Click to enlarge

“Inspire” is an English language online magazine reported to be published by the organization Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The English language glossy magazine is extremely well produced and is aimed at U.S. and European audiences.

The magazine is thought to be the work of Anwar al-Awlaki, an English-speaking cleric and al-Qaeda leader based in Yemen. Awlaki is currently on the United States’ “kill or capture” list.

The editorial in Inspire’s March 2011 issue, signed by one Yahya Ibrahim, analyzes recent turmoil in the Middle East, and consequences for Al Qaeda, Israel and the West.

Al Qaeda sees the recent uprisings across the region as opening up new opportunities to attack Israel.

Al Qaeda and the Arabic community or “ummah” plan to “meet” in the sacred Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

The editorial does not make comforting reading, for those who think “democracy” is “sweeping the Arab world”.

The cover of this issue is about the Tsunami of change that is sweeping the Arab world. With the removal of the despots, the ummah will speak its voice, and when it does, it will chant: Here we start and in al-Aqsa we’ll meet.

The biggest barrier between the mujahidin and freeing al-Aqsa were the tyrant rulers. Now that the friends of America and Israel are being mopped out one after the other, our aspirations are great that the path between us and al-Aqsa is clearing up.

There could be no freeing of Palestine with the presence of the likes of King Abdullah to the East, Hosni Mubarak to the West and al-Saud to the South. Now that Hosni is gone, we heard the Imam of the Friday prayers praying: “O Allah we ask you to allow us to meet in al-Aqsa,” and the millions inTahrir square roared with one voice: Âmîn.

The issue of Palestine is central to the Muslim ummah and now that the masses have spoken, there is no doubt that it will be back to the forefront.

The friends of the West are leaving, the issue of Palestine will be back on the table, the preaching of jihad for the defense of the Muslim ummah will be heard publicly in societies that have freed themselves from the tyrants, and we pray that the heavy handed security measures imposed by the despots to keep America and its allies safe and keep their populations terrorized will be over.

The West has publicly stated its support for the revolution of the masses. But do they really mean it? Or is it because they do not realize the reality of what is happening? Or is it just because they feel that they must join the bandwagon?

The West also believes that the revolts are bad for al Qaeda. This is not the case. Why would the freedoms being granted to the people be bad for al Qaeda? If freedom is so bad for al Qaeda, how come the West has been practicing a restriction on the freedoms of expression when it comes to the message of the mujahidin? Why does the West ban the spread of books and talks of the al Qaeda leadership and in some countries consider it to be a crime to be in possession of such material? Why did the U.S. request from a site such as YouTube to take off lectures by Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki?

Another line that is being pushed by Western leaders is that because the protests in Egypt and Tunisia were peaceful, they proved al Qaeda – which calls for armed struggle – to be wrong. That is another fallacy. Al Qaeda is not against regime changes through protests but it is against the idea that the change should be only through peaceful means to the exclusion of the use of force. In fact Shaykh Ayman al-Zawahiri spoke in support of the protests that swept Egypt back in 2007 and he alluded to the fact that even if the protests were peaceful, the people need to prepare themselves militarily.

The accuracy of this view is proven by the turn of events in Libya. If the protesters in Libya did not have the flexibility to use force when needed, the uprising would have been crushed.

It is our opinion that the revolutions that are shaking the thrones of dictators are good for the Muslims, good for the mujahidin and bad for the imperialists of the West and their henchmen in the Muslim world.

We are very optimistic and have great expectations of what is to come.

I hope this editorial is widely circulated. Western military resources are being risked and tax money being wasted to “liberate” Libya. The West has stood by, even offered encouragement, while Islamic and socialist extremists have toppled or endangered several pro-Western, or moderate regimes in the Middle East.

These revolutions are not about “democracy”. They are about bringing anti-Western extremists to power in every nation in the region.

Israel, and other Western nations could suffer horrendous consequences if this madness is not reversed.

We should take our enemy at his word.

Print Friendly

Red Reps 4 here

The U.S.’s largest Marxist organization Democratic Socialists of America has infiltrated members and supporters into several state legislatures across the nation. Usually posing as Democrats, the covert socialists are then used to promote D.S.A. legislation and causes, such as gun control, single payer health care, leftist labor legislation etc. at the state level.

