From the beginning it was devoted to promoting
government-owned public schools, and it permitted no private schoolÂ teachers to join. The NEA is the premier group that represents American
teachers. With some 2.7 million dues-paying members, it brings in atÂ least $300 million a year to the national union and perhaps $1.25 billion
annually through its state and local unions. The NEA is believed to expendÂ up to one-third of its enormous income every year on politics. It has
a permanent staff of at least eighteen hundred United Service (UniServ)Â employees who function as political operatives. This means that NEA on
a continuous basis â€œhas more full-time paid professional political shockÂ troops than the Republican and Democratic Parties combined.â€
One observer characterizes the NEA as part labor union, part insuranceÂ conglomerate, part self-perpetuating staff oligarchy, and part
political party.21 After Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education,Â one NEA executive boasted that this was the only union with its
own cabinet department. At recent Democratic conventions, up to onequarterÂ of delegates have been members of teachersâ€™ unions. Other
unions include the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and theÂ American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The NEA and
the AFT claim to represent more than 90 percent of unionized facultyÂ and professional staff employed in U.S. colleges and universities.
The NEA has not been modest about imposing on students its ownÂ left-eyed values agenda, according to Lowell Ponte. The NEA promotes
the discounting of religion (except for Wiccan paganism and Islam);Â sex education and social equality for homosexuals; multiculturalism
that praises every minority while teaching that white America has alwaysÂ been racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialistic, and unworthy of
respect and teaching even less about patriotism.
As the first anniversary of 9/11 neared, the NEA posted guidelinesÂ on its national Web site suggesting that teachers should not â€œsuggest
any group is responsibleâ€ for the terrorist attacks but should have studentsÂ â€œdiscuss historical instances of American intolerance.â€
Given the sorry state of U.S. public education, the NEA seeks toÂ banish competition and test-score keepingâ€”the kinds of things that it
fears and works to stifle. The NEA and the AFT also announced a jointÂ lobbying effort to combat a provision in the Higher Education Reauthorization
Act that would promote greater intellectual diversity in U.S.Â colleges and universities and combat discrimination against students
for their political, religious, or ideological beliefs. This was a preemptiveÂ move against the Academic Bill of Rights, which sought to check
the pervasive, far-reaching influence of leftist professors in academia.
Between 1990 and 2002, NEA was the second-largest special-interestÂ group to contribute money to federal candidates and political parties.
During that time it donated more than $21 million, of which 95 percentÂ went to Democrats and most of the rest went to the most liberal Republicans
running in primaries. Only the American Federation of State,Â County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) donated more money as a
single-interest groupâ€”and 98 percent of its money went to Democrats.
LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT AND THE ASSOCIATION
OF TRIAL LAWYERS OF AMERICA (ATLA)
There is no shortage of lawyers on the leftist, liberal side of the spectrum.
Lawyers, in fact, head some of the most significant organizationsÂ described earlier. Political groups such as MoveOn and PFAW are
headed by lawyers, and lawyers are numbered among the most notorious,Â vociferous, and self-important of all the Far-Left radicals: Ramsey
Clark, Mark Lane, and Lynne Stewart, to name a few.
In 1946 a group of plaintiffsâ€™ lawyers involved in workersâ€™ compensationÂ litigation founded the National Association of Claimantsâ€™ Compensation
Attorneys (NACCA). They were devoted to securing strongÂ representation for victims of industrial accidents, and the group soon attracted
admiralty, railroad, and personal-injury lawyers. The organizationÂ soon included lawyers from all facets of trial advocacy. This group was renamed
the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) in 1972.
With its current headquarters in Washington, ATLA describes itself as aÂ â€œbroad-based international coalition of attorneys, law professors, paralegals,
and law students.â€24 ATLA is the worldâ€™s largest trial bar, with moreÂ than fifty-six thousand members worldwide. It has a network of American
and Canadian affiliates involved in diverse areas of trial advocacy.
ATLA is heavily Democratic. To illustrate its stance, in 2004 theÂ Kerry-Edwards campaign put in place six thousand lawyersâ€”most of
whom were from ATLAâ€”to tap every legal gimmick and Democrat appointedÂ judge in the United States to challenge and attempt to overturn
the election if President Bush won reelection.25 In the days beforeÂ the November 2, 2004, voting, it was feared that 2004 would be a repeat
of the 2000 election, which dragged on for five weeks before GeorgeÂ Bush was formally declared the winner.
Significantly, ATLA is a major donor to Hard-Left candidates in the
Joan Blades (MoveOn) Robert Drinan (NLG) Michael Ratner (CCR)
Robert L. Borosage (IPS) Kim Gandy (NOW) Anthony Romero (ACLU)
Elaine Cassel (CLW) Harold Ickes Lynne Stewart (IAC)
Ramsey Clark Mark Lane Nadine Strossen (ACLU)
Stanley Cohen (CCR) Ralph Neas (PFAW) Leonard Weinglass (NLG)
Bernardine Dohrn (ACLU) John Podesta (CAP)
Note: List only shows selected individuals with law degree or who have been practicing lawyers. Group associationÂ is the most prominent associated with those persons, and not necessarily their current group.
U.S. Congress. In recent years, ATLA has emerged as one of the leadingÂ contributors to the campaigns of Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and Diane
Watson (D-CA), and it has also contributed money to the campaign ofÂ Maxine Waters (D-CA). These three are all members of the radical Progressive
Caucus, and all three have undertaken outrageous activities inÂ recent years.
