Kamala Harris has two cards. And she plays them all the time.


	During her failed presidential campaign, she repeatedly accused opponents, include Biden, and voters who didn't support her,&nbsp;of racism and sexism.


	Embracing the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and restoring the abortion question to the states, Kamala is playing the same old tune. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/02/politics/kamala-harris-essence-festival/index.html">Only worse</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday drew a connection between&nbsp;the Supreme Court&nbsp;overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling to the legacy of the US government “trying to claim ownership over human bodies” during an appearance at the Essence Festival in New Orleans.
</blockquote>


	Comparing abortion laws to slavery at a black event is really something even for Kamala.


	There's room to make the comparison largely because in both cases the government, in response to vocal lobbying from interested groups, decided that a certain group of human beings had no rights and could be harmed with no recourse.


	The legal analogy between babies and slaves is fairly obvious.


	Kamala however is trying to argue that limiting the right of people to kill their babies is the government&nbsp;“trying to claim ownership over human bodies”.


	Mind you, this is coming from the same administration that decided to&nbsp;“claim ownership over human bodies” by demanding that millions of people take a vaccine.

Kamala Harris Compares Abortion Rules to Slavery

Kamala Harris has two cards. And she plays them all the time.


	During her failed presidential campaign, she repeatedly accused opponents, include Biden,

Kamala Harris Compares Abortion Rules to Slavery

Mask mania is back just in time for beach weather. Grab your swimsuit and your N95. Or at least if the CDC<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-07-01/cdc-recommends-a-third-of-americans-wear-masks-ahead-of-holiday-weekend"> has its way</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		The percentage of Americans who should be wearing a mask indoors in public spaces or considering the measure is increasing as the country heads into the holiday weekend.

	
		According to&nbsp;data&nbsp;from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 33% of Americans should be masking while indoors and an additional 36% should be considering the measure based on their risk for severe&nbsp;COVID-19&nbsp;as of Thursday.
</blockquote>


	We are talking about millions of people.&nbsp;


	The CDC's hit list includes Alameda, Monterey and San Francisco County. Along with much of Oregon. San Diego, Los Angeles, and Orange County are up to medium level and potentially next on the mask parade.


	That covers a bunch of major population centers on the west coast.


	6 Washington counties are on the list. And <a href="https://www.wtvr.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-covid-community-levels-june-23-2022-where-masks-are-recommended-virginia">17 Virginia counties</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		Seventeen localities in Virginia rank as high where masking indoors is recommended by the CDC. That includes Colonial Heights, Dinwiddie, Henrico, Hopewell and Petersburg.

	
		Sixty-three localities in the Commonwealth now rank as medium, including much of Central Virginia.
</blockquote>


	And a nice<a href="https://www.wboy.com/news/health/coronavirus/cdc-recommends-more-north-central-wv-counties-mask/"> chunk of West Virginia</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		&nbsp;The CDC updated its mask recommendations this week to include more north central West Virginia counties.

	
		Last week, the CDC recommended residents of 13 West Virginia counties wear masks. This week, it’s recommending residents of 16 counties do so:
</blockquote>


	The question is will anyone care?


	Most of the goodwill has been exhausted and people have been happy to get back to normal. That's a majority. But vocal minorities are happy to bring back the mask culture wars. And all the ugliness and virtue signaling that comes with it.&nbsp;

CDC Tells Millions of Americans to Mask Again. Will Anyone Listen?

Mask mania is back just in time for beach weather. Grab your swimsuit and your N95. Or at least if the CDC has its way.


	
		The percentage of Americans

CDC Tells Millions of Americans to Mask Again. Will Anyone Listen?

The official story is that Hunter Biden may have been smoking crack and soliciting half the world's oligarchs, including those in Communist China, but there was no government angle to it.


	Somehow all that money was being thrown at a crackhead due to his native talents, not who his father was.


	The 'firewall' between Hunter and Joe Biden has been repeatedly dented by revelations from the laptop.


	And these latest revelations show that Hunter was<a href="https://nypost.com/2022/07/02/hunter-bidens-laptop-had-contacts-for-google-execs-us-officials-for-china-policy/"> actively collecting</a> the information of key US officials in a position to aid his Chinese business interests.

<blockquote>
	
		Hunter Biden’s hard drive contained an enviable lineup of contacts for top US officials tasked with overseeing the US-China relationship...
</blockquote>


	The list apparently included...

<blockquote>
	
		Bruce Quinn — who is listed in the hard drive as a “Director for Implementation” at the US Trade Representative office of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan — said he had no idea why he would be among the names in the hard drive.