Michael Paymar

One such infiltrator is long-time Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party State Representative Michael Paymar.

First elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 1996, Paymar is now serving in his 7th term as a legislator from St. Paul, Minnesota. He is chair of the Public Safety Finance Division which has budget oversight over the Department of Correction, Department of Public Safety, Department of Human Rights, the Courts and crime victim programs. He is also member of the House Finance Committee, Public Safety Policy Division and the Civil Justice Division.

Michael Paymar is also a member of the Council of State Governments Public Safety and Justice Task Force and the National Conference of State Legislatures Committee on Law and Justic.

Paymar has been a strong advocate of gun control, socialized health care and of measures to combat domestic violence. The last is a very worthy cause, but is one often hi-jacked by feminists and socialists to extract money from government and foundations and to denigrate men and masculine institutions.

Paymar is a co-founder of the well known (some would say “infamous”) Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project.

Paymar serves a Resource Specialist for the leftist Battered Women’s Justice Program in Minneapolis, providing training and technical assistance to professionals in the criminal and civil justice system, law enforcement and the U.S. military on ways to end domestic violence.

As a consultant with George Soros‘ Soros foundation and Advocates for Human Rights, Michael Paymar worked with NGOs in Eastern Europe, Europe, the Caucusus, central Asia, China and Australia. He has worked with the Department of Defense in the United States and military installations in Japan, Guam, Iceland, Hawaii, North Carolina, Florida, and California.

In 2010 Paymar addressed a National Institute of Justice conference on the Violence Against Women Act, with Lynn Rosenthal, White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, Office of the Vice President of the United States.

What evidence do I have to prove that Michael Paymar is a covert Marxist?

In 1996, D.S.A. sent six staff members into the field for the final weeks of the election campaign. These staff and D.S.A. volunteers “contributed to the re-election of Senator Paul Wellstone and Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-upstate NY).”

D.S.A. leader Christine Riddiough was assigned to Wellstone’s campaign in Minnesota. While there she also met Michael Paymar;

While in Minnesota I had the fortune to meet with many members of Twin Cities DSA. The group is planning to meet regularly to work on DSA’s Action Agenda and to draw together Minnesota socialists. In my election work I ran across another DSA member, Michael Paymar, who was running for the Minnesota legislature. Along with Wellstone, he, too, won on Tuesday. He now joins the ranks of DSAers and other progressives who are trying to change American politics while serving in public office.

D.S.A.’s Democratic Left, Nov./Dec. 1996, page 18

How many of the thousands of Minnesota voters who put Michael Paymar into office realized they were voting for a covert Marxist? Has any of Michael Paymar’s campaign literature, or public statements ever mentioned his Democratic Socialists of America affiliation?

D.S.’s goals include to “abolish private ownership of the means of production“, increase progressive taxation, promote gun control, introduce socialized health care in every state and gradually turn the U.S. into a socialist country.

Are these aims in line with the views of most Minnesota voters?

Perhaps some enterprising journalist could ask Michael Paymar to explain his Marxist affiliation and why he has never bothered to tell Minnesota voters about his D.S.A. connection.

Print Friendly

I posted here on an upcoming national activist “teach-in” on “Debt, Austerity and Corporate Greed” being organized by Democratic Socialists of America leaders Frances Fox Piven and Cornel West.

D.S.A. and its youth wing Young Democratic Socialists and their various fronts are getting right behind the event;

To join that movement and escalate the activism planned in the days, weeks and months ahead we are organizing a “National Teach-in on Debt, Austerity and How People Are Fighting Back…”

More than one hundred campuses have signed up to participate in the teach in. Scheduled for April 5th at 2 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Savings Time), the event seeks to counter the drumbeat of right-wing propaganda. Content will be streamed live to teach-ins organized in local communities from the national teach-in at Judson Memorial Church in New York City. The local teach-ins will use the streamed material and add their own speakers that focus on their community. DSA has endorsed this program and is encouraging local groups and YDS chapters to organize local events that connect to the national teach-in. Jobs with Justice, the Student Labor Labor Project, and others are promoting the teach-in…

Now we learn that three other prominent activists will join the “teach-in.”

