Skip to comments.
"Workers World Party", Other Leftist Orgs Paying For Protests
Fox News Channel ^
| March 12, 2003
| N/A
Posted on 03/12/2003 9:43:51 AM PST by Illbay
News report on organizations like A.N.S.W.E.R. (a front for the Communist "Workers' World Party") and "Not In Our Name" (I.F.C.O., which sponsors meetings between clergy and Fidel Castro, and has given money to Sami Al Arian's fund-raising for Palestinian Islamic Jihad) just appeared on Fox.
These groups are demonstrably "anti-American" not "anti-War." Their agenda is becoming more and more clear, and a little investigative reporting is all that is needed to see it.
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: america; blackshirts; commies; communistsubversion; hate; traitorlist; wwp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
JUst shown on Fox News Now.
1
posted on
03/12/2003 9:43:51 AM PST
by
Illbay
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
To: Illbay
I just saw it, too. Only Fox has the intestinal fortitude. I love it!
To: Illbay; seamole; Lil'freeper
Anti-war…
Related Articles Where were critics during Kosovo?
Source:Washington Times; Published: March 11, 2003; Author: Larry Elder The Peace Movement’s Mumia Connection
Source:: National Review; Published:| January 28, 2003; Author: Byron York
Useful Idiots And Useless Arguments: The Depressing Iraq War Debate
Source: Toogood Reports; published: March 10, 2003; Author: W. James Antle III
Anti-War Or Anti-Reality?
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: March 5, 2003; Author: Paul E. Scates
Barbara Stanley: America: Land Of The Free, Even Free To Be Traitors
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: February 28, 2003; Authro: Barbara Stanley
If antiwar protesters succeed (by Iraqi citizen)
Source: CS Monitor; Publisghed: February 26, 2003; Author: unsigned opinion
Marxist Groups in the Anti-War Movement
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 25, 2003; Author: Paul M. Weyrich
Anti-war Protestors: Shades Of Stupidity
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 21, 2003; Author: Rachel Marsden
Who's Paying for It All? [re: anti-war demostrations]
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: February 18, 2003; Author: J. Michael Waller
Anti-War Protestors Are Warmongers for Our Enemies
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 11, 2003; Author: Alex Epstein
The Peace Movement’s Mumia Connection
Source:: National Review; Published:| January 28, 2003; Author: Byron York
Reds Still [re: The story no one wants to hear about the antiwar movement]
Source: National Review; Published: January 23, 2003; Author: Byron York
To: Illbay
and a little investigative reporting is all that is needed to see itOh that's so passe.
5
posted on
03/12/2003 10:00:43 AM PST
by
riri
To: riri
Oh that's so passe. Hey! Watch your French! .
.
.
Some of us have sensitive ears.
To: Illbay
|
| Et Tu, Pooty-Poot? |
| By |
Published 3/3/2003 12:05:00 AM
|
Another Perspective
|
The anti-war, anti-American bloody-mindedness of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder has been analyzed to a fare-thee-well. But what about their heavyweight supporter, President Vladimir Putin of Russia?
Last fall, various commentators pegged Putin's position precisely:
"Russia's diplomatic capital in the world is much diminished since the end of the Cold War, a fact that Mr Putin has been quick to grasp…Mr Putin is worried that a war with Baghdad would ruin Russia's fragile economic recovery…He fears that Saddam's demise would bring oil prices, on which Russia depends for half of its income, crashing down. Russian hardliners may believe that their president is prepared to ditch the fruits of a year of bridge-building with the West to stand by former cold war allies in the Middle East…The smart money still says that after driving the hardest bargain he can manage, Mr Putin will quietly come around." (Julius Strauss, Daily Telegraph, October 12, 2002)
"Russia's biggest oil company has been assured by President Vladimir Putin that it will be able to keep its huge stake in Iraq's oil fields should Saddam Hussein be deposed, as Moscow seeks to extract a heavy commercial price for backing the US's hardline position on Baghdad." (Carola Hoyos, Financial Times, October 4, 2002)
But that was last fall. Resolution 1441 passed on November 8, with Russia's vote. Looking back, it is now obvious that France and Germany never meant what they explicitly said with that vote, that they were lying all along. Is that what Russia did, too? If Russia did indeed drive its hard bargain with the U.S., and if the U.S. met Russia's price, why didn't Russia stay bought? Because, as of a fateful February 10 meeting, it certainly did not.
On that date, President Putin visited France, and began to spout the Franco-German line. As reported by the AP, Putin appeared on French television, and "said today that unilateral action (sound familiar?) against Iraq would be a 'grave error' and he hinted that Russia might be prepared to veto any 'unreasonable use of force.'"
Radio Netherlands analyzed Putin's statement like this, on February 11: "Russian oil companies have invested heavily in Iraq. Moscow fears that, when the war is over, the US and Britain will divide Iraqi oil-concessions among themselves. The Kremlin is also worried that a sharp drop in oil prices after the war would make the relatively costly extraction of Russian oil no longer economically viable."
