A Steaming Pile Of Radical leaders, their Groups, And Associations Then and now….

2000 To Present

Part 9 In the series,  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 demonize U.S. policy during this period. A close look at these various organizations

reveals a confluence of ideology as well as varying levels of coordination between them. The mainstream media have largely ignored

the interaction between the modern-day groups and their ties to predecessor organizations.


International ANSWER stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (the name is shorted to ANSWER hereafter). The organization

formed just days after the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York in late September 2001. As indicated earlier, ANSWER owes its existence

to the Workers World Party (WWP) and the International Action Center (IAC).1 Conclusive proof of its orientation is found in its

directorship. Remember the troika of the IAC? Ramsey Clark is director of ANSWER, Brian Becker is on its steering committee, and Larry

Holmes is a major spokesman of the organization.

Further examination reveals that ANSWER’s national office in New 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. In other cities, the contact numbers for ANSWER are the same as those for

the WWP in those cities. In other words, “When a person calls ANSWER, he is in effect calling the International Action Center and the

Workers World Party.”

Significantly, ANSWER has been the driving force in each of the major demonstrations in Washington DC since 2002. It organized one

on October 26, 2002, was the main organizer of International Mobilization Day on April 12, 2003, sponsored the one on January 18, 2003,

and chaired one on January 20, 2005. During the October 26, 2002, demonstration, each member of the IAC troika spoke. Becker and

Holmes were credited with organizing and orchestrating the January 18, 2003, demonstration, and Ramsey Clark addressed that gathering.

Becker and Clark addressed the January 20, 2005, demonstration, and local ANSWER officials Peta Lindsey and Eugene Puryear were the local

ANSWER organizers.

At these demonstrations, which the media usually portrays as a gathering of mainstream Americans, speaker after speaker condemns

the United States with traditional Communist rhetoric. Terms such as struggle, oppressed peoples, imperialism, revolution, and liberation are

bandied about. One speaker once addressed her fellow protesters as comrades.4 As Byron York puts it, “More than a decade after the fall of

the Soviet Union, and long after most Americans stopped worrying about the Red Menace,” 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 have been working with various Communist-oriented groups over the past

thirty years, as they share a common enemy—the United States.

At the same time there is widespread acceptance of the role of the WWP and IAC. One reason is the organizational skills they bring. These

groups are able to outhustle and outorganize others in the practical work of getting parade permits, organizing big events, and providing logistics.

One authority notes, “It causes division among the non-authoritarian Left groups. They say, ‘Do we march at a rally organized by a group like

this? I don’t feel comfortable with this, but it’s the only game in town.’”

These rallies are all conducted in the same way. There are information and merchandise tables put out by a variety of left-wing and Communist

organizations, those that have paid ANSWER a fee for permission to distribute literature or merchandise. There is an elevated

stage with a massive sound system. After a musical prelude, the speeches begin—usually more than a dozen. The speakers may include

celebrities, politicians (such as those from the Democratic Progressive.)



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 shrill demonization of the United States and its policies. After the speeches,

the attendees march along the route to the location of the final rally, where they find more literature and merchandise. At various stages, the

ANSWER volunteers move through the crowd with large buckets for cash donations.

Many of these groups are drawn together—and overlook the pedigree of ANSWER—because of their hatred for George Bush. The signs

they carried at one event “seethed with rage and condescension.” Typical of those found in January 2003 were: “He Is A Moron . . . And A

Bully,” or “Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld: The Real Axis of Evil.” By now you get the picture.


Not in Our Name (NION) is a Hard-Leftist group founded in March 2002 to resist the U.S. government’s course of action after the terrorist

attacks of September 11, 2001. The beginnings of NION track right along with the founding of ANSWER. Members of the Workers World

Party (WWP) founded the latter group on the eve of the U.S. military campaign against Afghanistan. NION was founded six months later

mostly by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA (RCP USA), which continues to be prominent among its leadership.8 C. Clark

Kissinger is a spokesman for NION, and Mary Lou Greenberg is a director of the group.

One difference between the groups is that NION is believed to be less specifically a front group. Compared with ANSWER, NION has a

broader set of endorsers and is generally seen as a cooperative participant in the broader antiwar movement. Moreover, the RCP USA does

not impose its specific positions on NION to the degree that the International Action Center (IAC) does on ANSWER, according to writers

Michael Albert and Stephen Shalom. In addition, NION—unlike ANSWER— is itself a member of United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ).

NION’s statement of conscience, drafted in early 2002, lists a series of criticisms of the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress and calls

on the people of the United States “to resist the politics and overall political direction” that have emerged since 9/11, which pose “grave

dangers to the peoples of the world.” The statement deplores the U.S. “spirit of revenge” and “simplistic script of good vs. evil,” and refers to

the USA PATRIOT Act as symbolizing repression. The statement concludes, “We will resist the machinery of war and rally others to do everything

possible to stop it.”

Various signers of the statement collectively made up a who’s who of the Far Left. Among others, they include Medea Benjamin, Noam

Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Angela Davis, Carl Dix, Bernardine Dohrn, Daniel Ellsberg, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee,

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rev. Al 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, NION could not resist making another public statement. First, the group

noted that George Bush does not speak for or represent the NION signers and does not act in their name. This statement adds, “No election,

whether fair or fraudulent, can legitimize criminal wars on foreign countries, torture, the wholesale violation of human rights, and the end of science

and reason.” By reading the latest statement, you would discover that our government is sending our youth “to destroy entire cities” and

has “carried out torture and detentions without trial around the world.”

(Hmm, in all 192 countries?) The groups also states, “Not in our name 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.”

This statement was paired with a reference to Syria, Iran, and North Korea—a tacit admission that NION would give a free pass to any

of those countries and their policies. The Bush regime, after all, is “nothing but a nightmare for humanity,” according to the recent statement.

This statement was yet another sentimental gathering of lefties.

The signers this time included Ed Asner, Michael Avery (president of the National Lawyers Guild), Medea Benjamin, Phyllis Bennis (Institute

for Policy Studies), Leslie Cagan (United for Peace and Justice), Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Angela Davis, Daniel Ellsberg, C.

Clark Kissinger (Revolutionary Communist Party and Refuse and Resist!), Rep. James McDermott (D-WA), Michael Ratner (Center for

Constitutional Studies), Roberta Segal-Sklar (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force), “Starhawk” (a woman who claims to be a witch),

and Howard Zinn. If anything, this gathering likely was more colorful than the one in 2002.

But NION does more than issue signed statements. In August 2004 the group planned a confrontational demonstration in New York City

on the night President Bush was to accept the nomination of the Republican Party. NION hoped to disrupt the convention by having its march

leaders follow a route different from the one that had been submitted in advance to the police. This was a planned provocation that had a good

chance of ending in violence. Mary Lou Greenberg, a director of NION and a Revolutionary Communist Party USA (RCP USA) member, developed

the idea of the march, along with Joe Urgo (also an RCP USA member). This event pointed out that NION believed—as do other

antiwar groups—“that Republicans are more of a threat” than al-Qaeda or the Baathists,” according to Michael P. Tremoglie. He notes, “Peace is

not even a tertiary consideration for them—destabilizing the United States is. NION, and the other ‘peace’ groups” are linked to Communist,

Islamist, and anti-capitalist groups.”

Some who have worked with NION have become disillusioned. One individual stated, “I have worked with all three major groups, ANSWER,

UFPJ, and NION, and know how they work together.” He was fed up with NION because it is a “vanguard group” whose real objective

is to lead people to their ideology and “not do anything for peace.” He was particularly upset with the “Communists who run the show.” The

same person also noted that the leaders of UFPJ, ANSWER, and NION ensured that violence would take place at the Republican National Convention

in New York City.