Soros center, Sachs right, NY, May 2008

• Jeffrey Sachs – One of the most dangerous socialists on the world stage. Sachs is Director of the UN Millennium Project and is Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. He is also the Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University. Sachs is a long time beneficiary of funding from George Soros controlled organizations. Sachs addresses the Party of European Socialists in Prague , Czech Republic , 6-7 December 2009, calling for higher taxes in the U.S. and worldwide re-distribution of wealth.
• Heather McGhee – Washington office chief of Demos,a radical New York “think” closely tied to Democratic Socialists of America and the far left Institute for Policy Studies. Barack Obama was a founding board member of Demos in the early 2000s, while Obama’s one time “Green Jobs Czar” and “former” communist Van Jones served on the board of Demos a few years later.
• Richard Trumka, President of the left dominated AFL-CIO and a long time affiliate of Democratic Socialists of America. Poul Rasmussen, leader of the Party of European Socialists and co-chair of the Global Progressive Forum has described Trumka as “one of the most progressive people in the United States of America”

This is a big deal.

Five of the most influential socialists in the country, are inciting thousands of young college age activists to take to the streets of America.

The same people who gave us Egypt and Libya…

Print Friendly

Why Did U.S. President Barack Obama order a military attack on Libya? Why did he seek the permission of the United Nations Security Council, but not that of the U.S. Congress – as he is constitutionally obliged to do?

Glenn Beck has explained President Obama’s decision to attack Libya in terms of the United Nations’ “Responsibility to Protect Doctrine”

Mr Beck is right.

According to Radio Free Europe

Those who justify the Libyan intervention on humanitarian grounds draw much of their logic from a concept which has dramatically gained ground over recent decades. The concept is known as “R2P,” shorthand for the world’s “Responsibility to Protect” civilians.

But what does this catchy little phrase mean? Where did it come from? What are its implications?

The United Nations reported in July 2009;

The Obama administration is supporting moves to implement an U.N. doctrine calling for collective military action to halt genocide. In a week-long debate on implementing the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, the U.S. joined a majority of U.N. countries, including Russia and China, in supporting implementation of the policy. The doctrine itself was approved in 2005 by more than 150 states including the U.S.
The doctrine specifies that diplomatic options such as internal conflict resolution, sanctions, and prosecution by the International Criminal Court, should be used first. If they don’t work, then a multi-national force approved by the Security Council would be deployed.

In other words, if the United Nations does not approve of a certain government’s behavior, and that government’s leaders will not respond to sanctions and the threat of prosecution, they will be attackeded militarily.

The U.S. organization supporting this concept, named unsurprisingly Responsibility to Protect is affiliated to a financial planning firm, General Welfare Group LLC, based in Oak Brook Illinois.

According to the Responsibility to Protect website

The doctrine of the responsibility to protect was first elaborated in 2001 by a group of prominent international human rights leaders comprising the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Under their mandate, the Commission sought to undertake the two-fold challenge of reconciling the international community’s responsibility to address massive violations of humanitarian norms and ensuring respect for the sovereign rights of nation states.

Led by Gareth Evans, former Foreign Minister of Australia, and Mohamed Sahnoun, Special Advisor to the UN Secretary-General, the Commission issued its report in December 2001. Focusing on the “right of humanitarian intervention”, this report examined when, if ever, it is appropriate for states for take coercive – and in particular military – action, against another state for the purpose of protecting populations at risk. In essence, the group concluded that when a group (or groups) of people is suffering from egregious acts of violence resulting from internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state where these crimes are taking place is unable or unwilling to act to prevent or protect its peoples, the international community has a moral duty to intervene to avert or halt these atrocities from occurring.

Gareth Evans, an Australian Fabian Socialist and Mohamed Sahnoun both worked with leftist financier George Soros in the highly influential International Crisis Group.

The “responsibility to protect” doctrine received renewed emphasis in 2004 when the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan created the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change. The Panel was established to “identify major threats facing the international community in the broad field of peace and security and to generate new ideas about policies and institutions aimed at preventing or confronting these challenges”.