A thorough discussion of the media must include the print media, theÂ broadcast media, and the â€œotherâ€ media. Print media include newspapers,
magazines, book publishers, direct mail and newsletters, andÂ wire services. Broadcast media include both television and radio.
â€œOtherâ€ media are defined here as the Internet and the film industry.
This section will focus largely on the print media.
In general, liberals have captured most of the media, and liberal influenceÂ is especially apparent in many newspapers and in network television
news. There are three major exceptions, however. Radio appearsÂ to be split between liberals and conservatives, as is the Internet and direct
mail and newsletters.
The instances of misdeeds in the media are well known and wellÂ documented by now. One media institution after another has come
under heavy fire, from the New York Times to CBS News to Newsweek.
The mediaâ€™s problems include a seemingly endless series of scandalsÂ involving plagiarism, nonexistent or unreliable sources, phony memos,
sensationalized stories, inflated circulation figures, and other misdeeds.
Many believe that CBS tried to influence the 2004 presidentialÂ election by its coverage of President Bushâ€™s National Guard record, and
the most recent retraction by Newsweek of its story of U.S. soldiersÂ â€œdesecrating the Koranâ€ was another body blow to the credibility of
the print media.
More than ever before, the press is seen as less professional, lessÂ moral, less accurate, and less caring about the interests of the country,
according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which hasÂ tracked the mediaâ€™s steep decline in credibility. Between 1985 and 2002
the percentage of Americans who believed news organizations are politicallyÂ biased rose from 45 to 59 percent.
At the same time, there is ample evidence of a strong liberal bias inÂ most corners of the print media. According to Bernard Goldberg, just
about every editorial writer and columnist for the New York Times, LosÂ Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe is a liberal.27 Moreover,
there are ample statistical data that demonstrate the liberal bias ofÂ the press:
â€¢ In a 1985 survey by the Los Angeles Times of three thousand journalists,Â 55 percent self-identified as liberal (vs. 23 percent of the
entire population), 30 percent favored Ronald Reagan (vs. 56 percentÂ of the population), and 81 percent favored affirmative action
(vs. 56 percent of the population).
â€¢ In a 1996 survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressionalÂ correspondents, 89 percent voted for Bill Clinton in 1992,
7 percent voted for George H. W. Bush, and 2 percent voted forÂ Ross Perot, according to the Freedom Forum and the Roper Center.
In the very same survey, 50 percent of this group self identifiedÂ as Democrats and 4 percent self-identified asÂ Republicans. Moreover, 61 percent self-identified
as liberal orÂ moderate to liberal, while only 9 percent self-identified as conservativeÂ or moderate to conservative.29
â€¢ In a 2000 poll by Brillâ€™s Content, 74 percent of Republicans believeÂ most journalists are more liberal than they are, and a significant
47 percent of Democrats believed that most journalists are moreÂ liberal than they are.
SELECTED CAREER PATTERNS
Closer examination reveals quite a number of individuals with radicalÂ links who have served with one or another major newspaper. Here are
â€¢ Todd Gitlin is a former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)Â president who later become a university professor (New York
University, Berkeley, and Columbia, among others), and sinceÂ then has been a frequent columnist in the New York Times.
â€¢ Roger Wilkins was a member of the editorial staff of the Washington Post from 1972 to 1974 and a member of the editorial staff of
the New York Times from 1974 to 1979. He worked at the InstituteÂ for Policy Studies (IPS) as a senior fellow from 1982 to 1992
and later became a professor at George Mason University.
â€¢ Saul Landau was associated with the IPS starting in 1972 and hasÂ been with the Transnational Institute since 1974. He was a
columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle from 1988 to 1992.
He is also an author and filmmaker. Since then he has taken a positionÂ at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona.
â€¢ William Arkin has been a military affairs columnist with the LosÂ Angeles Times and has also served at the IPS. He also serves as a
commentator on MSNBC. He is a purveyor of classified informationÂ with contacts in the media and policy-making world.
There is also the issue of fleeting partnerships between journalists andÂ radical sources. These often may result in a series of stories or a book.
Sometimes the story can complicate or alter U.S. policy or damage U.S.Â relations with allies. A few examples:
â€¢ Robert Kaiser of the Washington Post was assigned to look at ElÂ Salvador, specifically to rebut a State Department white paper on
Communist interference thereâ€”after an Institute for Policy StudiesÂ (IPS) official urged the Post to challenge the report. The central
part of Kaiserâ€™s investigation of the report relied on informationÂ from Philip Agee (former CIA officer and traitor). After the State
Department responded with a telling refutation of Kaiserâ€™s story,Â the Post reluctantly and belatedly apologized for the Kaiser-Agee
storyâ€”but editors relegated the apology to the back of the paper.
Kaiser also participated in IPSâ€™s alternative arms-control talks inÂ May 1983 and in September 1985, events that brought together
many in the U.S. peace movement as well as Soviet intelligenceÂ officials.
â€¢ In his 1986 book about the shooting down of a Korean airliner inÂ 1983, The Target Is Destroyed, Seymour Hersh credits William
Arkin and others (with whom â€œhe worked closely . . . in shapingÂ . . . requests for documents under the Freedom of Information
Actâ€). Hersh exposed new information about U.S. technical intelligenceÂ collection, and CIA director William Casey stated that
Hersh was â€œperilously close to prosecutionâ€ for revealing soÂ much about intelligence secrets. Hersh did not mention that
Arkin was working on a project at that time for the IPS. By way ofÂ background, Hersh had been influenced by I. F. Stone early in his
career and is a friend of Daniel Schorr, who himself was involvedÂ in a major leak of CIA information in 1976.