The Progressive Donor Network (PDN) was formed in April 2002. It remains a little-known group but has the potential to be a key asset for

liberal causes. According to Business Week and SourceWatch, former Clinton White House staffer Mike Lux (a co-founder of the PDN) had

begun meeting with some 150 liberal groups. This so-called Progressive Donor Network had hoped to become a “one-stop account” for liberal

givers who once wrote large checks to the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Early on this group was aligned with the most powerful of the Democratic Party’s special-interest groups. These included People for

the American Way (PFAW), NARAL (formerly the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League), the National Association for

the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), and labor groups.

During the time of the group’s opening conference in Washington DC, it received public support from selected members of Congress: former

Senate majority leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Edwards (D-NC), House minority leader

Richard Gephardt (D-MO), and former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Terry McAuliffe. Boxer has stated that the group

will be “vital for liberal candidates.”

Former Clinton administration officials attending the conference included James Carville, Paul Begala, Joe Lockhart, and Gore 2000 campaign

manager Donna Brazile.

PDN documents suggest that the group will raise and spend money on targeted television and radio markets and by phone and mail solicitation

“using a network of allied organizations,” according to SourceWatch.

The group’s goals also include forming what are called “rapid response teams” to plant news stories critical of Republicans and the Bush

administration. One example from 2004 was the series of negative news 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, “Just weeks after campaign finance reform was signed into law, Democrats

are trying to circumvent it. The Democratic Party is now trying to ensure that their own special interests gain even more power.” Rep. Bob

Barr (R-GA) stated that he was not surprised: “It’s sort of the ultimate Washington hypocrisy that you work to support reform publicly but

undermine it privately.”


One of the most influential groups to emerge in recent years is United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ). The group describes itself as a “coalition

of more than 800 local and national groups throughout the United States who have joined together to oppose our government’s policy of

permanent warfare and empire building.”20 According to its Web site, since its founding in October 2002, it has spurred hundreds of protests

and rallies around the United States and organized the two largest demonstrations against the Iraq War.

At an initial meeting in Washington DC, more than seventy peace and justice organizations agreed to form UFPJ and coordinate their efforts

to oppose the war in Iraq. The UFPJ Web site claims that in February 2003 it organized a rally at the UN headquarters in New York City

that drew more than five hundred thousand participants. It further 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 anniversary 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 antiwar marches in major U.S. cities drew “hundreds” on the second anniversary

of the start of the Iraq War.

The organization jelled in June 2003 when many representatives from diverse groups gathered in Chicago at its first strategy and planning

conference. The gathering was aimed to help stop the Bush administration’s program of “permanent war” as well as to solidify UFPJ’s

organizational structure.

The guiding force and elected leadership body is the steering committee, which has authority over all financial instruments and

media (Web sites, Listservs, and e-mail accounts). Some thirty-five people were elected in 2003 to serve on the group’s national steering

committee. Among them were Andrea Buffa of Global Exchange, Jen Geiger of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

(WILPF), Judith LeBlanc of the Communist Party, Kevin Martin of Peace Action, Ignacio Meneses of the National Network on Cuba,

Gael Murphy of CodePink, Baltazar Pinguel of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), and Amy Quinn of the Institute for Policy

Studies (IPS).

A look at the group’s criteria for selecting the steering committee’s structure tells something about its mind-set. “To ensure that the Steering

Committee of UFPJ represents the diversity of the peace and justice constituencies in the United States,” it adopted the following criteria: at

least 50 percent of the steering committee must be women, at least 50 percent must be “people of color,” at least 20 percent must be youth and

students (under age twenty-five), and at least 15 percent must be “Lesbian/ Gay/Bi/Transgender-identified persons.”

Even the choice of the words steering committee and peace and justice 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 People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice (PCPJ), a militant antiwar group with clear-cut

Communist ties.

As of August 2004 there were noteworthy groups within the organization.

These included:

• Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (AAADC)

• American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)

• Center for Constitutional Rights

• CodePink

• Communist Party USA (CPUSA)

• Global Exchange

• Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)


Steering Committee

United for

Peace and Justice


People’s Coalition for

Peace and Justice


Steering Committee

Vietnam Veterans

Against the War

• International Socialist Organization (ISO)

• MoveOn

• Not in Our Name (NION)

• National Council of Churches (NCC)

• National Lawyers Guild (NLG)

• National Organization for Women (NOW)

• Peace Action

• Rainbow/Push Coalition

• Refuse & Resist!

• War Resisters League

Seen in this way, UFPJ is a unique commingling of antiwar groups, social justice militants, declared Communists, those fronting for Communist

countries and movements, and apologists and supporters of radical Islamic movements. Thus it is not surprising that UFPJ argues,

“The war on Iraq was the leading edge of a relentless drive for a U.S. empire,” and that the U.S. government seeks to “impose right-wing

policies at home under the cover of fighting terrorism.”

The origins of UFPJ are worth noting. According to Ben Johnson, People for the American Way (PFAW) created UFPJ and also chose

Leslie Cagan as its leader. PFAW reportedly was in search of a group other than ANSWER to sponsor peace rallies when the radical nature of

ANSWER became known. This information is not reflected in the Web sites of either PFAW or UFPJ.

UFPJ founder and thus-far only leader Cagan is clearly one of the most dedicated, militant, and hard-line activists of all those opposed to

current U.S. policies. Cagan has remained a Communist even after the fall 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 sugar harvests). She had earlier worked for Sidney Peck and Terry Provance in

the Mobilization for Survival. Peck and Provance are two seasoned and veteran pro-Communists who are passionately opposed to U.S. policies.

Cagan is also described as a lifelong devotee of Fidel Castro and the Socialist Party, USA. Along with Medea Benjamin, Cagan is described as a

“hard-core Communist,” and she and Benjamin are “longtime comrades” (they both have deep ties with Cuba, among other things).

Significantly, UFPJ has joined with a host of other radical groups in recent years. It has teamed up with Global Exchange (Medea Benjamin),

one noteworthy result of which was the creation of a group called Iraq Occupation Watch (IOW, see below). IOW has Cagan, Benjamin,

and Phyllis Bennis of the IPS on its current board. IOW operates a group called the International Occupation Watch Center (IOWC) in

Iraq, which is led by Gael Murphy. In addition, UFPJ works closely with 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 a blanket statement describing itself as a “movement-building coalition”

that coordinates and supports the work of existing groups and builds linkages and solidarity where none exist. “We will link the wars

abroad with the assaults at home, and U.S. militarism to the corporate economic interests it serves.” 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 was prepared to take up widespread protest and civil disobedience in the

event of significant fraud in the 2004 election. But no such fraud was detected.


Four individuals formed CodePink in November 2002: Jodie Evans, Medea Benjamin, Diane Wilson, and “radical Wiccan activist” Starhawk.

They and about one hundred other women quickly became a presence on the streets of Washington DC and established a four-month vigil in


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 “womaninitiated grass-roots peace and social justice movement that seeks positive

social change through proactive, creative protest and nonviolent direct action.”

Evans made headlines at the Republican National Convention in 2004 when she was ejected from Madison Square Garden after disrupting

the prime-time addresses of speakers at the podium. Earlier in the week Benjamin was dragged out of the convention for the same reason.

Evans also sits on the board of directors of the Rain Forest Action Network (RAN), a coalition of anti-capitalist, anti-corporate environmentalist

groups. The co-founder of RAN, Michael Roselle, also founded the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which the FBI ranks alongside

the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) as the primary domestic terrorism threats in the United States.