Panelists included;

• Mary Chinery-Hess (Ghana), Vice-Chairman, National Development Planning Commission of Ghana and former Deputy Director-General, International Labour Organization;
• Gareth Evans (Australia), President of the International Crisis Group and former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia;
• Amre Moussa (Egypt), Secretary-General of the League of Arab States;
• Yevgeny Primakov (Russia), former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation;
• Qian Oichen (China), former Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China;
• Nafis Sadik (Pakistan), former Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund;
• Salim Ahmed Salim (United Republic of Tanzania), former Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity; and
• Brent Scowcroft (United States), former Lt. General in the United States Air Force and United States National Security Adviser.

With respect to “Responsibility to Protect”, the Panel endorsed this “emerging norm”, stating that:

There is a growing recognition that the issue is not the “right to intervene” of any State, but the “responsibility to protect” of every State when it comes to people suffering from avoidable catastrophe mass murder and rape, ethnic cleansing by forcible expulsion and terror, and deliberate starvation and exposure to disease. And there is a growing acceptance that while sovereign Governments have the primary responsibility to protect their own citizens from such catastrophes, when they are unable or unwilling to do so that responsibility should be taken up by the wider international community… ”

We endorse the emerging norm that there is a collective international responsibility to protect, exercisable by the Security Council authorizing military intervention as a last resort, in the event of genocide and other large scale killing, ethnic cleansing or serious violations of international humanitarian law which sovereign Governments have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent.”

In September 2005, “Responsibility to Protect” “was once again enlivened”, this time with the “full support of the international community”. At the 60th session of the U.N. General Assembly gathering, 191 heads of state and government representatives unanimously endorsed a resolution supporting the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. This resolution laid the foundations for a new global moral compact between every State and every population on earth. As adopted, atrocity crimes “ genocide, crimes against humanity (including ethnic cleansing) and war crimes” – were considered a universal concern and therefore were responsibility of the international community.

During the 2005 General Assembly World Summit, world leaders stated:

Each and individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

The support of the U.S. was of course crucial for this radical new approach to international relations. The U.S. under President George Bush would not even sign up to the International Criminal Court, a key component of the proposed new order.

Therefore the U.S. Responsibility to Protect organization re-committed itself to its goals. The mission of Responsibility to Protect is

• To convince the American people and its leaders to embrace the norm of the responsibility to protect as a domestic and foreign policy priority.
• To convince our political leadership that the US must join the International Criminal Court.
• To convince our political leadership to empower the UN and the ICC with a legitimate and effective deterrent and enforcement mechanism – an International Marshals Service – a standing international police force to arrest atrocity crimes indictees.

Responsibility to Protect knew they would get nowhere under Bush, but viewed the 2008 elections as an opportunity for change.

The upcoming 2008 presidential election and the general debate that will precede provide an opportunity to bring this new norm in the public and leaders’ discourse over America’s domestic and foreign policy, and to get our nation to take the necessary bold steps that are called for to implement this bold principle.

Clearly, the Obama Administration has proven far more sympathetic to Responsibility to Protect’s agenda than was that of President Bush.

While few seem to realize the significance of the new doctrine, Responsibility to Protect convenor Richard H. Cooper fully understands its transformational potential.

Cooper writes on the Responsibility to Protect website

Yet as I write, a quiet revolution is under way. In September 2005, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a declaration – the World Summit Outcome – whereby each and every State in the world accepted its responsibility to protect populations from genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. The declaration also emphasizes that if a State relinquishes its responsibility to protect – whether by will or lack of capacity – this responsibility must be borne by the international community that can decide to intervene as a last resort. In the face of mass atrocities, every nation and thus every people on earth have pledged to be our brothers’ keepers. Without fanfare and with little notice, the obsolete principles underlying the Westphalian ordering of world affairs have been dramatically rewritten. We can no longer hide behind State sovereignty, a 400-years old shield, to excuse the shameful reflex and ongoing practice of remaining passive in the face of the most outrageous behaviors…

“We can no longer hide behind state sovereignty.”

Let that sink in reader. That is what this is all about.