	
		“I have never met him. I can’t even imagine,” Quinn told The Post. “Back then I used to go to all kinds of conferences and seminars. There is no doubt he could have attended one of the events with me.”

	
		All of the others named as US-China contacts in Hunter’s address book either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment from The Post. They include:

	
		Thomas Parker, a special advisor to the vice president for national security affairs

	
		Sarah E. Kemp, who served as a commercial counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing

	
		Patrick Mulloy, former commissioner&nbsp;of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission
</blockquote>


	If you're going to do business in China, these would be good people to know. But they would also be very good people to know if you're a Chinese company that wants to do business with America or with Americans. And these people would be a whole lot more likely to pay attention to the Veep's son than to some random lawyer.


	&nbsp;

Hunter Biden's Laptop Had Contact Info for US Officials Involved in China Policy

The official story is that Hunter Biden may have been smoking crack and soliciting half the world's oligarchs, including those in Communist China, but there

Hunter Biden's Laptop Had Contact Info for US Officials Involved in China Policy

Insurrection.


	I've said it before, let me say it again, if a judge in any apolitical case were being targeted at his or her home with angry protests and death threats, those responsible would very quickly be in prison and the protests would be shut down by a heavy law enforcement presence.&nbsp;


	This is happening because the Biden administration and its allies, which include Gov. Hogan, refuse to enforce the law.


	At this point we're far past a discussion in "right-wing media". The Supreme Court has directly requested and been turned down by, among others, Gov. Hogan, who <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-asks-maryland-officials-stop-picketing-justices-houses-rcna36460">keeps prattling about</a> "political norms".

<blockquote>
	
		Gail Curley, the&nbsp;Supreme Court’s marshal, has written to the governors of Maryland and Virginia and local officials in suburban Washington, D.C., asking them to enforce state and county laws that prohibit picketing at&nbsp;private homes.&nbsp;&nbsp;

	
		In the letter to Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, she said laws in his state prohibits assembling “with another in a manner that disrupts a person’s right to tranquility in the person’s home,” and provides a penalty of up to 90 days in jail.&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	A "Republican".

<blockquote>
	
		“Since then, protest activity at justices’ homes, as well as threatening activity, has only increased,” Curley said in the letter, with large groups using bullhorns and banging drums.&nbsp;“This is exactly the kind of conduct that Maryland and Montgomery County laws prohibit.”
</blockquote>


	And if right-wing protesters were doing this at Kagan and Sotomayor's homes, there would be action.&nbsp;

<blockquote>
	
		In a letter to Marc Elrich, the executive of Montgomery County, Curley said a separate county law prohibits picketing “in front of or adjacent to any private residence.”&nbsp;She noted that the author of the county ordinance has urged county officials to enforce the law against protesters who gather outside the justices’ homes.

	
		Both letters to the Maryland officials were dated&nbsp;Friday.&nbsp;The marshal also sent letters Saturday to Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, and Jeffrey McKay, chair of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in Northern Virginia, where other justices' live, asking for enforcement of a similar Virginia law.
</blockquote>


	Virginia may or may not enforce the laws on a state level, Gov Hogan and Elrich have made it clear that they won't.

<blockquote>
	
		The response from Maryland officials was lukewarm.&nbsp;In a statement on Saturday, Hogan’s office said the Maryland Attorney General's office has questioned the constitutionality of the state’s anti-picketing law, and noted that the Justice Department has declined to enforce federal laws that would stop the demonstrations.

	
		“In light of the continued refusal by multiple federal entities to act, the governor has directed Maryland state police to further review enforcement options that respect the First Amendment and the Constitution,” said Michael Ricci, Hogan's communications director.
</blockquote>


	The Federal entities in question are under the control of the Biden administration which supports active intimidation of justices. But that has nothing to do with Hogan's refusal to do so.


	The First Amendment does not protect harassing people in their homes. It certainly does not protect intimidating judges in their homes.


	There are laws on the books here. State and local officials are deliberately refusing to enforce them because they support the intimidation.&nbsp;

Gov. Hogan, Officials, Refuse to Enforce Laws to Stop Supreme Court Harassment

Insurrection.


	I've said it before, let me say it again, if a judge in any apolitical case were being targeted at his or her home with angry protests and

Gov. Hogan, Officials, Refuse to Enforce Laws to Stop Supreme Court Harassment

And meanwhile AG Garland and the rest of the Biden administration are actively abetting this leftist insurrection and campaign of<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/the-colony-man-arrested-terroristic-threat-against-supreme-court/"> political terro</a>r.

<blockquote>
	
		&nbsp;20-year-old man from The Colony has been arrested and charged with making terroristic threats against the Supreme Court.