CodePink describes itself as an outrageous group: “We call on women around the world to rise up and oppose the war in Iraq. We

call on grandmothers, sisters and daughters, students, teachers, healers, artists, singers, poets, and every ordinary outraged woman willing

to be outrageous for peace.” CodePink calls for “all outraged women to join us in taking a stand now” and engages in “outrageous acts of dissent.”

One of the groups’ most outrageous acts was the joint effort with Global Exchange to deliver some $600,000 in money and medicine to

the hard-core insurgent center of Fallujah. (See Global Exchange above.) CodePink and Global Exchange thus teamed up to provide substantial

aid and comfort to America’s enemies. This brought back memories of those unofficial U.S. delegations to North Vietnam that were so

fashionable in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Never feeling a shortage of self-importance, those who participated in this effort of December

2004–January 2005 noted the “historic nature” of the delegation and were thrilled that Aljazeera, Dubai television, and Iranian television followed

the group “assiduously” from the moment they arrived in Amman, Jordan. If anything, this smacks of pandering to hostile media

abroad. Possibly the most ludicrous statement to emerge from that trip was the comparison between the tsunami in Southeast Asia of December

26, 2004, which killed well over 270,000 persons, and a “man-made disaster of similar proportions: the invasion and occupation of Iraq.”


This statement is doubly insulting to anyone’s intelligence, as it trivializes the deaths of the tsunami victims as well as extraordinary efforts by

the U.S. military to limit collateral damage beyond immediate combat areas.

Another outrageous act is the group’s propensity to send peace delegations to other hot spots. Its Web site notes that it generates such

delegations to “Israel-Palestine” as well as to both North and South Korea. It remains uncertain what—if any—good has come from

CodePink’s interjecting itself into the delicate balance of powers that 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 could 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 the “U.S. imperialists.”

According to John Perazzo, in addition to scorning America’s military action in Iraq, CodePink members also condemn the racism, sexism,

poverty, corporate corruption, and environmental degradation they claim are rampant in the United States. “In this respect, CodePink is

like other prominent peace movements in our country—portraying America as a moral cesspool and an imperialist aggressor, while remaining

mute about whatever barbarities occur anywhere else on earth. Not even the pre-war atrocities of Saddam Hussein drew a scintilla of condemnation

from CodePink.”

A system of interlocking leadership positions has emerged in recent years. Medea Benjamin, for example, is a founder of United for Peace

and Justice (UFPJ), the head of Global Exchange, a founder of Code- 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 Global Exchange, and also serves with CodePink. Finally, Gael Murphy is on

the steering committee of UFPJ, on the executive committee of Code- Pink, and on the board of Iraq Occupation Watch. This type of meshing

guarantees a level of coordination. It is inevitable that these individuals see eye to eye on most issues, united in their venomous contempt for

U.S. policies, the Bush administration, and just about everything this country attempts abroad. (See this example of matrix analysis in chapter



An organization called Iraq Occupation Watch (IOW), believed to have been formed in 2002, operates the International Occupation Watch

Center, or IOWC, which is based in Baghdad. The center is designed to 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 administration “to rebuild and profit” from repairing the infrastructure of

Iraq.37 IOW is dedicated to “exposing the impact of military and economic occupation of Iraq,” according to its Web site. Gael Murphy is

head of the center in Baghdad.

IOW is closely tied to Global Exchange—formed much earlier—as both have an overseas orientation. IOW (sometimes called Occupation

Watch or OW) grew out of a collaborative effort between Leslie Cagan’s United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and Medea Benjamin’s Global Exchange.

The members of the board of directors of IOW include Cagan, Benjamin, and Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).

This group evidently relies on selected Iraqi sources for much of the “news” it provides. Working with a few aspiring Iraqi journalists, it has

arranged to provide views of the occupation through articles “giving voice to those Iraqis who are frequently not heard.” The Iraqi journalists

write in English, and the group’s editorial staff edits their articles, checking with the Iraqi correspondents to ensure the accuracy of the

editing. The names of their correspondents and the people they interview are pseudonyms, and the Iraqi correspondents are “quite enthused”

about having an outlet for what they consider are important stories about the occupation. All of this verbiage suggests controlled,

packaged, or directed information from hard-core insurgent sources, 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 its course, IOW was questioning its purpose and utility. One headline in its

Web site read, “The Iraqi Elections: Is This Really ‘A Grand Moment in Iraqi History’?” On the day after, February 1, 2005, there were articles

entitled “Train Wreck of an Election,” and “What They’re Not Telling You About the Election.” It took no prompting for this group to mock

and belittle millions of brave Iraqi men and women who turned out to vote—in defiance of numerous death threats—and proudly wave their

purple index fingers.

This is the election that sent shock waves throughout the Middle East, shock waves that continue to be felt in Egypt, Lebanon, and beyond.

This very effort to denigrate the Iraqi election displays the bankruptcy and ultimate irrelevance of the ideas of such radical groups.


Media Matters for America (MMA) is a nonprofit organization founded by David Brock to refute or otherwise analyze conservative influence on

the media. Its Web site was launched in October 2003. MMA is described as a “Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information

center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”

According to the New York Times, the group has received more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals, and “was developed with

help from the newly formed Center for American Progress.” MMA has attracted some unfavorable comments from conservatives.

One of its targets is Rush Limbaugh, who has called it “a clearing house for lib propaganda.” Another of its targets is Bill O’Reilly, whose

terminology for MMA includes “far-left bomb thrower Web site,” “deceitful” and “disgusting,” and “character assassins.”

Founder David Brock was a conservative journalist in the 1990s but converted to liberalism in 1998 and is now trying to take apart the conservative

“machine” that he once served. He had once written for American Spectator magazine and had attacked Anita Hill (the accuser

of Clarence Thomas) as well as then–Arkansas governor Bill Clinton (accusations that bred Troopergate and had the first printed reference to

Paula Jones). In 1997 he published a confessional piece in Esquire magazine titled “I Was a Conservative Hit Man,” in which he recanted

much of what he had said in his two American Spectator pieces. Brock’s 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 effort to raise the profile of conservative opinions in the press through allegedly

false accusations of liberal media bias. Brock’s effort underlines 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 Brock’s veracity since his “transformation,” and many have concluded that he is “unable to

tell the truth regardless of what his professed political motivations are at any particular time.”

Add to these groups the most recent births of the following:


Organizing For America

Organizing For Action

Common Cause

Media Matters

Move On. Org

Common Core

Acorn Re-birthed under numerous different names, many associated in various ways with Obama’s “Affordable Healthcare act”




THUS FAR I HAVE examined twenty-nine organizations, but that is only 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 which issues the members of the Far Left have in common. Accordingly, this

chapter will examine the role of opinion makers and policy makers. Let’s first review the political leanings of the entertainment industry and selected

Hollywood figures, the feminist movement, the black movement, the gay movement, the education establishment, and the legal establishment.

Let’s then take a hard look at the media and then finally at our own Congress.


With few exceptions, Hollywood producers, directors, writers, studio executives, and actors are decidedly liberal, especially when compared

with the general public. When asked to self-identify as liberal or conservative, the Hollywood liberals hold a four-to-one ratio over conservatives.

Democrats in Hollywood outnumber Republicans by a greater margin—five to one. In general, Hollywood elites are far out of step

with mainstream America in that few describe themselves as religious or anti-Communist and most support gay rights. There is no gay conspiracy,

but there is a definite gay influence. In 1991 executives from 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. films today include antipathy to the military, evil industrialists, corrupt cops,

“America on trial,” poisoning the past (such as the film JFK in 1991), and “vicious vets and pristine protesters” (as in The Big Chill of 1983).