â€¢ William Arkin also teamed up with Leslie Gelb in a major disclosureÂ of classified information. Gelb has worked with the New York
Times as a columnist, national security correspondent, and op-edÂ page editor from 1981 to 1993. Before that he had served at the
Defense Department and State Department. Arkin (then with theÂ IPS) leaked classified information to Gelb, who published a story
in February 1985 entitled â€œU.S. Tries to Fight Allied Resistance toÂ Nuclear Arms.â€ Gelb revealed that the United States had contingency
plans to deploy nuclear depth charges in many countriesÂ abroad. This story severely damaged U.S. relations with its NATO
allies. Gelbâ€™s earlier career may be tracked back to at least 1970,Â when he participated in an IPS conference with Daniel Ellsberg
and Morton Halperin.
â€¢ When Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times was finally admittedÂ to North Vietnam, Wilfred Burchett (a notorious agent of influence)
was at his side to guide his tour and to serve as liaisonÂ when Salisburyâ€™s North Vietnamese hosts offered him material.
When Salisburyâ€™s stories appeared in the front page of the NewÂ York Times, their perspective was replete with Burchettâ€™s interpretation
of events: the United States was purposefully bombing civilianÂ targets. Throughout his reporting Salisbury was manipulated
by the North Vietnamese as he played up the David-and-GoliathÂ theme of the war.
NEWSMAGAZINES AND WIRE SERVICES
Those newsmagazines with the greatest circulation are largely liberal inÂ outlook. They include Time, with a circulation of more than 4 million,
as well as Newsweek, with a circulation of more than 3 million. U.S.
News and World Report, with a circulation of more than 2 million isÂ more middle-of-the-road. Meanwhile, those with less circulation are liberal
as well; they include Atlantic Monthly (circulation about 460,000)Â as well as Harperâ€™s (circulation about 213,000). Some very liberal journals
include Mother Jones (circulation about 151,000) and New RepublicÂ (circulation about 96,000).
The upshot here is that these newsmagazines generally do notÂ bother to dig deep into the roots and connections of Far-Left organizations.
Most of them are likely to give benign or positive coverage toÂ these groups in one way or another.
Another media branch that receives little attention is the publishing industry.
It is no secret that most publishers in Manhattan are liberal toÂ one shade or another. There is also no question that conservative authors
always have a hard time getting their books published by theÂ mainstream publishing houses. Michael Medved has stated, â€œNew York
book publishing is actually the last bastion of one-party rule in theÂ world . . . even after Albania became a two-party state.â€ One source
BUSH-BASHING BOOKS BY THE BUSHEL
Wave 1: 2003
Jim Hightower. Thieves in High Places: Theyâ€™ve Stolen Our Countryâ€”And Itâ€™s Time to Take It Back.
New York: Viking, 2003.
Al Franken. Lies and the Lying Lars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. NewÂ York: Dutton Books, 2003.
Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose. Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bushâ€™s America. New York: RandomÂ House, 2003.
David Corn. The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. New York: Crown,Â 2003.
Michael Moore. Dude, Whereâ€™s My Country? New York:Warner Books, 2003.
Jack Huberman. The Bush-Haters Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the
Past 100 Years. New York: Nation Books, 2003.
claimed in a blog on â€œFree Republicâ€ that the â€œfirst thing to remember isÂ that most publishers are liberal whores, controlled by liberal whores or
intimidated into conformity by liberal whores.â€35
The fact that most publishing houses are decidedly liberal was mostÂ apparent during 2003 and 2004 and especially in the months before the
November 2004 election. Bush bashing was in full force then, with anÂ unprecedented host of anti-Bush titles by a variety of authors.
Radicals from the Far Left have infiltrated all U.S. institutions to one degreeÂ or another, but the influence of radical groups is most telling in the
Wave 2: Pre-election Titles in 2004
Kevin Phillips. American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House ofÂ Bush. New York: Viking, 2004.
Ron Suskind. The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of PaulÂ Oâ€™Neill. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.
John Dean.Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. New York: Little,Â Brown, 2004.
Michael John Dobbins. Stop Bush in 2004: How Every Citizen Can Help. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse,Â 2004.
Bill Press. Bush Must Go: The Top Ten Reasons Why George Bush Doesnâ€™t Deserve a SecondÂ Term. New York: Dutton Books, 2004.
Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer, and Brendan Nyhan. All the Presidentâ€™s Spin: George W. Bush, the Media,Â and the Truth. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004.
Maureen Dowd. Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk. New York: Putnam, 2004.
Paul Krugman. The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century. New York: Norton,Â 2004.
Seymour Hersh. Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. New York: HarperCollins,Â 2004.
Kitty Kelly. The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty. New York: Doubleday, 2004.
Note: The last five books appeared in August and September, within three months of the 2004 election.
U.S. Congress. It is there where our laws are passed, and it is thereÂ where lawmakers set the tone for the rest of the country. Accordingly, it
is in the halls of Congress that the most decisive political collisions andÂ struggles take place.
During an earlier era there were radical members of the House ofÂ Representatives. Several were swept in during the aftermath of the Vietnam
War. Ron Dellums (D-CA) was perhaps the greatest champion ofÂ radical groups to appear in Congress during the last half of the twentieth
century. He endorsed the Black Panthers, addressed the WorldÂ Peace Council meeting in 1970, and supported the Institute for Policy
Studies (IPS) in a number of ways. Dellums served from 1971 to 1999.
