Posted on 04/17/2003 4:48:52 PM PDT by nicmarlo
Ironworkers Political Action League
by Frank Voyack
Always Read the DisclaimerWe’ve all been warned about something sounding too good to be true. So when Congressional Republicans propose a legislative cure called the Family Time Flexibility Act one should proceed with caution......
Document #8
Joint Legislative Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, Second Report: Un-American Activities in Washington State (1948)
.....the pattern of the Communist Party in the field of education.
Days before he was elected In march of 1990 to represent Congressional District 18 in New York, Congressman Jose E Serrano -who replaced Congressman Bob Garcia in the U S Rouse of Representatives- attended anti-Castro protests and courted the Cuban exile community by denouncing the Castro tyranny.
* * *
In recent years, Serrano has dedicated his public efforts to fiercely defend the communist oppression in Cuba and is today considered one of the Castro regime’s main lobbyists in Congress.
For quite a while everyone has been wondering why Maxine Waters is so adamant about returning Elián to Cuba. Of course behind every position, there is a reason. Good old Maxine owes Fidel.
She wants Elián to go back to Cuba, because, she says, he belongs with his father. And she also said that we Cubans must obey the law. Good old Maxine is practicing the old saying "Do as I say, NOT AS I DO".
Maxine Waters is supporting someone who has broken the law and is hiding in Cuba, running away from the American judicial system that wants her.
The person in question is Joanne Chesimard, aka Assata Shakur, a militant woman member of the Black Panthers Party, who has been found guilty of murdering a police officer in New Jersey. There is a price over her head. And Maxine Waters has asked Castro not to deport her to US.
So visit the following site where you can read all about it. The account of the murder story and the reward. You can also read Maxine Waters' letter to the dictator of Cuba. This information was obtained as a courtesy of the Fairfax County, Virginia, Republican Party: [the link provided no longer works: http://www.fairfaxco-gop.org/mwaters_castro.htm; however, by using the "Wayback Machine" at www.archive.org, this came up:
N.J. GOVERNOR BLASTS CHESIMARD LETTER
Attacks Congresswoman's Support of Cop Killer Dec. 18, 1998
Title: Calling on the Government of Cuba to extradite to the United States convicted felon Joanne Chesimard and all other individuals who have fled the United States to avoid prosecution or confinement for criminal offenses and who are currently living freely in Cuba.
Sponsor: Rep Franks, Bob [NJ-7] (introduced 3/30/1998)
Cosponsors: 26
Latest Major Action: 10/21/1998 Passed/agreed to in Senate.
Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
Some day in the future, American politicians who have opposed the Patriot Act will be glad they did.
Resentment toward that sinister bulwark of what New Mexico ACLU executive director Peter Simonson calls a "secret surveillance society" runs deep in our country and cuts across traditional political barriers.
U.S. Rep. Tom Udall is among those courageous objectors who voted against the Patriot Act in the first place - the only New Mexican in Congress to do so. And now he's joined a tri-partisan effort - Texas Republican Ron Paul, Democrat John Conyers from Michigan and Bernard Sanders, a Vermont Independent - to begin what I hope will be a long series of legislative action to dismantle the Patriot Act completely.
Udall and others are co-sponsoring something called the "Freedom to Read Protection Act," which would leave libraries and booksellers free from government agents spying on what people read without a warrant from a judge based on probable cause.
[snip]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is doing background checks on elected officials around the country so the politicians can receive top-secret clearances for briefings on terrorism. While local law enforcement officials and politicians going through the process praise the FBI initiative, civil libertarians find it deeply disturbing.* * *
“Being involved in street protests is a problem in FBI files,” asserts professor David Price of St. Martin’s College, who has done extensive research and writing on the FBI, including reading the results of many background checks of deceased academics and politicians. He adds, “I’m not sure what ‘constitutionally protected’ means under the Patriot Act. We need to be very worried about this.”
* * *
At least one local politician has decided the solution to all the dilemmas created by classified materials is simply to refuse to be briefed on them. Since 1995, U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, has avoided all classified briefings. McDermott’s office says the congressman doesn’t feel what he learns from the briefings is worth the “muzzle” he is forced to wear afterward.
Congressional supporters of an Iraq-based terrorist organization kept a low profile this week after confirmation that U.S.-led coalition forces attacked their bases during the final days of the war.The group, known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), is made up of Iranian dissidents based in Baghdad. Despite a history of violence against Americans and its common cause with former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, the group developed a significant following in Congress for its opposition to Tehran’s mullahs.