Other current themes include promiscuity, the decline of marriage, the urge to offend, foul language, hostility to heroes, and U.S.-bashing.

Hollywood has no shortage of hate-America and blame-America figures. Many actors and actresses have joined the anti-Bush jihad, and

many have taken on some kind of organizational role in the Far-Left movements.

There are so many radical figures populating Hollywood that we can only look at a few of the high-profile individuals. These would include

filmmakers Michael Moore and Oliver Stone as well as actors Danny Glover and Sean Penn.

Moore is, of course, well known as a major spokesman for the hate-America and blame-America school of thought. Many Americans

view Moore as the head vulgarian at the gate. He has cast George Bush as less trustworthy than Saddam Hussein, and he has demonized Bush

to the point of trying to influence the 2004 election through his film Fahrenheit 9/11.

As Trevor Bothwell points out, Moore “bears no shortage of responsibility for fomenting the hatred that encourages our enemies to

attack and kill American troops.” He notes that when the Democrats made Moore the poster boy for the party by giving him a seat next to


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, “They neatly framed for all ordinary Americans a snapshot of everything that is wrong with the Democratic

Party: the fusion of today’s current vulgarity and contempt for American traditions and values, and yesterday’s misery and despair personified

by timidity in the face of foreign threats.” According to Bothwell, Democrats “obviously can’t understand that it’s Moore’s arrogance, vitriol

and incessant dishonesty that Americans consequently associate with their party.”

Oliver Stone joined many in the arts who signed the pubic statement of conscience drafted by Not in Our Name (NION), in which the

signatories promised to resist the U.S. policies “which pose grave dangers to the people of the world” and pledged alliance to those who

come under U.S. attack. Stone has also accused the U.S. government of purposefully allowing Osama bin Laden to escape unharmed while

pretending to be hot on his trail. Stone claims that Bin Laden “was completely protected by the oil companies in this country who told

[President] Bush not to go after him because it would piss off the Saudis.”

Antipathy to the U.S. military is most evident in a revealing remark by director Stone. In September 1987 he said, “I think American boys

have to die again. Let the mothers weep and mourn. I think America has to bleed.” 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. sanctions and threats of war against Iraq: “Our government has declared itself an

uncontested empire.” At a New York peace rally, he had nothing bad to say about Saddam Hussein but condemned President Bush and his “administration

of liars and murderers.”

Sean Penn visited Saddam Hussein’s Iraq twice. His first visit was in late 2002, set up by Norman Solomon of the left-wing Institute for Public

Accuracy (IPA). His second visit in late 2003 was orchestrated with the help of both Solomon and Medea Benjamin, head of Global Exchange.

In this type of trip, Global Exchange leads credulous American leftists through staged scenes meant to demonstrate the progress of

regimes it favors and the devastation done by the American intervention it opposes.




The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest group of feminist activists in the United States. It has more than 600,000 contributing

members and 450 chapters. Since its founding in 1966, its goal has been to bring about equality of all women. NOW describes itself

as a “multi-issue, multi-strategy organization.” Its current priorities include a constitutional equality amendment, reproductive rights

(NOW supports abortion), fighting racism (NOW is committed to ethnic diversity), lesbian rights (NOW seeks to “combat the adverse effects

of homophobia”), and economic justice.

Going far beyond its original charter, NOW has joined the ranks of 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 president Kim Gandy in March 2003: “We must keep raising our voices for

peace—and the harder that becomes, the more necessary it is.” Gandy is a former senior assistant district attorney in New Orleans and was active

in groups such as the Association of Democratic Women and the Lesbian and Gay Political Action Committee (LAGPAC).

NOW seeks to expose the Bush administration’s “exploitation” of 9/11 “to advance a right-wing political agenda.” It also seeks to end the

“U.S. campaign of militarism and corporate profit that has contributed to anti-American sentiment around the world.” Moreover, NOW calls

for an end to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East “that exacerbates the plight of women and children in these countries, including U.S.

military aggression.”

When NOW issued a proclamation denouncing the liberation of Iraq, it included a line that condemned “the draconian homeland defense

policies promoted by the Bush administration, and already enacted by Congress in the form of the Patriot Act.” Accordingly, NOW

called on its members to “expose the stifling of political dissent” by the Bush administration.

NOW had earlier strongly opposed the nomination to the Supreme Court of Clarence Thomas. One source notes that NOW was part of the

“lynch mob that conducted the most disgraceful campaign of character assassination in American history” during the Thomas hearings. NOW

teamed up with People for the American Way (PFAW) and other groups that spared no effort to discredit Thomas.

Seen in this way, NOW has taken an irrevocable hard left turn. Accordingly, there should be little surprise that NOW works coherently

with many of the other groups noted earlier in this book.


The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) describes itself as America’s “oldest and largest civil rights organization.”

The group’s roots reach back to 1905, with the Niagara Movement founded by W. E. B. DuBois. In 1909 the American Negro

Committee was formed, which was soon renamed the NAACP. During 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 spectrum from left to right.

But the NAACP grew from left-bent roots, and “those roots have in recent years killed the moderate branches that were briefly grafted to

this twisted tree,” according to Lowell Ponte. DuBois himself was a socialist who traveled to the USSR twice and praised the “racial attitudes

of the Communists.” In 1938 the NAACP was represented at the Soviet controlled 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-influenced Progressive Party, which ran Henry Wallace for president in 1948.

Since the glory days of the 1960s, the NAACP has taken a hard left turn. Recently the group has been in the hands of Julian Bond

(chairman of its board of directors) and its current president and CEO Bruce S. Gordon. During 2001 Bond told one audience that President

Bush’s nominees to various positions in the judiciary and his administration were from the “Taliban wing of the GOP.” Bond further stated,

“We knew that he was in the oil business. We didn’t know it was snake oil.”

The NAACP is opposed to school vouchers, which is a strange turn of events. In forty years it has gone from opposing segregated schools to

opposing school vouchers for inner-city children in failing and bankrupt schools. In this effort it has teamed up with the National Education Association

(NEA). To many black parents this is unfortunate, because blacks as a group are very fervent supporters of vouchers.

Today the NAACP functions as nothing more than a “left-wing auxiliary of the Democratic Party,” according to one account. The NAACP

Foundation in 2000 ran a notorious political television ad showing a chain being dragged behind a pickup truck and claiming that George

Bush, as Texas governor, had not signed “hate crimes” legislation to punish the racists who dragged a black man behind their truck and

murdered him. The NAACP did not mention that the killers had already received the maximum penalty permitted under Texas law and

that this “hate crimes” legislation would add nothing to their punishment. This was an “utterly dishonest, deceitful emotional appeal to

frighten, anger, and activate voters.”

The NAACP seems to be incapable of a reasonable and respectful exchange of ideas on race, and many African Americans note that it has

done nothing for the poor communities in the United States. Ward Connerly has asked whether anyone other than the NAACP can really

take this organization seriously anymore. The group has become “largely irrelevant” in the ongoing dialogue about race, and some, according

to Connerly, even see it as a “tragic farce.” “How can a group 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 members when they can. For example, the United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ)

steering committee must have at least 50 percent of its membership composed of “people of color.” Some African Americans who currently

sit on the UFPJ steering committee include Ajanu Dillahunt of Black Solidarity Against the War, Danu Smith of Black Voices for Peace, and

Graylan Hagler of the Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ of Washington DC.