	
		Mikeal Deshawn Archambault tweeted he was going to kill the justices after their decision in the Dobbs case overturning Roe v. Wade last week.

	
		The tweet, since deleted, said: "I'm finna [sic] everyone in the SUPREME COURT with my ak47."
</blockquote>


	Just business as usual.&nbsp;


	These are countless numbers of these and users have repeatedly documented Twitter refusing to even remove them. You can see <a href="https://foxmetronews.com/news/uncle-clarence-twitter-allows-racial-slurs-death-threats-against-scotus-to-fly-hot-and-heavy/">some of them</a> still up.


	&nbsp;


	&nbsp;

Another Day, Another Arrest for Threatening to Kill Supreme Court Justices

And meanwhile AG Garland and the rest of the Biden administration are actively abetting this leftist insurrection and campaign of political terror.

Another Day, Another Arrest for Threatening to Kill Supreme Court Justices

Was Bill de Blasio’s Mom a Commie?

Yikes, the recent reports of Bill de Blasio as one “Warren Wilhelm Jr.” were news to me (even as news of his name change was first reported several years ago

Black Lives Matter founder Patrisse Cullors has been in the news a lot lately because of controversy over her income and financial dealings, including recent <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/?utm_source=maropost&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=news_alert&amp;utm_content=20210410&amp;mpweb=755-9344744-719172165">purchases of several new homes</a>. Cullors <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/27/black-lives-matter-co-founder-patrisse-cullors-resigns/">lashed out at these criticisms</a> by protesting, “The fact that the right-wing media is trying to create hysteria around my spending is, frankly, racist and sexist.”


	The fact is that Cullors’ own organization has demanded answers. Hawk Newsome, head of Black Lives Matter Greater New York City, called for “an independent investigation” of Cullors. “If you go around calling yourself a socialist, you have to ask how much of her own personal money is going to charitable causes,” <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/?utm_source=maropost&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=news_alert&amp;utm_content=20210410&amp;mpweb=755-9344744-719172165">says Newsome</a>. “It’s really sad because it makes people doubt the validity of the movement and overlook the fact that it’s the people that carry this movement.… We need black firms and black accountants to go in there and find out where the money is going.”


	But another particularly striking Cullors revelation of late has gotten almost no publicity. It was flagged for me by Mike Gonzalez, author of an upcoming <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1641772239/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=amspectator-20&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;creativeASIN=1641772239&amp;linkId=75e48e8fbd5f766a083d7fcb831eb0d7">major new book on BLM</a>. It’s a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RbFhM32YNI">video by Cullors</a> titled, “What Is Abolition And Am I An Abolitionist?” Posted on her personal YouTube channel, it needs to be widely watched.


	In that video, Cullors repeatedly calls herself an “abolitionist.” She talks about her “abolitionist journey” and the “abolitionist future we deserve.” She announces that she’s writing a book titled An Abolitionist Handbook.


	Cullors applies her abolitionist goals to police — and not just police but even prisons and jails. She states flatly, “Abolition is the getting rid of police, prisons and jails, surveillance, and courts.”


	Yes, the abolition of police, prisons, jails, surveillance, and courts — all part of what Cullors calls the “prison industrial complex.” As <a href="https://spectator.org/blm-marxist-defund-police/">many of us have noted</a>, she emphasizes that BLM’s “defund” movement is about literal abolition. That is, not just defunding the police, but abolishing the police. Plus prisons and jails, and now surveillance and courts, too.


	In the video, Cullors points to (as she often does) her mentor Angela Davis, whom she hails as a fellow abolitionist, including of prisons. Davis, of course, is America’s best-known female Marxist. In Moscow in 1979, the Soviets (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuhnJ1tKWJY">in a hall of entirely white folks</a>) awarded her their prestigious Lenin Prize. Cullors’ <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1250306906/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=amspectator-20&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;creativeASIN=1250306906&amp;linkId=339a93b7141c34115419e89cb08f9cd7">memoir</a> opens with a foreword by Davis.


	It’s important to pause here to understand something crucial that helps make sense of where Cullors is coming from on this “abolition” theme.


	Cullors, of course, is a proud Marxist (see my&nbsp;American Spectator piece&nbsp;“<a href="https://spectator.org/blm-founder-patrisse-cullors-american-spectator-print-magazine/">The Politics of Patrisse Cullors</a>”). She describes her “ideological frame” as that of a “trained Marxist organizer” who is “super-versed on ideological theories.” In interviews and in her memoirs, she speaks of her intensive study reading Marx, Lenin, Mao, and other leading Marxists. “We spent the year reading, anything from Marx, to Lenin, to Mao, learning all types of global critical theory,” she said in an April 2018 interview.