In 1997, the State Department identified the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization. Last Tuesday, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged in a briefing at the Pentagon that the U.S. bombed MEK forces.
* * *
Earlier this month, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) expressed shock upon hearing that the State Department considered the MEK combatants. “If these reports are accurate, that’s the end of it for me,” he told The Hill three weeks ago.
But citing “information of a different nature entirely from people who are closer to the scene than the State Department,” Tancredo later called The Hill to reassert his backing of the MEK. He declined to identify his sources at the time, except to say that they were with “our government.”
Like Ros-Lehtinen’s office, Tancredo’s aides did not return calls this week seeking comment. Other lawmakers who have long backed the MEK also declined comment. They are Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas).
[snip]
Six years after serving a six-month prison stint for violating campaign finance laws, town of Ulster entrepreneur Michael Zinn is putting the criminal justice system on trial in a documentary film called "Mad Dog Prosecutors."
Zinn's documentary argues that all Americans, law-abiding and otherwise, are at risk from a legal system that grants federal attorneys the power to conduct scorched-earth prosecutions for minor violations of business regulations.
* * *
Following an 18-month investigation, Zinn was indicted on conspiracy charges related to his work as finance chairman of then-Assemblyman Maurice Hinchey's [a democRAT, now a member of the U.S. House of Reps, New York] first campaign for the House of Representatives in 1992. According to the indictment, Zinn reimbursed employees and their relatives for contributions to the Hinchey campaign under the guise of bonuses, essentially using his staff to launder illegal contributions from the company.
In June 1997, Zinn, facing up to eight years in prison, cut a deal with U.S. Attorney Eliot Jacobsen, pleaded guilty to three counts of the indictment, and was sentenced to six months in prison.
Zinn says he was the victim of bad legal advice by a lawyer for the Hinchey campaign and Besicorp's counsel, who advised him on his fundraising activities and never hinted that he could be breaking the law.
"I was close to the edge," he said. "But I never had criminal intent that is necessary to prove the charges against me." Zinn said he reluctantly pleaded guilty on the advice of his lawyer and to avoid a harsh prison term if convicted at trial.
ITHACA -- Tompkins County's two representatives in Congress said Wednesday that the with the fall of Baghdad the focus must shift to rebuilding Iraq and supplying humanitarian needs to civilians left without food, water and electricity.
U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-22nd Dist., said that he didn't see evidence of a massacre, a term he used over a month ago to describe the then-impending conflict. He said he feared "massacre" may be used by other nations to describe the war.
Hinchey voted against the House bill that allowed President Bush to use force in Iraq. He voted in favor of a resolution that expressed support for U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf.
"I'm still worried about our reputation," Hinchey said from his Washington office on Wednesday. "I don't want our country to be seen that way by other people." "I see this winding down in a good way. There hasn't been house-to-house fighting and loss of life," that some feared would be part of intense urban warfare, Hinchey said.
[snip]
* * *
The non-binding House resolution [House Resolution 104] passed easily - 392 in favor, 11 against -- and the Senate passed a similar resolution with a resounding 99-0 vote. Just who are the 11 congressmen who voted against the resolution? They are: John Conyers (D-MI); Mike Honda (D-CA); Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Jim McDermott (D-WA); Bobby Scott (D-VA); Pete Stark (D-CA); Edolphus Towns (D-NY); Diane Watson (D-CA); Maxine Waters (D-CA); and Charles Rangel (D-NY). What do they have in common? To the shock of no one, they're all members of the Democratic Party; not one Republican voted against the resolution. In addition, most are members of the Congressional Black Caucus.One name in particular stands out among the dissenters. Jim McDermott was one of three "useful idiots" in the House, including fellow Democratic Representatives Mike Thompson and David Bonior, to visit Iraq last October. In an act perilously approaching treason, McDermott served up a series of propaganda softballs for Saddam to knock out of the park, claiming that President Bush "would mislead the American people," and was "trying to provoke a war." In addition, he averred that, "you have to take the Iraqis on their face value." The Potemkin village tour that the three received apparently did not reveal the banned Scud and al-Fatah missiles that Iraq lobbed into Kuwait, one of which landed within a football field's distance of U.S. troops. Nor did it reveal the witch's brew of chemical and biological toxins that will surely be unearthed by victorious coalition forces, if they are not used against them first.