Father Robert Drinan (D-MA) was involved in a host of radical causesÂ and served from 1971 to 1981. Bella Abzug (D-NY) was a founder of
the Womenâ€™s Strike for Peace (WSP), a Communist-infiltrated organization,Â and was a strident voice for liberal and radical causes. She served
from 1971 to 1977.
During this era there was also a group in the Senate called the MembersÂ of Congress for Peace Through Law (MCPL). Among others, they
included Senators George McGovern (D-SD), Ted Kennedy (D-MA),Â Walter Mondale (D-MN), and Philip Hart (D-MI).
It is also illuminating to see which congressmen have been backersÂ of the IPS over the years. In the 1970s and 1980s its staunchest supporters
in the House were George Miller (D-CA), Don Edwards (D-CA), TedÂ Weiss (D-NY), and the ever-present John Conyers. On the Senate side,
Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mark Hatfield (D-OR), and John KerryÂ (D-MA) were dedicated partisans of the IPS.36
Some members of Congress have kept very questionable company.
To cite an example from the House, Michael Harrington (D-MA) was aÂ contact of Orlando Letelier, a notorious agent of influence. Harrington
demanded classified testimony from CIA director William Colby, andÂ then leaked this material to Seymour Hersh of the New York Times. This
resulted in a sensational story about U.S. involvement in Chile in SeptemberÂ 1974, a story that set the stage for the â€œtime of troublesâ€ for CIA
and the intelligence community during the various investigations fromÂ 1975 to 1978.37
The Senate has its own issues as well. For example, Senator WalterÂ Mondale served on the Senate Intelligence Committee headed by
Senator Frank Church (D-ID) in the 1970s. One of Mondaleâ€™s aides,Â David Aaron of the Center for International Policy, employed Rick Inderfurth
and Gregory Trevertonâ€”both of whom are also contacts ofÂ Orlando Letelier (the former Chilean ambassador to the United States
and IPS executive who was assassinated in Washington DC on SeptemberÂ 21, 1976).
On top of that, Senator Church himself was influenced by a reportÂ on U.S. intelligence prepared by the Center for National Security Studies
(CNSS), a report that had the benefit of direct input from an agent ofÂ influence, Wilfred Burchett, and traitor Philip Agee.
It is not always easy to tell where party loyalties fall. One example isÂ that several members of Congress are also members of the Democratic
Socialists of America (DSA). These include Major Owens (D-NY),Â Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Danny Davis (D-IL, who has been rumored
to be a DSA member). Former Congressman Ron Dellums is also a DSAÂ member. In any event, nearly all of the Democrats named below belong
to the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. A key question is to whatÂ extent this wing has spread its influence and values to the rest of the
HOW FAR TO THE LEFT?
The Progressive Caucus is made up of the most Far-Left members of CongressÂ and best represents the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. This
group shares a common belief in the â€œprinciples of social and economicÂ justice, non-discrimination, and tolerance in America and in our relationships
with other countries.â€ Specifically this group supports curbsÂ on defense spending; it seeks a more progressive tax system that soaks
the rich; and it is for social programs that are designed â€œto extend help toÂ low and middle-income Americans in need.â€ The Progressive Caucus
has long been allied with the Democratic Socialists of America. As ofÂ 2003, there were some fifty-four members, of whom eight were officers.
The current heads are Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee. (There is no recentÂ data for the 109th Congress, which meets from 2005 to 2006.)
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) dates back to 1969, whenÂ thirteen black members of the House joined together to strengthen their
efforts to address the concerns of black and minority citizens. In the 109th Congress, there are forty-three members. This group is committed
to back legislation designed â€œto meet the needs of millions of neglectedÂ citizens.â€ It also pushes for a national commitment to fair
treatment for middle- and low-income wage earners, the economic disadvantaged,Â and a â€œnew world order.â€ Many of these members of Congress
come from artificially drawn districts produced by racialÂ gerrymandering, and some of these individuals slant so far to the Left it
is easy to detect their radical orientation. Of fourteen selected membersÂ of Congress considered the most liberal, some ten have dual membership
in both the Progressive Caucus and the CBC.
Some CBC members have long associated with Far-Left elements,Â and they often do not hesitate to associate publicly with groups that
other progressive congressmen shun. In mid-1983 a demonstrationÂ opposing President Reaganâ€™s Central American policy was held in
PC CBC HR104
John Conyers (D-MI, 14th) X X N
Danny Davis (D-IL, 7th) X X ?
Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL, 2nd) X X P
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX, 18th) X X P
Barbara Lee (D-CA, 9th) X X N
Jim McDermott (D-WA, 7th) X O N
Cynthia McKinney (D-GA, 4th) X X N/A
Major Owens (D-NY, 11th) X X P
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, 8th) X O Y
Charles Rangel (D-NY, 15th) O X N
Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH, 11th) X X N
Maxine Waters (D-CA, 35th) X X N
Henry Waxman (D-CA, 30th) X O ?