Far more significant is the dual membership of some radical members of Congress in both the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and

the Progressive Caucus (discussed below). Also significant is that prominent black political leaders have occasionally had some “coach-

ing” from radical groups. For example, in 1984 Robert L. Borosage of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) was the foreign affairs adviser for

Jesse Jackson’s presidential bid.


Founded in 1973, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) is the principal organization that represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender (LGBT) individuals. It was also the first such organization in the country. The NGLTF organizes broad-based campaigns to defeat

anti-LGBT initiatives and advance pro-LGBT issues. The organization’s research institute provides analysis “to support the struggle for complete

equality.” The NGLTF sees itself as “part of a broader social justice movement” and the “unwavering and uncompromising national voice

within the LGBT movement.”

The gay vote is heavily Democratic. In the 2000 presidential and congressional elections, more than 67 percent of gay, lesbian, and bisexual

voters cast their votes for Democratic candidates. The Web site of the NGLTF urged its members to vote for John Kerry in November

2004. The support for Democrats among gay, lesbian, and bisexual voters 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 percent of the voting electorate.

The gay movement in the United States is very well organized and sharply focused on building political power. The NGLTF uses four primary

strategies to build political power for the LGBT community, among which are:

• Strengthening state and local grassroots activists’ power by building their capacity to organize and to initiate and respond appropriately

and effectively to a range of political struggles.

• Acting as the movement’s primary convener and coalition 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 and some members of Congress signaling that they will advance legislation

that could override existing state and local laws that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. As one NGLTF

spokesman put it, “The Bush administration now thinks it has carte blanche to run roughshod over the LGBT community and others.”

Seen in this light, it is no surprise that gay groups tend to gravitate 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 committed the NGLTF to support NION and its goals.

Other radical groups make special amends to include groups such as the NGLTF. For example, according to its bylaws, United for Peace

and Justice (UFPJ) maintains that at least 15 percent of the membership of its steering committee must be LGBT-identified persons.


The National Education Association (NEA) began in 1850 and adopted its present name in 1857. From the beginning it was devoted to promoting

government-owned public schools, and it permitted no private school teachers to join. The NEA is the premier group that represents American

teachers. With some 2.7 million dues-paying members, it brings in at 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 expend 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) employees who function as political operatives. This means that NEA on

a continuous basis “has more full-time paid professional political shock troops than the Republican and Democratic Parties combined.”

One observer characterizes the NEA as part labor union, part insurance conglomerate, part self-perpetuating staff oligarchy, and part

political party.21 After Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education, one NEA executive boasted that this was the only union with its

own cabinet department. At recent Democratic conventions, up to onequarter of delegates have been members of teachers’ unions. Other

unions include the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The NEA and

the AFT claim to represent more than 90 percent of unionized faculty and professional staff employed in U.S. colleges and universities.

The NEA has not been modest about imposing on students its own left-eyed values agenda, according to Lowell Ponte. The NEA promotes

the discounting of religion (except for Wiccan paganism and Islam); sex education and social equality for homosexuals; multiculturalism

that praises every minority while teaching that white America has always 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 guidelines on its national Web site suggesting that teachers should not “suggest

any group is responsible” for the terrorist attacks but should have students “discuss historical instances of American intolerance.”

Given the sorry state of U.S. public education, the NEA seeks to banish competition and test-score keeping—the kinds of things that it

fears and works to stifle. The NEA and the AFT also announced a joint lobbying effort to combat a provision in the Higher Education Reauthorization

Act that would promote greater intellectual diversity in U.S. colleges and universities and combat discrimination against students

for their political, religious, or ideological beliefs. This was a preemptive 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-interest group to contribute money to federal candidates and political parties.

During that time it donated more than $21 million, of which 95 percent went to Democrats and most of the rest went to the most liberal Republicans

running in primaries. Only the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) donated more money as a

single-interest group—and 98 percent of its money went to Democrats.



There is no shortage of lawyers on the leftist, liberal side of the spectrum.

Lawyers, in fact, head some of the most significant organizations described earlier. Political groups such as MoveOn and PFAW are

headed by lawyers, and lawyers are numbered among the most notorious, 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 plaintiffs’ lawyers involved in workers’ compensation litigation founded the National Association of Claimants’ Compensation

Attorneys (NACCA). They were devoted to securing strong representation for victims of industrial accidents, and the group soon attracted

admiralty, railroad, and personal-injury lawyers. The organization 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 a “broad-based international coalition of attorneys, law professors, paralegals,

and law students.”24 ATLA is the world’s largest trial bar, with more 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 the Kerry-Edwards campaign put in place six thousand lawyers—most of

whom were from ATLA—to tap every legal gimmick and Democrat appointed judge in the United States to challenge and attempt to overturn

the election if President Bush won reelection.25 In the days before 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 George 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 association 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 leading contributors to the campaigns of Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and Diane

Watson (D-CA), and it has also contributed money to the campaign of Maxine Waters (D-CA). These three are all members of the radical Progressive

Caucus, and all three have undertaken outrageous activities in recent years.


A thorough discussion of the media must include the print media, the broadcast media, and the “other” media. Print media include newspapers,

magazines, book publishers, direct mail and newsletters, and wire services. Broadcast media include both television and radio.

“Other” 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 influence is especially apparent in many newspapers and in network television

news. There are three major exceptions, however. Radio appears 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 well documented by now. One media institution after another has come

under heavy fire, from the New York Times to CBS News to Newsweek.

The media’s problems include a seemingly endless series of scandals 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 presidential election by its coverage of President Bush’s National Guard record, and

the most recent retraction by Newsweek of its story of U.S. soldiers “desecrating the Koran” was another body blow to the credibility of

the print media.

More than ever before, the press is seen as less professional, less moral, less accurate, and less caring about the interests of the country,

according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which has tracked the media’s steep decline in credibility. Between 1985 and 2002

the percentage of Americans who believed news organizations are politically biased rose from 45 to 59 percent.

At the same time, there is ample evidence of a strong liberal bias in most corners of the print media. According to Bernard Goldberg, just

about every editorial writer and columnist for the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe is a liberal.27 Moreover,

there are ample statistical data that demonstrate the liberal bias of the press:

• In a 1985 survey by the Los Angeles Times of three thousand journalists, 55 percent self-identified as liberal (vs. 23 percent of the

entire population), 30 percent favored Ronald Reagan (vs. 56 percent of the population), and 81 percent favored affirmative action

(vs. 56 percent of the population).

• In a 1996 survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 89 percent voted for Bill Clinton in 1992,

7 percent voted for George H. W. Bush, and 2 percent voted for Ross Perot, according to the Freedom Forum and the Roper Center.

In the very same survey, 50 percent of this group self identified as Democrats and 4 percent self-identified as Republicans. Moreover, 61 percent self-identified

as liberal or moderate to liberal, while only 9 percent self-identified as conservative or moderate to conservative.29

• In a 2000 poll by Brill’s Content, 74 percent of Republicans believe most journalists are more liberal than they are, and a significant

47 percent of Democrats believed that most journalists are more liberal than they are.


Closer examination reveals quite a number of individuals with radical links who have served with one or another major newspaper. Here are

a few:

• Todd Gitlin is a former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) president who later become a university professor (New York

University, Berkeley, and Columbia, among others), and since then has been a frequent columnist in the New York Times.

• 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 Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) as a senior fellow from 1982 to 1992

and later became a professor at George Mason University.

• Saul Landau was associated with the IPS starting in 1972 and has 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 position at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona.

• William Arkin has been a military affairs columnist with the Los Angeles Times and has also served at the IPS. He also serves as a

commentator on MSNBC. He is a purveyor of classified information with contacts in the media and policy-making world.