Another twenty-one Democrats voted "present" for the resolution - a non-vote essentially; an act of political cowardice. These fence sitters were apparently unable to decide whether they stood behind the American troops now risking their lives on distant battlefields. Profiles in courage they are not. Among those voting "present" was Dennis Kucinich, the leftist Democrat who hopes to secure the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. His vote calls into serious question his ability to function as a future Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces. Other representatives opting to vote "Present" include Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), son of the discredited racial huckster; Major Owens (D-NY), member of the Democratic Socialists of America; and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), a Castro apologist who is among the most partisan of leftist Democrats.
All told, twenty-three of thirty-seven members of the Congressional Black Caucus - a decided majority - refused to show nominal support for the troops, voting either "nay" or "present." Clearly, artificially drawn districts produced by racial gerrymandering have sent several black candidates to Washington who slant so far leftward that they cannot even offer their basic support for American troops in harm's way.
[snip]
"Our Media Not Theirs"
(by Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols)
....In their book Our Media Not Theirs, McChesney and Nichols propose to solve our dissatisfactions with the media, television and newspapers, too, by placing them under the ownership and management of the government, funded entirely by taxes. They attempt to frame this government take-over of the media as essential to the survival of our democracy, but the attempts are weak and unconvincing.Though they insist that every citizen should have a voice in what is offered on TV (and newspapers and magazines), they present no method by which this could be accomplished other than to suggest that most programming would focus on narrow local issues and interests. Decisions about the presentation and content of national and international news presumably would be made by government bureaucrats.
* * *
There's a thread of resentment hinted at throughout the book, resentment that the authors' opinions and desires are being ignored, and they consider it their best bet to be heard if the government has control and forces the rest of us to listen, to not be distracted by our own, to them, petty interests. Consider who wrote forewords to the book: Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich and Ralph Nader. Outside of academia and those who believe in massive government control of everything, who listens to them?
* * *
The book is a not very coherent diatribe against all private property ownership -- including copyright and patents -- which is in fact the very basis of American liberties and prosperity. The authors suggest that in our efforts to reform the media we should connect with other organizations and movements such as the unions, minorities, the feminists, and other special interest groups...The authors are confident of success in ridding the media of commercialism, citing the opening doors in Congress from such representatives as Ernest Hollings, Jesse Jackson Jr. and John Conyers, very liberal Democrats all.
McChesney and Nichols want the media to become the new "issue" for us, as the environment and civil rights have been before, and then to leave it to them to guide the way....
[snip]
* * *
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS IN THE US TODAY
Since 1973 the heirs of the Socialist Party tradition have been the Democratic Socialists of America. The largest socialist group in the country (about 11,000 members) and the US affiliate of the Socialist International, DSA has focused its attention more on building the socialist movement in the US, and raising the same kinds of socialist issues as their predecessors. For years, DSA has worked to build a socialist presence within organized labor, and the President of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, is a member. Now the organization is working with the House Progressive Caucus in the US Congress, headed up by independent socialist congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT). DSA claims two members of the House of Representatives as members, Danny Davis (D-IL), and Major Owens (D-NY).
The other camps of the 1973 split in the Socialist Party have continued to exist, but became more political clubs than active organizations. The Social Democrats USA (about 150 members) have pursued their bizarre combination of traditional positions on economic issues and right-wing positions on foreign policy (e.g.- supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, as well as almost all US military actions around the world), and have been isolated by those to their right as well as their left. The former left wing of the party took the party name, calling itself the Socialist Party USA (about 500 members) It has continued to run educational presidential campaigns, but has no ballot status and is not recognized as a national political party.
The Weekly Standard has a long article about Saddam Hussein and his regime paying off journalists and politicians. It starts by recounting the Galloway documents. It notes the villa in Portugal is valued at $400,000.It goes on to detail how Middle Eastern and European journalists have been on his payroll for progaganda. Finally toward the end we get U.S. references and, in particular, to Ritter and McDermott:
"Al-Khafaji first came to public notice after revelations that he gave former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter $400,000 to produce a film that criticized the United States for its role in the inspection process. Al-Khafaji, who is listed as a "senior executive producer" of the film, arranged meetings for Ritter with high-level officials in Saddam's government, a feat New York Times magazine writer Barry Bearak found "impressive." Ritter had previously been an outspoken critic of Saddam Hussein, and issued dire warnings about the status of the Iraqi dictator's weapons of mass destruction. His sudden flip--he is now a leading apologist for Saddam's regime--and revelations about Ritter's 2001 arrest for soliciting sex with minors have fueled speculation about the nature of his relationship with al-Khafaji."