“Responsibility to Protect” means the end of national sovereignty. It mandates the surrender of any nation state’s legal authority over their own citizenry and armed forces to a supra-national body, with the power to sanction or destroy any deemed “rogue” nation – does Israel spring to mind?

“Responsibility to Protect” – three little words, that should strike terror into the heart of every patriot in every free nation of the world.

Print Friendly

Charles Schumer

On Tuesday March 29, 2011 Senator Charles Schumer, New York was on a conference call talking to his colleagues (fellow Senators), but what he didn’t know is that reporters were also listening in to the call.

On the call, He made reference to the Democrat’s plan to use the word “extreme” to label the Tea Party for their calls for a balanced budget. Here’s a segment of the audio which was recorded:

Transcript: “I always use the word extreme, that’s what the caucus instructed me to do…, extreme cuts and all these riders, and Boehner’s in a box. But if he supports the Tea Party there’s going to inevitably [be] a shutdown. What we are trying to do here…” (audio cut off at this point)

Senator Schumer has clear ties to three extreme organizations.

• The Council for a Livable World, founded in 1962 by long-time socialist activist and alleged Soviet agent, Leo Szilard, is a non-profit advocacy organization that seeks to “reduce the danger of nuclear weapons and increase national security”, primarily through supporting progressive, congressional candidates who support their policies. The Council supported Charles E. Schumer in his initial successful Senate run as candidate for New York.
• In 1997, Schumer was one of 33 co-sponsors of H.R. 950, the Job Creation and Infrastructure Restoration Act. The bill had originally been sponsored by Congressman Matthew Martinez at the request of over 50 prominent labor leaders – all of whom were known supporters or members of the Communist Party USA. The Communist party even delegated senior member Evelina Alarcon to oversee the bill’s progress.
• In 1998 Schumer enjoyed electoral support from Communist Party breakaway group, Committees of Correspondence.

…And he’s got the audacity to call the Tea Party extreme?

Print Friendly

Two leading D.S.A. associates, Barack Obama and Dick Trumka

According to Detroit Democratic Socialists of America leader David Green.

Our goal as socialists is to abolish private ownership of the means of production. Our immediate task is to limit the capitalist class’s prerogatives in the workplace…

We can accomplish this by promoting full employment policies, passing local living wage laws, but most of all by increasing the union movement’s power…

Certainly in the last 15 years D.S.A. and their Communist Party USA and independent Marxist allies have effectively taken complete control the U.S. labor movement. Two of the U.S.’s largest unions AFCSME and SEIU are  dominated by DSAers, but what of the peak labor union body – the AFL-CIO? Is that organization, once led by anti-communists like Lane Kirkland and George Meany now under socialist leadership?

There is evidence that the top man, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is a socialist sympathizer, perhaps even a covert D.S.A. member. Consider Trumka’s record with D.S.A.;

Every year since the mid 1960s the Indiana based Eugene V. Debs Foundation has held the Eugene Debs Award Banquet in Terre Haute, to honor the late socialist leader. The 1994 honoree was Richard “Dick” Trumka. Other honorees have included Socialist Party leaders Norman Thomas, Frank Zeidler and A. Philip Randolph plus DSAers Patrick E. Gorman, Jack Sheinkman, Ed Asner, John J. Sweeney, Julian Bond, and  Barbara Ehrenreich.

Central Indiana Democratic Socialists of America even sent a contingent to the November 5 Banquet to celebrate Trumka’s award.

 When not accepting socialist awards, Trumka was busying himself with helping to take over the AFL-CIO.

According to D.S.A. member and journalist Harold Meyerson, the “progressive coalition” of labor unionists which ousted conservative AFL-CIO president Lane Kirkland  in 1994-95 and replaced him with DSAer  John J. Sweeney  was led by Gerald McEntee, Sweeney, George Kourpias and Trumka. Sweeney and Kourpias were D.S.A. members, while Mcentee was at the very least a D.S.A. sympathizer. The coalition selected Trumka as Sweeney’s running mate against the conservative faction’s choice, elevating their man  from leadership of the Mineworkers Union into the top levels of the AFL-CIO.