Diane Watson (D-CA, 33rd) X X N
Number = Congressional district; PC = Progressive Caucus; CBC = Congressional Black Caucus; HR 104 =
bill supporting military members; X = member; O = not a member; Y = yes; N = no; P = present; ? = do not
know; N/A = out of office
Washington DC. It featured the Peopleâ€™s Anti-War Mobilization,Â which was dominated by members of the Workers World Party. Five
members of the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed the movement:Â George Crockett, Ronald Dellums, Mickey Leland, Parren Mitchell,
and John Conyers. At this very function, a Communist Party memberÂ addressed the crowd and stated that the United States is not going to
El Salvador to kill Communists, â€œbut to kill women and children.â€
House Resolution (HR) 104 was conceived with the goal of â€œexpressingÂ the support and appreciation of the nation for the President and the
members of the armed forces who are participating in Operation IraqiÂ Freedom.â€ It was intended as a nonpartisan declaration of solidarity
with U.S. military forces engaged in combat there. It was not an endorsementÂ of the war, but was merely meant to provide symbolic support
for the troops in the field.
This nonbinding House resolution passed easily (392â€“11 in theÂ House and 99â€“0 in the Senate). But 11 members of Congress voted
against this resolution. All were Democrats, and most were members ofÂ the CBC. Another 21 Democrats voted â€œpresentâ€ for the resolution, a
non vote of political cowardice, in which they were unwilling to decideÂ whether they stood behind American troops risking their lives in Iraq.
John Conyers represents the Fourteenth District of Michigan. FirstÂ elected to that office in 1964, he is the second-longest-serving member
of the House of Representatives. He is a leading figure in the DemocraticÂ Party and the House Judiciary Committee, and in 1971 he was
one of the original members of President Nixonâ€™s â€œenemies list.â€ He isÂ one of the most radical members of Congress, and even appeared in
Michael Mooreâ€™s Fahrenheit 9/11, discussing the aftermath of the 9/11Â attacks. During all his years in Washington, Conyers has been a consistent
champion of radical causes, including the Institute for Policy StudiesÂ (IPS). In 1981 Conyers co-hosted a delegation from the Soviet front
World Peace Council, giving that group a forum in Congress. ConyersÂ endorsed a Communist-led antiwar demonstration in Washington in
1983, and he also spoke at another Washington demonstration led byÂ ANSWER in 2003. In between those events, he has spent great efforts to
rail against American policy. He is a founding member of the CongressionalÂ Black Caucus and a member of the Progressive Caucus.
Barbara Lee represents Berkeley and all it stands for. She cast theÂ lone vote against authorizing President Bush to fight al-Qaeda. Speaking
just three days after 9/11, she stated that the president really wantedÂ to â€œembark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused
target.â€ She had previously cast the lone vote against a resolutionÂ expressing support of the troops already fighting in Serbia. She served
for nine years on the staff of her predecessor, Rep. Ron Dellums, risingÂ to become his chief of staff. In 1983 Lee conducted a â€œfact-findingâ€ mission
to the pro-Soviet regime of Grenada and later submitted a propagandaÂ â€œreportâ€ to Congress that was doctored by Grenadian dictator
Maurice Bishop himself, thereby operating as a de facto agent of influence.
Elected to Congress herself in 1998, she led a delegation to Cuba,Â reflecting her own admiration for Castro. Barbara Lee has been described
as â€œan anti-American Communist who supports Americaâ€™s enemiesÂ and has actively collaborated with them in their war against
America.â€44 Lee was recently the co-chairman of the Progressive CaucusÂ as well as the whip of the Congressional Black Caucus, highly significant
in her holding influential positions within both groups.
Maxine Waters is also one of the most radical members of Congress.
Once a social worker, she now represents the Thirty-fifth District of CaliforniaÂ (south-central Los Angeles). In 1984 she was co-chairman of Jesse
Jacksonâ€™s presidential campaign. She once referred to President GeorgeÂ H. W. Bush as a â€œracistâ€ and routinely refers to the Republican Party as
â€œthe enemy.â€ Waters has publicly blamed the epidemic of crack-cocaineÂ use among blacks on the U.S. government. She steadfastly maintained
that the CIA sold the deadly drug to black communities in a deliberateÂ campaign of decimation. Regardless of the sensational and baseless nature
of these charges, she has never recanted them, even after 9/11. SheÂ has also publicly supported racist violence. She called the 1992 Los Angeles
riots a â€œrevolution,â€ defending the anti-white and anti-Asian violence,Â and paid a personal visit to the home of one of the most notorious
rioters. She saw the riots as a â€œspontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice.â€
Waters once claimed that she never saw LA police officers abuse â€œlittleÂ white boysâ€ and has also stated, â€œI donâ€™t have time to be polite.â€Waters
has also traveled several times to Cuba, heaped praise on Castro, and hasÂ called for an end to the U.S. embargo against his government. President
Bill Clinton appointed Watersâ€™s second husband, a former car salesman,Â to be the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas. Organized labor is by far Watersâ€™s
biggest campaign contributor, and she also benefits from contributionsÂ from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) and
Viacom, which owns CBS. She is a member of both the ProgressiveÂ Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, and she headed the latter
group from 1997 to 1998.
Cynthia McKinney represents the Fourth District of Georgia. SheÂ has accused President Bush of being responsible for the 9/11 attacks
and of having personally profited by them. When her outrageous remarksÂ were published, she later â€œapologized,â€ saying, â€œI am not aware
of any evidence showing that President Bush . . . personally profitedÂ from the attacks . . . [but] a complete investigation might reveal that to
be the case.â€ Fellow Georgia Democrat Senator Zell Miller describedÂ McKinneyâ€™s conspiracy theory as â€œloonyâ€ and â€œdangerous and irresponsible,â€
and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution derided her as â€œthe mostÂ prominent nutâ€ among conspiracy-peddling nuts. As such, McKinney
has elevated to the level of fine art the â€œanyone who stands to gain mustÂ be responsibleâ€ school of thought. McKinney was voted out of office
in 2002, after which time her father and campaign manager blamed theÂ Jews for her defeat, but she was voted back into office in 2004. When
out of office, she held a position of visiting professor at Cornell University.