--snip--
"On October 25, McDermott received a check for $5,000 from Shakir al-Khafaji. The money, first reported by Amy Keller in Roll Call, had been deposited in an account for the McDermott Legal Expense Trust, a fund the congressman set up to pay legal bills in a lawsuit brought against him by Rep. John Boehner."
...Just as many sports fans need a program to see who's who or what's what on the field, many citizens need a guide to understanding the Leftist lexicon. So, here's a brief primer into what the Left actually means when they say:
* * *
Conservative, a: 1) Anyone fighting the socialist aspirations of the radical Left or anyone who is either Advantaged or wants to be Advantaged. 2) A person proud to be an American, and one who holds ideals like honesty and morality and heralds individual rights over group rights. 3) Dumb taxpayers who love America.
* * *
Fascist, a: 1) Anyone who is not a Progressive (see below). 2) People who believe in America's system of merit and capitalism. 3) Conservatives. (Note: Doesn't include Leftist genocidal tyrants who brutalize their people in nations throughout the world.) 4) George W. Bush.
* * *
Hate Speech: Speech by either the Advantaged or Conservatives that doesn't promote a socialist "progressive" agenda.
* * *
Progressive: 1) Socialist. (The word socialist became real unpopular after the fall of the Soviet empire and was quickly replaced by a more easily digested word.) 2) A cruel joke on the American people. A word intentionally meant to deceive the hapless taxpayer into believing that the "progressive" ideology is somehow related to real progress. In reality, progressive and progress are antonyms.
Progressives: 1) Those who advocate the slow, clandestine progress of big government and command-and-control socialism in America. 2) Liberal Democrats.
EXPORTING DEMOCRACY is as American as apple pie. President Bush feels divinely "called" to convert other countries' governments from oppressive regimes to democratically free governments. He is freeing Iraq through "gunboat diplomacy," then proposes to govern it with gunpoint democracy. But what kind of democracy is Mr. Bush proposing to export?
* * *
After we win the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush will argue that the Iraqi people have been liberated and democracy is on its way to Iraq. But what kind of democracy? Who will enjoy the greatest freedom? The Iraqi people? Or Mr. Bush's "friends" from the private sector?
The word democracy is comprised of two Greek words, demos (people) and kratos (strength or power). It means "we the people" have the power to create the government and laws under which we shall live. Democracy has a second premise, that all men and women are created equal under the law.
Ideally, a truly democratic government should provide its people with the right to vote, a good education, quality health care, affordable housing, a safe environment, equal opportunity for all, fair taxes and meaningful work.
[snip]
I fear that in attempting to be fair and balanced, the Rapid City Journal has taken its readership on a trip through the "Twilight Zone," or something like it. In Jesse L. Jackson Jr.'s (April 17) column in the Journal, we indeed traveled through another dimension, a dimension not of common sense and fact, but of delusion, a utopian land whose only rules are those of the imagination. Our next stop, the Revisionism Zone.
Congressman Jackson would like to believe President Bush was some megalomaniac who seeks to conquer the world, but the facts don't support this. We went into Iraq for a number of reasons: (1) Saddam's defiance of international mandates; (2) Iraq repeatedly fired on our and British aircraft as we protected Saddam's people from Saddam; (3) Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs; and (4) his multilateral support of terrorism, including those who were behind the 9-11 attacks that cost nearly 3,000 people their lives. If that isn't enough for Jackson, then perhaps nothing can be.
* * *
Jackson continues his path through the Zone as he makes the claim that a democratic government should play Santa Claus, providing the things that are better and more efficiently secured by the people themselves. Jackson's vision of a nanny society is not only dangerous to the dignity of America's citizens, it is dangerous to the Constitution itself. Jackson even says we need to find "new rights in our own Constitution - the right to vote, education, health care, housing, equality for women, a sustainable environment, fair taxes, and employment." Theoretically, Jackson is proposing we "find" these new rights the same way we "found" the right to kill our unborn children by judicial fiat in Roe vs. Wade.
[snip]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.