In 1996 Trumka was  one of the original 130 founders of  the D.S.A./Institute for Policy Studies front organization, Campaign for America’s Future

Proven D.S.A. supporters in the founding group were John Atlas, Paul Berman, Norman Birnbaum, Julian Bond, Mitchell Cohen, Richard Cloward, Peter Dreier, Barbara Ehrenreich, Richard Flacks, Adam Hochschild, Michael Kazin, Charles Knight, Peter Laarman, Nelson Lichtenstein, Steve Max, Jay Mazur, Harold Meyerson, Lawrence Mishel, Frances Fox Piven, Frank Riessman, Richard Rorty, Sumner Rosen, Richard Rothstein, Theda Skocpol , Stanley Sheinbaum, Jack Sheinkman, John Sweeney, Michael Walzer, Roger Wilkins and William Julius Wilson. Dozens more were known D.S.A.  affiliates.

Trumka addressed the “How Class Works” conference held at Stony Brook, New York, June 5 – 7, 2008 – alongside DSAers Bill Fletcher Jr, Manning Marable and Jack Metzgar.

For the last several years Richard Trumka has served on the Board of Directors of the Washington DC based Economic Policy Institute. Fellow E.P.I. board members include D.S.A. affiliates Barry Bluestone, Jeff Faux, Leo Gerard, Ron Gettelfinger, Robert Kuttner, Julianne Malveaux, Gerald McEntee and Bruce Raynor plus D.S.A. members Teresa Ghilarducci and E.P.I. President Larry Mishel.

Trumka also serves on the Advisory Board of  “bona fide” D.S.A. front, the National Jobs For All Coalition. Fellow Board colleagues include past and present DSAers Elaine Bernard, Noreen Connell, David Gil, Staughton Lynd, Manning Marable, Larry Mishel, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Juliet Schor, Victor Sidel, Theda Skocpol, Joseph B. Uehlein, Cornel West, William Julius Wilson plus a whole host of known D.S.A. sympathizers.

Is Richard Trumka a D.S.A. member? As yet unproven, but very likely.

Is Trumka  a socialist and long time D.S.A. affiliate – undoubtedly.

It is inconceivable that good power hungry Marxists like the D.S.A. leadership would have allowed their man,  John Sweeney to have retired from the AFL-CIO presidency  without having a reliable comrade waiting in the wings to replace him.

To paraphrase Lenin -”It is not the gaining of power that is important, it is the KEEPING of power”.

Is this guilt by association? No, it is guilt by probability. Just as another long time D.S.A. associate, Barack Obama  asked us to judge him by the company he keeps, so too we should judge Dick  Trumka by who he associates with.

If you talk like a socialist,  hang around with socialists, and work with socialists, you probably are a socialist.

Once Rep. Peter King finishes investigating the radical Islamic threat to America, he should look for enemies of the republic in  D.S.A. and the AFL-CIO. He will find much to keep him busy.

 Then again, can America afford to wait that long?

Print Friendly

This video is truly horrifying.

Wisconsin was the first state in the union to introduce “Labor Studies” into the school curriculum.

This 2010 seminar at the Wisconsin Labor History Society reveals the blatant socialist outlook of those behind the program.

Would you want people like this propagandizi…….uh, teaching your children?

Easy to see now why so many high school kids and college students joined the recent Wisconsin labor protests.

If Governor Walker wants to save some money by cutting some useless programs, here would be a great place to start.

Just coincidentally, of the three male speakers in the video above;

• Bryan Kennedy was supported by the Marxists of Democratic Socialists of America during his unsuccessful 2004 Congressional run (as a Democrat).
• David Newby serves on American Federation of Teachers committees with Democratic Socialists of America member Don Taylor.
• Andrew Kersten runs the “Social Change and Development” Department at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, with Democratic Socialists of America member Harvey Kaye.

Just sayin’.

Hat Tip, The Union News

Print Friendly

Liz Shuler

Democratic Socialists of America connected AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Liz Shuler was quoted in today’s edition of  Communist Party USA news site Peoples World,  in reference to labor union “education” in public schools;

By contrast, Shuler notes “Wisconsin years ago passed” a mandate for labor education within its schools. “That’s why the students came with their teachers,” she said about the ongoing protests in Madison against right wing GOP Gov. Scott Walker’s moves to strip 200,000 state and local workers of collective bargaining rights.