At that time, one professor emeritus stated that she is a racist andÂ anti-Semite of the first rank, and, â€œIf she were white and male, she
would be David Duke.â€ McKinney has taken a very high profileÂ against the Iraq War, speaking at demonstrations organized by Act Now
to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) in October 2002 and in JanuaryÂ 2005. She has also provided propaganda for anti-government guerrillas
in Colombia, has voted against school vouchers for black parentsÂ in Washington DC, and voted against ending racial preferences in college
admissions. She has voted repeatedly to cut U.S. aid to Israel andÂ enjoys strong support from the Arab and Muslim interest groups, who
see her as a strong backer of a Palestinian state. One of McKinneyâ€™sÂ biggest contributors is the Association of Trial Lawyers of America
(ATLA), because she has voted against legislation that would limit theirÂ profits. She is strongly supported by organized labor as well, since a
very large proportion of her contributions originate from outside theÂ state and especially from California. She belongs to the Congressional
Diane Watson represents the carefully gerrymandered Thirty-thirdÂ District in Southern California. Watson is a former teacher and school
psychologist who was named as ambassador to Micronesia by PresidentÂ Clinton in 1999 and who was sent to Congress in a special election of
June 2001. She is quick to play the race card. She claimed, â€œAmerica is aÂ racist stateâ€ to a UN-sponsored symposium in Durban, South Africa, in
2001. At that time she and six other congressional Democrats attendedÂ and lent their prestige to what was an anti-Jewish, anti-America hatefest.
She has voted against the use of force in Iraq. Her biggest campaignÂ contributors are labor unions and the Association of Trial
Lawyers of America (ATLA). She is a member of both the ProgressiveÂ Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus.
Jim McDermott represents the Seventh District of Washington. HeÂ set off for Iraq with fellow Congressmen David Bonior (D-MI) and Mike
Thompson (D-CA) and concluded that President Bush was a liar. HeÂ stated, â€œI think that the president would mislead the American people,â€
and he charged Bush with trying to provoke Iraq into a war. He alsoÂ stated, â€œI think you have to take the Iraqis at face value,â€ and claimed
that the Iraqi officials â€œsaid they would allow us to go look anywhere weÂ wanted.â€ This performance was in the best tradition of the discredited
U.S. ambassador to the USSR in the 1930s, Joseph Davies, and earnedÂ McDermott and his fellow travelers the titles of â€œspokespeople for the
Iraqi governmentâ€ and â€œthe three stooges of Baghdad.â€ They distinguishedÂ themselves as they did the bidding of Saddam Hussein and his
corrupt and tyrannical regime in the halls of Congress. McDermott is aÂ member of the Progressive Caucus.
CONGRESSIONAL AIDES AND STAFF
There are only 100 senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives.
Yet the population of Capitol Hill is about 25,000 persons.
According to data from 1993, a typical House member had 22 personalÂ assistants, and a typical senator had 42. Currently some senators have a
staff of 70 or more. This presents unlimited opportunities for ambitiousÂ people to be close to lawmakers, to help with their workload, and to influence
them in a number of ways.
There have been agents of influence on Capitol Hill in earlier years,Â and they continue to work the Hill today. The best case in recent years
concerns congressional aide Susan Lindauer. She is a very public antiwarÂ activist, from the bumper stickers on her aging Mazda to her signature
on a published antiwar petition. She fits in well with her leftistÂ home suburb of Takoma Park, Maryland. In March 2004 Lindauer was
arrested and charged with conspiracy, acting as an unregistered agent ofÂ a foreign government, and taking money from a government that supports
terrorism. Lindauer engaged in prohibited dealings with severalÂ members of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in visits to the Iraqi Mission
to the United Nations in New York. In early 2002 she traveled toÂ Baghdad and received about $10,000 for her services. In mid-2003 she
met twice in Baltimore with an undercover FBI agent who was posing asÂ a Libyan intelligence officer seeking to support resistance groups fighting
U.S. forces in postwar Iraq. Lindauer communicated clandestinely,Â as she filled two dead drops in Takoma Park, Maryland.
Significantly, Lindauer worked in the offices of four prominentÂ Democratic lawmakers. In May 1993 she was hired by Congressman
Peter DeFazio (D-OR), whose political views matched her own. De-Â Fazio has been not just a member but also an officer of the Progressive
Caucus, one of the groupâ€™s key decision makers and drivers. DeFazioâ€™sÂ ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) rating was 90 in 2000 and 95
in 2002. ADA ratings are percentages that indicate the frequency of votingÂ to support issues backed by the Left. In January 1994 Congressman
Ron Wyden (D-OR) hired Lindauer. Wyden is another denizen of theÂ Far Left, winning ADA ratings of 90 in 2000 and 85 in 2002. In January
1996 Lindauer was hired as press secretary to Senator Carol MoseleyÂ Braun (D-IL), but worked for her only until September 1996. Moseley
Braunâ€™s lifetime ADA rating is 88. In 2002 Lindauer was hired by CongresswomanÂ Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and worked with her office for only
two months. Lofgrenâ€™s ADA rating in 2000 was 85, and her rating inÂ 2002 was a perfect 100.