One might reasonably observe that we have heard these concerns before.
At about the same time, Putin sent Soviet-era envoy Yevgeny Primakov to Iraq to make nice with Saddam Hussein. And by two weeks later, in Beijing, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov announced that Russia was "ready to veto a U.S.- British resolution under discussion at the U.N. Security Council authorizing war against Iraq…" (Yahoo News)
Now, what might be going on?
Early post-9/11, Vladimir Putin ("Pooty-Poot," in George W. Bush's affectionate nickname) took the initiative to call the American President and assure him of his (Putin's) support. And he showed tangible evidence of that support, acceding to ("allowing" being the wrong word) American military use of former Soviet states along Russia's southern border (the "Stans"). He got something in return: The U.S. conceded that the Chechens were "terrorists," and the Russians could treat them as such, no more nagging about human rights violations.
Since the days of the Czars, Russia has wallowed in an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the West, mostly Western Europe. And she has displayed aggressive fear of being surrounded, especially to the South, where the nation has her only warm-water access to the seas. The United States won handily in Afghanistan and promises to win handily in Iraq. Look at a map. Then read your Tolstoy. Nothing new here.
Putin's reliance on high oil prices has been pointed out. With a strike in Venezuela cutting off that nation's production, with war uncertainties pushing prices higher, Putin may simply be holding out as long as possible, making as much money as possible. And he may indeed be worried about the $7 or $8 billion Iraq owes Russia, and about some rather iffy oil contracts (as much as $40 billion worth) that Russia holds with Iraq.
There's nothing here, however, that can't be worked out with the U.S., and Putin knows it.
No, I'm afraid of something more sinister. Euro-liberal (and Paris resident) David Ignatius finessed the issue this way in his column in the Washington Post February 28: "Putin succumbed to political pressure from Russian generals, diplomats and legislators who think the United States is behaving arrogantly and who want Russia to be more independent of Washington."
Translation: Putin felt the heat from Communist hard-liners. Look at the nations involved in this obstruction: Russia, China, Germany, France. Look at China's passive-aggressive refusal to take any responsibility for North Korea. Look at the leadership of the so-called "peace movement." The USSR may be dead, but Communism is not.
This is the Cold War all over again. The good news is, a victory in Iraq will go a long way toward cutting the trembling knees out from under resurgent Communist influence in the world.
Lawrence Henry is a writer in North Andover, Massachusetts.
|
|
To: Illbay
To: Illbay
9
posted on
03/12/2003 10:40:28 AM PST
by
steplock
( http://www.spadata.com)
To: Illbay
The New York Post reported these connections about a week or so ago. Nothing's new: these highly organized groups lure in simpletons with an emotional message that's not on the mark, exploit 'em so that they can continue their mission of destroying America and her people.
10
posted on
03/12/2003 10:53:44 AM PST
by
Chummy
To: Stand Watch Listen
Info for ya...from
Anti-War Activists Map Their Strategy The article states that the AFSC poses as "an arm of the pacifist Quaker church"...the real truth is:
The AFSC was formed in 1917 by a group of 14 socialist Quakers to aid draft resisters. AFSC has been penetrated and used by Communists since the early 1920s when it sent Jessica Smith, who later married Soviet spies Harold Ware and John Abt(since the 1950s CPUSA general counsel and a member of the CPUSA Political Committee) to the Soviet Union to determine famine relief needs in Russia exacerbated by civil war and the collectivization of farmland.
Since the 1960s, the AFSC has supported revolutionary terrorist groups such as the Vietcong, Palestine Liberation Organization(PLO), and the Central American Castroite groups. The theory behind AFSC's support of terrorist "national liberation movements" was outlined by Jim Bristol in a pamphlet published by AFSC in 1972 and continuously reprinted entitled "Non-violence: Not First for Export." Because AFSC's leadership role in organizing not only support for terrorist revolutionary groups, but in the past campaign to disarm America initiated through the USSR's covert action apparatus for political warfare, a closer look at AFSC's justification of violence is appropriate.
In the AFSC pamphlet, Bristol presents the totalitarian revolutionary goal in the most glowing terms as a utopia:
"a human society where the worth of the individual will be recognized and each person treated with respect....Land reform measures will be enacted....Education will be provided for every member of the society;....There will be employment for all. Discrimination because of race, colour or creed will end. Universal medical care will be provided." [If this all sounds strangely familiar, don't feel alone, these are all planks from the Communist Manifesto].
AFSC's pamphlet asserts that the United States and other Free World countries are guilty of a bizarre "terrorism" which it calls the "violence of the status quo" and irrationally defines this in the broadest possible terms not only as every possible social ill, but also personal or social discomfort. In the words of the pamphlet, this "violence of the status quo" is:
"the agony of millions who in varying degrees suffer hunger, poverty, ill-health, lack of education, non-acceptance by their fellow men. It is compounded of slights and insults, of rampant injustice, of exploitation, of police brutality, of a thousand indignities from dawn to dusk and through the night."