“High school is too late” to educate students about unions and workers, says Shuler, the daughter of union parents in Oregon who joined the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers as an activist and organizer after college. “We need to get into the elementary schools.”

You’d better believe it. These people are coming for your children.

Print Friendly

This has to be seen to believed.

R-r-r-r-r-adical Muslims Confront Pope Benedict XVI – at a Saturday 18 September demonstration in London.

Check out the segment from 4.20 to 4.35 for an example of religious tolerance.

“With the ideology of truth, we will dominate over all other ways, democracy, secularism, Christianity, Hinduism, Bhuddism. All of them will be under the foot of Islam. And so what?

The following commentary is taken directly from Michael Waller’s Political Warfare blog;

“In this YouTube video, shot September 18, 2010, the protesters can be seen threatening the leader of the world’s Catholics with their “Pope Benedict, you will pay” chant, and holding signs calling for the seat of the Catholic church to be controlled by shariah law. (See the Center for Security Policy’s new report, Shariah – Threat to America, also released this week.)

The words are not overheated rhetoric – they are calls for the pope to be murdered, and a declaration of war on Christians and others.

At 2 minutes and 26 seconds into the video, a militant named Anjem Choudary changes the chant to “Pope Benedict, you will pay/Justice is on its way.”

“Justice,” under shariah law, requires Christians either to convert to Islam, be killed, or submit to Islamic rule as dhimmis.

Amid cries of “Allahu akhbar,” another militant, Abu Rayah, implies that Pope Benedict is a military enemy of Muslims, as a leader of the “crusades.” He exhorts listeners to recall that “this war against Islam and Muslims is military and ideological as well.”

Abu Rayah denounces Pope Benedict for criticizing Islam, and expresses hope that, “inshallah,” the pope will meet “the lions of Islam.”

The militant adds that anyone who insults the prophet Muhammad “deserves capital punishment.” (4:44-4:50)

“Benedict, watch your back!” chants another militant, “Sallahudin [the Muslim warrior who fought the Christian crusaders] is coming back.” (5:18-5:24)

Other cries, as well as signs, denounce Catholicism and Christianity as a “satanic” and “evil ideology.”

The protesters then chant, “Muslims, rise up!” followed by a call for “martyrdom or victory” and chants of “Benedict, terrorist.”

As the pope passed by in his armored vehicle, the Muslim protesters screamed insults in Arabic at him and chanted, “Burn, burn, burn in Hell” (8:36)

The protesters were exclusively male, of various ethnic backgrounds, and obviously trained and organized. Even though they were not criminally violent, the code language they were using as understood by adherents to shariah law show that they should be considered a terrorist threat.”

Hard to disagree Michael. Why are not more moderate Muslims opposing this fanaticism?

Print Friendly

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has been caught lying – on tape.

When Questioned by Minnesota radio show host Chris Baker, on 100.3 KTLK Radio at 6.00 am, December 2, 2010, over evidence that Ritchie was a “non party friend” of the Communist Party USA, the Minnesota S.O.S. evaded the question and called the allegations as “political attack” and “horsepuckey”.

Here’s part of the Communist Party USA document that names Mark Ritchie as a “non party friend”.

For the full four-page document go here

For my five previous articles on Ritchie’s communist, socialist and George Soros ties, go here.

Mark Ritchie is not only a secret friend of the Communist Party, he is now a proven liar.

Mark Ritchie makes a big deal of the fact the fact that he was “resoundingly” elected by the people of Minnesota. True – but if every Minnesota voter knew of Ritchie’s Communist Party ties, would he still have won?

Would Mark Ritchie’s Wellstone Action advisory committee colleague Al Franken be a Minnesota Senator today had not Mark Ritchie not overseen the 2009 Senate election recount?

Will Mark Ritchie’s Wellstone Action advisory committee colleague Mark Dayton become Minnesota Governor with the help of another Ritchie supervised  election recount?

Mark Ritchie should be made to answer these charges properly – preferably under oath.

Please circulate this video and blog post to every Minnesotan you know.

Print Friendly