	Those of us who have repeatedly underscored these significant facts have done so for good reason, namely that when Cullors tells us this about herself, she’s telling us something very instructive. This is her philosophy and her worldview. And utterly essential to the Marxist philosophy and worldview is the notion of abolition.


	Karl Marx (and Marxism) was all about abolition. The word is omnipresent throughout his writings. As noted by Marx biographer Robert Payne, the word “abolition” seems to practically jump off every page of the&nbsp;Communist&nbsp;Manifesto. “And after he has ‘abolished’ property, family, and nations, and all existing societies, Marx shows little interest in creating a new society on the ruins of the old,” observed Payne. “The Communist Manifesto was the gauntlet he threw at the world.”


	It was indeed. Go online to various writings of Marx and do a search on words like “abolish” and “abolition,” as well as “criticize” and “criticism.” You’ll be struck immediately.


	The goal of the Marxist project was one of fundamental transformation, of pursuing permanent revolution and unrestrained criticism of everything — nothing less than <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm">what Karl Marx called</a> “the ruthless criticism of all that exists.” Marx in his essay declaring religion “the opium of the people” said that “the criticism of religion is the beginning of all criticism.” In that infamous essay, he used the word “criticism” 29 times.


	Marx’s ideas were utterly radical, or (as Marx openly conceded) “contrary to the nature of things.” Above all, Marx in the Manifesto acknowledged that communism seeks to “abolish the present state of things.”


	Think about that one: “abolish the present state of things.” Read it again. Say it out loud. What could be more radical, more revolutionary?


	For those think that Marxism was about mere markets and wealth, chew that one over.


	Marx in the Manifesto stated that communists “openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” Note these words: “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” “All” meant “all.” He and Friedrich Engels closed the Manifesto with this: “Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.”


	Quite chillingly, Marx, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Devil-Karl-Marx-Communisms-Infiltration/dp/1505114446/ref=pd_sbs_14_2/135-9903552-3103205?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=1505114446&amp;pd_rd_r=36af9e7c-ab98-4973-a75d-0444e0854a49&amp;pd_rd_w=uU9oy&amp;pd_rd_wg=7fcFF&amp;pf_rd_p=ed1e2146-ecfe-435e-b3b5-d79fa072fd58&amp;pf_rd_r=VXGQP3HH1TVSM2F2TBZS&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=VXGQP3HH1TVSM2F2TBZS">who wrote about the devil</a>, had a favorite quote from the Mephistopheles (i.e., devil/demon) character in Goethe’s Faust, “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”


	Again, chew that over: “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”


	That is reckless and irresponsible — as reckless and irresponsible as calling for the abolition of police, prisons, jails, surveillance, and courts.


	Above all, Karl Marx, like Patrisse Cullors, was an abolitionist.


	Marx and Engels in the Manifesto targeted everything from property to the family to faith. “Abolition of the family!” they wrote with an exclamation. “Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the communists.” They noted that “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.”


	God has long been a special target for these revolutionaries. To quote Marx’s socialist buddy Mikhail Bakunin from his signature book God and the State: “If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.”


	Yes, you read that right: “If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.”


	Marx envisioned an apocalyptic revolution leading to the abolition of capitalism, classes, and the state itself. In the process, even democracy (temporary exploited) would be abolished.


	Reading all of this closely, of course, was Vladimir Lenin, the totalitarian despot and mass killer that Patrisse Cullors read closely. In his most revealing work, The State and Revolution, Lenin, in his chapter “The Transition from Capitalism to Communism,” quoted Marx and Engels: “the bourgeois state does not ‘wither away,’ but is ‘abolished’ by the proletariat in the course of the revolution.”


	That wasn’t the only thing that Lenin and the Bolsheviks sought to abolish. Consider Lenin’s landmark October 2, 1920, <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/oct/02.htm">speech to the Russian Young Communist League</a>, in which Lenin instructed the 600 assembled delegates in how to “accomplish the task of destroying the foundations of the old.” Lenin said of Marx: “He critically reshaped everything that had been created by human society, without ignoring a single detail. He reconsidered, subjected to criticism, and verified on the working-class movement everything that human thinking had created.” Everything, everything. Among them, the “old schools” would need to be abolished. “The old schools produced servants needed by the capitalists,” sniffed Lenin. “We must therefore abolish them.”