AFSC's pamphlet excuses terrorism in the following terms:
"terrorism...repeatedly...is used to signify violent action on the part of oppressed peoples in Asia, Africa, Latin America or within the black ghettos of America, as they take up the weapons of violence in a desperate effort to wrest for themselves the freedom and justice denied them by the systems that presently control their lives. "before we deplore terrorism, it is essential for us to recognize whose ‘terrorism’ came first....It is easy to recognize the violence of the revolutionary when he strikes out against the inequities and cruelties of the established order. What millions of middle-class and other non-poor fail to realize is that they are themselves accomplices each day in meeting[sic] out inhuman, all-pervading violence upon their fellows."
After this justification of the concept of class warfare, which makes "permissible" terrorist attacks on civilians since they are part of the "oppressive class," the AFSC pamphlet says that U.S. activists should not concern themselves with what sort of violent tactics revolutionaries utilize to achieve their ends. Instead, they should work to disarm the United States and for economic warfare against the U.S.’s "oppressive" allies. In its words:
"Instead of trying to devise non-violent strategy and tactics for revolutionaries in other lands, we will bend every effort to defuse militarism in our own land and to secure the withdrawal of American economic investment in oppressive regimes in other parts of the world."
The AFSC pamphlet concludes with a call for revolution in the United States, saying:
"Revolution then is needed first and foremost in the United States, thoroughgoing revolution, not a mild palliative."
The director of the AFSC’s Disarmament Program resurrected in the mid-1970s as a complement to the international disarmament campaign was Terry Provance, a World Peace Council(Soviet-controlled) activist and founding member of the U.S. Peace Council. Accompanied by two foreign Communist WPC activists, Nico Schouten, leader of the Netherlands "Ban the Neutron Bomb" organization, and East German Peace Council head Walter Rumpel, Provance addressed a Mobilization for Survival rally at the U.S. Capitol in October, 1979.
AFSC operates a lobbying arm, the Friends Committee on National Legislation(FCNL). Its focus and energies play a key role in developing strategy for pressure on Congress against the U.S. defense budget, and particularly against development or deployment of new weapons systems.
Another AFSC project, the National Action/Research on the Military/Intelligence Complex(NARMIC), served as the AFSC’s "intelligence-gathering arm." NARMIC works closely with the Institute for Policy Studies(IPS), the North American Congress on Latin America(NACLA), a pro-Cuba research group, and other anti-defense and armament research organizations.
Biographical Sketches of the Left
To: steplock
I posted a request for additional links between these "protestors", but never received a reply on it. See my post #11.
To: riri
Oh that's so passe. That ain't no passe - a passe's a bunch o' likkered-up fellas on horseback with six-shooters chasin' after the bad guys. This could get series.
13
posted on
03/12/2003 11:47:34 AM PST
by
talleyman
(The Left is Sa-damanated by hatred for America)
To: Lil'freeper
I'm sure Rush will further expose this - since he already brought it up to begin with - and we'll see how long it takes for the mainstream to get the message.
If the mainstream doesn't get the message - B I A S is in full bloom for everyone to see!! That's a good thing!
14
posted on
03/12/2003 3:25:08 PM PST
by
CyberAnt
( -> -> -> Oswego!!)
To: CyberAnt
The problem is that it is called the "worker's party". The average, poorly informed Joe isn't going to connect that with the communists. Joe will say, "Dude. I work. That's, like, cool. How can I join?"
15
posted on
03/12/2003 4:50:52 PM PST
by
Lil'freeper
(Aint euphemisms great?)
To: Stand Watch Listen
To: Illbay
The only problem is, you know this and I know this and we think it s*cks; They know this too and DON'T CARE!
To: steplock
Hi steplock. There are a couple threads already going on this. I didn't see your thread, sorry. But I'm really glad to see so many people waking up and asking the questions they are about these groups.
Take a look at this one, it has a bunch of articles posted in it. You're right to be shocked by who is organinzing these groups. Not only that.. but they also plan to disrupt large financial districts when the first bomb goes off in Iraq. They are targeting large cities, like San Francisco, NY, LA. They are willing to break the law and be arrested too.
Anyway.. I posted e-mails for Fox News, because they reported on it yesterday!
You'll find them on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/853763/posts
Its great to see other patriots wanting the truth to get out!! Thanks and again, sorry I didn't see your post the other day. This topic is on the top of my list right now, and should be to everyone!! After all, it is these HUGE demonstrations that are harming our country and PM Tony Blair and our efforts to stop Saddam Hussein and other terrorists.
FRegards, Vets
To: Stand Watch Listen
Looks like you found the Mumia article. Good job.
19
posted on
03/14/2003 7:08:10 AM PST
by
sauropod
(If the women can't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy...)
To: ravingnutter
Early on, some Mennonites (who are avowed pacifists) tried to have some anti-war demonstrations. They were dismayed and surprised (!) at all the socialists and communists that were joining their cause. They haven't been too vocal since.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