According to the mainstream media, Lindauerâ€™s jobs on the staffs ofÂ four prominent Democratic lawmakers were buried many paragraphs
into any stories about their work, if they were reported at all. The factÂ that these were four of the most hard-line Left members of Congress did
not warrant mention at all. Given the atmosphere of Capitol Hill, theseÂ leftist Democrats likely knew one anotherâ€™s staffs, and Lindauerâ€™s first
three jobs transitioned smoothly from DeFazio to Wyden to MoseleyÂ Braun.
Lindauerâ€™s statement after her arrest says plenty about her and howÂ she saw her role: â€œIâ€™m an antiwar activist and Iâ€™m innocent. I did more
to stop terrorism in this country than anybody else. I have done goodÂ things for this country.â€ Some of the press coverage about the case says
a lot about the media as well. This headline appeared in the Seattle Post-Â Intelligencer: â€œAccused Spy Is Cousin of Bush Staffer.â€ That headline
helps you understand why the media are held in such low regard by theÂ public, with public acceptance ratings that usually come in somewhere
between Nigerian e-mail scammers and serial pedophiles.
BASIC GUIDELINES FOR STRIKING BACK
Make their strategy come apart. This is time-honored advice from ancientÂ Chinese strategists such as Sun Tzu. It pays to discover what factions
make up a group and what groups make up a coalition. For theseÂ groups to be outfought, they must be thoroughly understood and then
outthought. A good awareness of these organizations and their operationalÂ style is essential.
Separate those that pose a significant political threat from thoseÂ who do not. A groupâ€™s net influence is related to its organizing skill, its
financial management, its longevity, and its ability to mobilize largeÂ numbers of people to its causes. As of 2006, the most significant threats
appear to emanate from those organizations that appear to be the best organized.
They include United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), People forÂ the American Way (PFAW), MoveOn, Institute for Policy Studies (IPS),
and Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER). Of some of theÂ Washington-based groups, their nerve centers are listed below.
THE ROAD AHEAD
Institute for Policy Studies
733 15th Street NW, Suite 1020
Washington DC 20005
ANSWER and International Action Center (IAC)
1247 E Street SE
Washington DC 20003
People for the American Way
2000 M Street NW, Suite 400
Washington DC 20036
Use their own tools against them. The Far Left should not enjoy aÂ monopoly on the campus tactics of guerrilla theater or â€œtruth squadsâ€
that follow controversial speakers around. Ridicule is a powerfulÂ weapon, for example, and especially when you can use their very own
words against them. It is easy to tell those within these groups who areÂ self-appointed, self-important, self-absorbed, self-serving, and self righteous.
WE HAVE JOURNEYED DOWN Alice in Wonderlandâ€™s rabbit hole into aÂ world where black is white, right is wrong, and wet is dry. It is a
strange and perplexing political world where nothing is quite the wayÂ it seems.
In the preceding pages, we have seen the various weapons of massÂ distortion our adversaries used during the cold war, some of which are
used today. We have seen that some Americans chose to side with ourÂ countryâ€™s enemies as early as the 1920s. We have shed light on those
groups that go back to World War I and those that were formed afterÂ 2000, all the while trying to capture their connections as well as their beliefs
and operating philosophies. We have seen that larger enterprisesÂ (elements of the feminist, black, and gay movements or the mass media
and even the U.S. Congress) are in step with many of these Far-LeftÂ groups. We have looked at how people in these groups choose to express
themselves. And we have explored what such groups are likely to do inÂ the future.
Some key findings emerged along the way. These groups have recurringÂ patterns of operations and tactics. They continue to look for
new ways to undermine our countryâ€™s ability to defend itself at homeÂ and abroad. A de facto alliance has emerged between some radical Islamic
elements, those with a traditional pro-Communist background,
and those who seek to apologize for and protect both groups. Some radicalÂ groups give aid and comfort to U.S. enemies while liberal groups
give aid and comfort to the radical groups. We now know that theÂ money flow really matters but is little understood, and also we know
that there is a paramount need to check oneâ€™s sources of information.
There is probably greater interaction between Far-Left groups and foreignÂ officials than is apparent. And finally, it appears that the best way
to counteract the influence of these groups is to use the time-honoredÂ tools of exposure and awareness.
To maintain perspective, I will now reintroduce you into the outsideÂ world and point out where the world of the Far Left fits into the
A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE
Of our population of about three hundred million, those who inhabitÂ these Far-Left groups comprise a small percentage. Yet they are loud,
persistent, and oftenâ€”but not alwaysâ€”well organized. They exert influenceÂ far out of proportion to their overall membership numbers.
They distort issues to achieve political ends. And they will not go away.
These various groups fit into the larger picture simply because theyÂ are a permanent presence on the American political scene. They will be
active in antiwar demonstrations, in Supreme Court confirmation hearings,Â on television and radio talk shows, in the op-ed pages of major
newspapers, and in a host of everyday political activities.
They will play a role in the political collisions of each election yearÂ in the near and distant future. In addition to these electoral collisions
there will also be collisionsâ€”or at least major scrapesâ€”over issuesÂ such as immigration, energy, homeland security, abortion, and public
prayer. But what will be the outcome of such collisions? Which leadersÂ of the Far Left and which groups are most likely to emerge at those
times? How likely are they to get what they want?