There is also the issue of fleeting partnerships between journalists and 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. relations with allies. A few examples:

• Robert Kaiser of the Washington Post was assigned to look at El Salvador, specifically to rebut a State Department white paper on

Communist interference there—after an Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) official urged the Post to challenge the report. The central

part of Kaiser’s investigation of the report relied on information from Philip Agee (former CIA officer and traitor). After the State

Department responded with a telling refutation of Kaiser’s story, the Post reluctantly and belatedly apologized for the Kaiser-Agee

story—but editors relegated the apology to the back of the paper.

Kaiser also participated in IPS’s alternative arms-control talks in May 1983 and in September 1985, events that brought together

many in the U.S. peace movement as well as Soviet intelligence officials.

• In his 1986 book about the shooting down of a Korean airliner in 1983, The Target Is Destroyed, Seymour Hersh credits William

Arkin and others (with whom “he worked closely . . . in shaping . . . requests for documents under the Freedom of Information

Act”). Hersh exposed new information about U.S. technical intelligence collection, and CIA director William Casey stated that

Hersh was “perilously close to prosecution” for revealing so much about intelligence secrets. Hersh did not mention that

Arkin was working on a project at that time for the IPS. By way of background, Hersh had been influenced by I. F. Stone early in his

career and is a friend of Daniel Schorr, who himself was involved in a major leak of CIA information in 1976.

• William Arkin also teamed up with Leslie Gelb in a major disclosure of classified information. Gelb has worked with the New York

Times as a columnist, national security correspondent, and op-ed page editor from 1981 to 1993. Before that he had served at the

Defense Department and State Department. Arkin (then with the IPS) leaked classified information to Gelb, who published a story

in February 1985 entitled “U.S. Tries to Fight Allied Resistance to Nuclear Arms.” Gelb revealed that the United States had contingency

plans to deploy nuclear depth charges in many countries abroad. This story severely damaged U.S. relations with its NATO

allies. Gelb’s earlier career may be tracked back to at least 1970, when he participated in an IPS conference with Daniel Ellsberg

and Morton Halperin.

• When Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times was finally admitted to North Vietnam, Wilfred Burchett (a notorious agent of influence)

was at his side to guide his tour and to serve as liaison when Salisbury’s North Vietnamese hosts offered him material.

When Salisbury’s stories appeared in the front page of the New York Times, their perspective was replete with Burchett’s interpretation

of events: the United States was purposefully bombing civilian targets. Throughout his reporting Salisbury was manipulated

by the North Vietnamese as he played up the David-and-Goliath theme of the war.


Those newsmagazines with the greatest circulation are largely liberal in 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 is more middle-of-the-road. Meanwhile, those with less circulation are liberal

as well; they include Atlantic Monthly (circulation about 460,000) as well as Harper’s (circulation about 213,000). Some very liberal journals

include Mother Jones (circulation about 151,000) and New Republic (circulation about 96,000).

The upshot here is that these newsmagazines generally do not bother to dig deep into the roots and connections of Far-Left organizations.

Most of them are likely to give benign or positive coverage to 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 to one shade or another. There is also no question that conservative authors

always have a hard time getting their books published by the mainstream publishing houses. Michael Medved has stated, “New York

book publishing is actually the last bastion of one-party rule in the world . . . even after Albania became a two-party state.” One source


Wave 1: 2003

Jim Hightower. Thieves in High Places: They’ve Stolen Our Country—And It’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. New York: Dutton Books, 2003.

Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose. Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America. New York: Random House, 2003.

David Corn. The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. New York: Crown, 2003.

Michael Moore. Dude, Where’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 “Free Republic” that the “first thing to remember is that most publishers are liberal whores, controlled by liberal whores or

intimidated into conformity by liberal whores.”35

The fact that most publishing houses are decidedly liberal was most apparent during 2003 and 2004 and especially in the months before the

November 2004 election. Bush bashing was in full force then, with an unprecedented host of anti-Bush titles by a variety of authors.


Radicals from the Far Left have infiltrated all U.S. institutions to one degree 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 of Bush. New York: Viking, 2004.

Ron Suskind. The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.

John Dean.Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. New York: Little, Brown, 2004.

Michael John Dobbins. Stop Bush in 2004: How Every Citizen Can Help. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2004.

Bill Press. Bush Must Go: The Top Ten Reasons Why George Bush Doesn’t Deserve a Second Term. New York: Dutton Books, 2004.

Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer, and Brendan Nyhan. All the President’s Spin: George W. Bush, the Media, 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, 2004.

Seymour Hersh. Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. New York: HarperCollins, 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 there 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 and struggles take place.

During an earlier era there were radical members of the House of Representatives. Several were swept in during the aftermath of the Vietnam

War. Ron Dellums (D-CA) was perhaps the greatest champion of radical groups to appear in Congress during the last half of the twentieth

century. He endorsed the Black Panthers, addressed the World 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 causes and served from 1971 to 1981. Bella Abzug (D-NY) was a founder of

the Women’s Strike for Peace (WSP), a Communist-infiltrated organization, 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 Members of Congress for Peace Through Law (MCPL). Among others, they

included Senators George McGovern (D-SD), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Walter Mondale (D-MN), and Philip Hart (D-MI).

It is also illuminating to see which congressmen have been backers 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), Ted Weiss (D-NY), and the ever-present John Conyers. On the Senate side,

Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mark Hatfield (D-OR), and John Kerry (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 a contact of Orlando Letelier, a notorious agent of influence. Harrington

demanded classified testimony from CIA director William Colby, and 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 September 1974, a story that set the stage for the “time of troubles” for CIA

and the intelligence community during the various investigations from 1975 to 1978.37

The Senate has its own issues as well. For example, Senator Walter Mondale served on the Senate Intelligence Committee headed by

Senator Frank Church (D-ID) in the 1970s. One of Mondale’s aides, David Aaron of the Center for International Policy, employed Rick Inderfurth

and Gregory Treverton—both of whom are also contacts of Orlando Letelier (the former Chilean ambassador to the United States

and IPS executive who was assassinated in Washington DC on September 21, 1976).

On top of that, Senator Church himself was influenced by a report 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 of influence, Wilfred Burchett, and traitor Philip Agee.

It is not always easy to tell where party loyalties fall. One example is that several members of Congress are also members of the Democratic

Socialists of America (DSA). These include Major Owens (D-NY), 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 DSA 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 what extent this wing has spread its influence and values to the rest of the

Democratic Party.


The Progressive Caucus is made up of the most Far-Left members of Congress and best represents the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. This

group shares a common belief in the “principles of social and economic justice, non-discrimination, and tolerance in America and in our relationships

with other countries.” Specifically this group supports curbs on defense spending; it seeks a more progressive tax system that soaks

the rich; and it is for social programs that are designed “to extend help to low and middle-income Americans in need.” The Progressive Caucus

has long been allied with the Democratic Socialists of America. As of 2003, there were some fifty-four members, of whom eight were officers.

The current heads are Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee. (There is no recent data for the 109th Congress, which meets from 2005 to 2006.)

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) dates back to 1969, when 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 “to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens.” It also pushes for a national commitment to fair

treatment for middle- and low-income wage earners, the economic disadvantaged, and a “new world order.” Many of these members of Congress

come from artificially drawn districts produced by racial gerrymandering, and some of these individuals slant so far to the Left it

is easy to detect their radical orientation. Of fourteen selected members 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, and they often do not hesitate to associate publicly with groups that

other progressive congressmen shun. In mid-1983 a demonstration opposing President Reagan’s Central American policy was held in


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 People’s Anti-War Mobilization, which was dominated by members of the Workers World Party. Five

members of the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed the movement: George Crockett, Ronald Dellums, Mickey Leland, Parren Mitchell,

and John Conyers. At this very function, a Communist Party member addressed the crowd and stated that the United States is not going to

El Salvador to kill Communists, “but to kill women and children.”

House Resolution (HR) 104 was conceived with the goal of “expressing the support and appreciation of the nation for the President and the

members of the armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom.” It was intended as a nonpartisan declaration of solidarity

with U.S. military forces engaged in combat there. It was not an endorsement of the war, but was merely meant to provide symbolic support

for the troops in the field.

This nonbinding House resolution passed easily (392–11 in the House and 99–0 in the Senate). But 11 members of Congress voted

against this resolution. All were Democrats, and most were members of the CBC. Another 21 Democrats voted “present” for the resolution, a

non vote of political cowardice, in which they were unwilling to decide whether they stood behind American troops risking their lives in Iraq.


John Conyers represents the Fourteenth District of Michigan. First 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 Democratic Party and the House Judiciary Committee, and in 1971 he was

one of the original members of President Nixon’s “enemies list.” He is one of the most radical members of Congress, and even appeared in

Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, discussing the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. During all his years in Washington, Conyers has been a consistent

champion of radical causes, including the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). In 1981 Conyers co-hosted a delegation from the Soviet front

World Peace Council, giving that group a forum in Congress. Conyers endorsed a Communist-led antiwar demonstration in Washington in

1983, and he also spoke at another Washington demonstration led by ANSWER in 2003. In between those events, he has spent great efforts to

rail against American policy. He is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus and a member of the Progressive Caucus.

Barbara Lee represents Berkeley and all it stands for. She cast the lone vote against authorizing President Bush to fight al-Qaeda. Speaking

just three days after 9/11, she stated that the president really wanted to “embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused

target.” She had previously cast the lone vote against a resolution expressing support of the troops already fighting in Serbia. She served

for nine years on the staff of her predecessor, Rep. Ron Dellums, rising to become his chief of staff. In 1983 Lee conducted a “fact-finding” mission

to the pro-Soviet regime of Grenada and later submitted a propaganda “report” 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, reflecting her own admiration for Castro. Barbara Lee has been described

as “an anti-American Communist who supports America’s enemies and has actively collaborated with them in their war against

America.”44 Lee was recently the co-chairman of the Progressive Caucus 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 California (south-central Los Angeles). In 1984 she was co-chairman of Jesse

Jackson’s presidential campaign. She once referred to President George H. W. Bush as a “racist” and routinely refers to the Republican Party as

“the enemy.” Waters has publicly blamed the epidemic of crack-cocaine use among blacks on the U.S. government. She steadfastly maintained

that the CIA sold the deadly drug to black communities in a deliberate campaign of decimation. Regardless of the sensational and baseless nature

of these charges, she has never recanted them, even after 9/11. She has also publicly supported racist violence. She called the 1992 Los Angeles

riots a “revolution,” defending the anti-white and anti-Asian violence, and paid a personal visit to the home of one of the most notorious

rioters. She saw the riots as a “spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice.”

Waters once claimed that she never saw LA police officers abuse “little white boys” and has also stated, “I don’t have time to be polite.”Waters

has also traveled several times to Cuba, heaped praise on Castro, and has called for an end to the U.S. embargo against his government. President

Bill Clinton appointed Waters’s second husband, a former car salesman, to be the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas. Organized labor is by far Waters’s

biggest campaign contributor, and she also benefits from contributions from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) and

Viacom, which owns CBS. She is a member of both the Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, and she headed the latter

group from 1997 to 1998.

Cynthia McKinney represents the Fourth District of Georgia. She has accused President Bush of being responsible for the 9/11 attacks

and of having personally profited by them. When her outrageous remarks were published, she later “apologized,” saying, “I am not aware

of any evidence showing that President Bush . . . personally profited from the attacks . . . [but] a complete investigation might reveal that to

be the case.” Fellow Georgia Democrat Senator Zell Miller described McKinney’s conspiracy theory as “loony” and “dangerous and irresponsible,”

and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution derided her as “the most prominent nut” among conspiracy-peddling nuts. As such, McKinney

has elevated to the level of fine art the “anyone who stands to gain must be responsible” school of thought. McKinney was voted out of office

in 2002, after which time her father and campaign manager blamed the 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 and anti-Semite of the first rank, and, “If she were white and male, she

would be David Duke.” McKinney has taken a very high profile against the Iraq War, speaking at demonstrations organized by Act Now

to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) in October 2002 and in January 2005. She has also provided propaganda for anti-government guerrillas

in Colombia, has voted against school vouchers for black parents in Washington DC, and voted against ending racial preferences in college

admissions. She has voted repeatedly to cut U.S. aid to Israel and enjoys strong support from the Arab and Muslim interest groups, who

see her as a strong backer of a Palestinian state. One of McKinney’s biggest contributors is the Association of Trial Lawyers of America

(ATLA), because she has voted against legislation that would limit their profits. She is strongly supported by organized labor as well, since a

very large proportion of her contributions originate from outside the state and especially from California. She belongs to the Congressional

Black Caucus.

Diane Watson represents the carefully gerrymandered Thirty-third District in Southern California. Watson is a former teacher and school

psychologist who was named as ambassador to Micronesia by President 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, “America is a racist state” to a UN-sponsored symposium in Durban, South Africa, in

2001. At that time she and six other congressional Democrats attended 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 campaign contributors are labor unions and the Association of Trial

Lawyers of America (ATLA). She is a member of both the Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Jim McDermott represents the Seventh District of Washington. He set off for Iraq with fellow Congressmen David Bonior (D-MI) and Mike

Thompson (D-CA) and concluded that President Bush was a liar. He stated, “I think that the president would mislead the American people,”

and he charged Bush with trying to provoke Iraq into a war. He also stated, “I think you have to take the Iraqis at face value,” and claimed

that the Iraqi officials “said they would allow us to go look anywhere we wanted.” This performance was in the best tradition of the discredited

U.S. ambassador to the USSR in the 1930s, Joseph Davies, and earned McDermott and his fellow travelers the titles of “spokespeople for the

Iraqi government” and “the three stooges of Baghdad.” They distinguished themselves as they did the bidding of Saddam Hussein and his

corrupt and tyrannical regime in the halls of Congress. McDermott is a member of the Progressive Caucus.


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 personal assistants, and a typical senator had 42. Currently some senators have a

staff of 70 or more. This presents unlimited opportunities for ambitious 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, and they continue to work the Hill today. The best case in recent years

concerns congressional aide Susan Lindauer. She is a very public antiwar activist, from the bumper stickers on her aging Mazda to her signature

on a published antiwar petition. She fits in well with her leftist home suburb of Takoma Park, Maryland. In March 2004 Lindauer was

arrested and charged with conspiracy, acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government, and taking money from a government that supports

terrorism. Lindauer engaged in prohibited dealings with several 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 to 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 as a Libyan intelligence officer seeking to support resistance groups fighting

U.S. forces in postwar Iraq. Lindauer communicated clandestinely, as she filled two dead drops in Takoma Park, Maryland.

Significantly, Lindauer worked in the offices of four prominent Democratic lawmakers. In May 1993 she was hired by Congressman

Peter DeFazio (D-OR), whose political views matched her own. De- Fazio has been not just a member but also an officer of the Progressive

Caucus, one of the group’s key decision makers and drivers. DeFazio’s ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) rating was 90 in 2000 and 95

in 2002. ADA ratings are percentages that indicate the frequency of voting to support issues backed by the Left. In January 1994 Congressman

Ron Wyden (D-OR) hired Lindauer. Wyden is another denizen of the 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 Moseley Braun (D-IL), but worked for her only until September 1996. Moseley

Braun’s lifetime ADA rating is 88. In 2002 Lindauer was hired by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and worked with her office for only

two months. Lofgren’s ADA rating in 2000 was 85, and her rating in 2002 was a perfect 100.