One cannot speak of facts about the future, but there are some constantsÂ that will not change. One will be the ongoing battle for the hearts
and minds of young people. Their opinions are especially malleable inÂ the age of instant messaging, instant gratification, and instant â€œanswersâ€
to the worldâ€™s problems.
RUMORS, OPINIONS, DISTORTION
Why emphasize the mass media and the techniques of propaganda,Â opinion shaping, perception management, and linguistic distortion?
Look back at how people were so easily misled in the days after HurricaneÂ Katrina struck New Orleans. Rumors spread rapidly, including:
â€¢ a monster crocodile was fished out of New Orleans flood waters
â€¢ sharks were swimming through the submerged streets
â€¢ babies were being raped
â€¢ rat-gnawed corpses were floating in the streets
â€¢ police officers were being shot point-blank in the head
â€¢ snipers were firing at rescue helicopters
In Henry IV, Shakespeare observed, â€œRumor is a pipe blown by surmises,Â jealousies, conjectures.â€ Factor in the frenzied nature of the New
Orleans atmosphere, the lack of adequate communications, and theÂ pervasiveness and the embellishment of these stories in cyberspace. All
were ideal conditions for rumors to flourish, as Anne Applebaum of theÂ Washington Post has noted. Unfortunately, race and social status
emerged as issues as well, for many politicians quickly played thoseÂ cards and claimed that the Bush administration neglected the hurricane
victims because they were black or poor. And many people were eagerÂ to accept rumors, half truths, or other urban legends if such falsehoods
served to vilify the present administration.
LIBERALS AND RADICALS
Do not confuse mainline liberals who seek peace and social justice withÂ the Far-Left figures in this book. I have focused on the latterâ€”those who
give material aid and comfort to our enemies, those who work to weakenÂ us from within, those who apologize for and encourage foreign tyrants,
and those who seek to impose a smothering socialist nanny state.
Many liberal causes are proud traditions in American history. One isÂ the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It permanently
changed the nature of this country. Another is the environmentalistÂ movement that took shape in the 1970s and 1980s. Those environmental
protections put in place have done much to protect our air, drinkingÂ water, forests, wetlands, and coral reefs. But much legislation that has
been issued in the intervening years and the issues of today are not theÂ same as those of fifty years agoâ€”which have been addressed by civil
rights laws and environmental regulations that are now on the books.
Significantly, there is a vast difference between these original causes andÂ the distorting and divisive twists that radicals later added to them. Note,
for example, those civil rights and environmental pioneers of earlierÂ times and the radicals of today who have tried to hijack those movementsâ€”
those pushing for black â€œreparationsâ€ or the ecoterrorists of theÂ Earth Liberation Front (ELF).
We do not need any more demonology. Let us not forget that AmericansÂ have a long history of working together. They can be political adversaries
and not enemies. They can have different interpretations of issuesÂ without drawing battle lines and lobbing media grenades. For example,
traditional adversaries such as President Lyndon Johnson and SenatorÂ Everett Dirksen (R-IL) could reflect at the end of the day over a drink.
Wouldnâ€™t it be nice if we could stop the demonizing, ranting,Â smearing, screaming, and hyperventilating? Sometimes it is easy to forget
that we are all Americans, born under the same flag, carrying theÂ same passports, using the same currency. Many are wishing to reintroduce
civility, courtesy, mutual respect, and acceptance of democraticÂ political outcomes.
However, such a truceâ€”an Appomattox momentâ€”is unlikely toÂ come anytime soon, that time when both sides of the cultural civil war
call for an end to hostilities. Ramsey Clark (who accused PresidentÂ Bush of high crimes and impeachable offenses) is unlikely to extend his
hand first. Nor is Danny Glover (he calls the Bush administration liarsÂ and murderers). Nor is Howard Dean (â€œI hate the Republicans and
everything they stand forâ€). More likely, some of the most radical willÂ extend their hand to our countryâ€™s principal adversaries, from Fidel
Castro to Kim Jong-Il to whoever else stands against us.
There is no grand reconciliation on the horizon. There is no immediateÂ indication that the lion and the lamb shall lie down together in the
U.S. political pasture, nor a realistic prospect of a Red and Blue love-in.
Until that time comes, we can take stock of the claims of the Far LeftÂ and expose them for what they are, part of an ongoing con job. We can
work to isolate those remaining hard-core committed souls who inhabitÂ the never-surrender Far Left. And we can look for ways to outmaneuver
them by democratic and not fascist means. There is no excuse for passivelyÂ accepting what they profess or for sitting on the sidelines, for
there is too much at stake.
********Passionate Pachyderms would like to Thank Mr. Â James H Hanson for the above contributions to this series of articles in which we are attempting to arm those interested with information about just exactly what it is we are all up against.
Far too many Americans have been asleep through the majority of their lives when it comes to politics, and are just now waking up to the realities of what their long slumber has cost our country as a whole.
That said, many have now awakened, and are in need of guidance, information, and a solid basis with which to mount their defense and take back our country, to do that, it is crucial they be provided information regarding where, when, who, why, and how our current situation came to pass, as one can not effectively defend against something/someone they know little or nothing about. Â With the assistance of excerpts from Mr. Hansen’s well researched, documented, and written book, together with our own research, experience and knowledge, and writings, Â we feel confident we are providing as clear a picture as we possibly can to assist our fellow Patriots in this regard. Â *******
Next up: Who’s involved and what role do they play
Part 10Â In the series, Â Politics, A Disgustingly Dirty Game Filled With Unbelievably Vile Things
By: Passionate Pachyderms