According to the mainstream media, Lindauer’s jobs on the staffs of four prominent Democratic lawmakers were buried many paragraphs

into any stories about their work, if they were reported at all. The fact 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, these leftist Democrats likely knew one another’s staffs, and Lindauer’s first

three jobs transitioned smoothly from DeFazio to Wyden to Moseley Braun.

Lindauer’s statement after her arrest says plenty about her and how she saw her role: “I’m an antiwar activist and I’m innocent. I did more

to stop terrorism in this country than anybody else. I have done good things for this country.” Some of the press coverage about the case says

a lot about the media as well. This headline appeared in the Seattle Post- Intelligencer: “Accused Spy Is Cousin of Bush Staffer.” That headline

helps you understand why the media are held in such low regard by the public, with public acceptance ratings that usually come in somewhere

between Nigerian e-mail scammers and serial pedophiles.


Make their strategy come apart. This is time-honored advice from ancient Chinese strategists such as Sun Tzu. It pays to discover what factions

make up a group and what groups make up a coalition. For these groups to be outfought, they must be thoroughly understood and then

outthought. A good awareness of these organizations and their operational style is essential.

Separate those that pose a significant political threat from those who do not. A group’s net influence is related to its organizing skill, its

financial management, its longevity, and its ability to mobilize large 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 for the American Way (PFAW), MoveOn, Institute for Policy Studies (IPS),

and Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER). Of some of the Washington-based groups, their nerve centers are listed below.


Institute for Policy Studies

733 15th Street NW, Suite 1020

Washington DC 20005

(202) 234–9382

ANSWER and International Action Center (IAC)

1247 E Street SE

Washington DC 20003

(202) 544–3389

People for the American Way

2000 M Street NW, Suite 400

Washington DC 20036

(202) 467–4999

Use their own tools against them. The Far Left should not enjoy a monopoly on the campus tactics of guerrilla theater or “truth squads”

that follow controversial speakers around. Ridicule is a powerful 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 are self-appointed, self-important, self-absorbed, self-serving, and self righteous.

WE HAVE JOURNEYED DOWN Alice in Wonderland’s rabbit hole into a 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 way it seems.

In the preceding pages, we have seen the various weapons of mass distortion our adversaries used during the cold war, some of which are

used today. We have seen that some Americans chose to side with our country’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 after 2000, all the while trying to capture their connections as well as their beliefs

and operating philosophies. We have seen that larger enterprises (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-Left 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 in the future.

Some key findings emerged along the way. These groups have recurring patterns of operations and tactics. They continue to look for

new ways to undermine our country’s ability to defend itself at home 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 radical groups give aid and comfort to U.S. enemies while liberal groups

give aid and comfort to the radical groups. We now know that the money flow really matters but is little understood, and also we know

that there is a paramount need to check one’s sources of information.

There is probably greater interaction between Far-Left groups and foreign officials than is apparent. And finally, it appears that the best way

to counteract the influence of these groups is to use the time-honored tools of exposure and awareness.

To maintain perspective, I will now reintroduce you into the outside world and point out where the world of the Far Left fits into the

larger picture.


Of our population of about three hundred million, those who inhabit these Far-Left groups comprise a small percentage. Yet they are loud,

persistent, and often—but not always—well organized. They exert influence 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 they are a permanent presence on the American political scene. They will be

active in antiwar demonstrations, in Supreme Court confirmation hearings, 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 year in the near and distant future. In addition to these electoral collisions

there will also be collisions—or at least major scrapes—over issues such as immigration, energy, homeland security, abortion, and public

prayer. But what will be the outcome of such collisions? Which leaders 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 constants that will not change. One will be the ongoing battle for the hearts

and minds of young people. Their opinions are especially malleable in the age of instant messaging, instant gratification, and instant “answers”

to the world’s problems.


Why emphasize the mass media and the techniques of propaganda, opinion shaping, perception management, and linguistic distortion?

Look back at how people were so easily misled in the days after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. Rumors spread rapidly, including:

• a monster crocodile was fished out of New Orleans flood waters

• sharks were swimming through the submerged streets

• babies were being raped

• rat-gnawed corpses were floating in the streets

• police officers were being shot point-blank in the head

• snipers were firing at rescue helicopters

In Henry IV, Shakespeare observed, “Rumor is a pipe blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures.” Factor in the frenzied nature of the New

Orleans atmosphere, the lack of adequate communications, and the pervasiveness and the embellishment of these stories in cyberspace. All

were ideal conditions for rumors to flourish, as Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post has noted. Unfortunately, race and social status

emerged as issues as well, for many politicians quickly played those cards and claimed that the Bush administration neglected the hurricane

victims because they were black or poor. And many people were eager to accept rumors, half truths, or other urban legends if such falsehoods

served to vilify the present administration.


Do not confuse mainline liberals who seek peace and social justice with the Far-Left figures in this book. I have focused on the latter—those who

give material aid and comfort to our enemies, those who work to weaken 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 is the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It permanently

changed the nature of this country. Another is the environmentalist movement that took shape in the 1970s and 1980s. Those environmental

protections put in place have done much to protect our air, drinking water, forests, wetlands, and coral reefs. But much legislation that has

been issued in the intervening years and the issues of today are not the same as those of fifty years ago—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 and the distorting and divisive twists that radicals later added to them. Note,

for example, those civil rights and environmental pioneers of earlier times and the radicals of today who have tried to hijack those movements—

those pushing for black “reparations” or the ecoterrorists of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).


We do not need any more demonology. Let us not forget that Americans have a long history of working together. They can be political adversaries

and not enemies. They can have different interpretations of issues without drawing battle lines and lobbing media grenades. For example,

traditional adversaries such as President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) could reflect at the end of the day over a drink.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could stop the demonizing, ranting, smearing, screaming, and hyperventilating? Sometimes it is easy to forget

that we are all Americans, born under the same flag, carrying the same passports, using the same currency. Many are wishing to reintroduce

civility, courtesy, mutual respect, and acceptance of democratic political outcomes.

However, such a truce—an Appomattox moment—is unlikely to come anytime soon, that time when both sides of the cultural civil war

call for an end to hostilities. Ramsey Clark (who accused President Bush of high crimes and impeachable offenses) is unlikely to extend his

hand first. Nor is Danny Glover (he calls the Bush administration liars and murderers). Nor is Howard Dean (“I hate the Republicans and

everything they stand for”). More likely, some of the most radical will extend their hand to our country’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 immediate 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 Left 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 inhabit 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 passively accepting what they profess or for sitting on the sidelines, for

there is too much at stake.

********Passionate Pachyderms would like to Thank Mr.  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.  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,  we feel confident we are providing as clear a picture as we possibly can to assist our fellow Patriots in this regard.  *******

Next up: Who’s involved and what role do they play

Part 10 In the series,  Politics, A Disgustingly Dirty Game Filled With Unbelievably Vile Things

By: Passionate Pachyderms

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2024 www.passionatepachyderms.com. All Rights Reserved. 
Warning: Use of undefined constant on - assumed 'on' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/customer/www/passionatepachyderms.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/fantastic-copyright-free/fantasticcopyrightfree.php on line 135
Premium WordPress Plugins

Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.