	The new “aim,” Lenin told young communists, was simple: “learn communism.” He told the youth, “You have to build up a communist society,” and “every young man and woman” must proceed in that task without exception. “You must train yourselves to be communists.” As for “the old society,” said Lenin, “We had to destroy all that, and overthrow them.” This meant “overthrowing the tsar, overthrowing the capitalists, and abolishing the capitalist class.”


	Abolish, abolish, abolish. Lenin, too, was an abolitionist. Communism required a constant process of abolition.


	In short, the notion of abolition dominates Marxist thoughts and writings. Marxists are abolitionists. And, not surprisingly, so is Patrisse Cullors, as she tells us in this new video and upcoming book.


	So, when you hear Patrisse Cullors, founder of BLM, talking about “abolishing the police” — and, more so, “getting rid of” prisons and jails and surveillance and courts—and when you hear her calling herself a trained and studied and committed Marxist, you need to understand that the Marxism is not unrelated. For those liberals who shrug off the fact that Cullors is a Marxist, well, you have a lot to learn.


	And above all, most disturbing is what this says about the destructive roots of the “abolish the police” movement that Patrisse Cullors and BLM have inspired. The Marxism matters.


	* * *


	<a href="https://spectator.org/blm-founder-patrisse-cullors/">This article first appeared at The Spectator.</a>

BLM Founder Patrisse Cullors, Marxist Abolitionist

Black Lives Matter founder Patrisse Cullors has been in the news a lot lately because of controversy over her income and financial dealings, including recent

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://spectator.org/?utm_source=LibertyNation">Spectator.org</a>.


	On February 14, 2021, the world quietly lost one of the most intriguing, enduring figures of the Cold War. He was Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking Soviet Bloc official ever to defect to the United States.


	Throughout the 1970s, Pacepa had been arguably the top official in communist Romania, behind only the insane and vicious dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu. He served Ceaușescu in numerous capacities, including as intelligence chief and liaison between the brutal Securitate and the KGB. He knew where bodies were buried.


	After yet another request by Romanian goons to bloody his hands, Pacepa had enough. One day in the summer of 1978, he slipped into the U.S. embassy in West Berlin while on routine business for the Romanian madman who was his boss. He said he wanted to defect. He was hustled out in a late-night flight to the United States — a country he came to love.


	“It was noon when the U.S. military plane bringing me to freedom landed at the U.S. presidential airport inside Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, D.C.,” <a href="https://www.wnd.com/2021/02/top-soviet-bloc-defector-american-patriot-ion-mihai-pacepa-dies-92/">he later told our mutual friend David Kupelian</a>. “It was a glorious, sunny day outside…. I had an overwhelming desire to dance around in a jig all by myself. I was a free man! I was in America! The joy of finally becoming part of this magnanimous land of liberty, where nothing was impossible, was surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive.” He continued, “On that memorable day of July 28, 1978, when I became a free man, I fell to my knees and I prayed out loud for the first time in more than a quarter of a century. It took me a while. It was not easy to find the right words to express my great joy and thanks to the good Lord. In the end, all that I asked for was forgiveness for my past, freedom for my daughter and strength for my new life.”


	Forgiveness and freedom. And yet, Pacepa was never totally free. He was a wanted man, hunted by the Romanian government.


	Once in the United States, Pacepa lived in undisclosed locations, dodging a $2 million bounty placed on his head by his homeland. Communists officials were enraged when Pacepa in 1987 published (via Regnery) his shocking memoir of the Ceausescu era: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895267462/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=amspectator-20&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;creativeASIN=0895267462&amp;linkId=f412733df90ef31c0512748b10ccf5f9">Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae &amp; Elena Ceausescu’s Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption</a>. (The book was reviewed with highest praise by Michael Ledeen in the April 1988 issue of The American Spectator.) Hit squads were dispatched to assassinate him. They never found him. And ironically, Pacepa’s grisly account of Nicolae and his equally cruel and crazy wife Elena would be used as evidence for their conviction and execution by a firing squad of Romanian citizens on Christmas Day 1989.


	Pacepa long outlived the Ceaușescu menace. Now, over four decades after the brutal regime began targeting him, Pacepa’s life has ended. He died at the age of 92, a victim of COVID-19.


	I never had the pleasure of directly meeting Pacepa, given that he was always in hiding, though we emailed frequently for years. He went by the name “Mike,” the Anglicized version of “Mihai.” He had at least two aliases that would pop up sometimes when I got emails from him. His email address was cryptic, starting with an upper-case letter and followed by seven numbers and then @<a href="http://aol.com" rel="nofollow">aol.com</a>. I’m tempted to share the email address here publicly, but doing so would offer no great value. Besides, I never had permission from him to share his email address publicly.


	I often got his emails in response to my articles here at The American Spectator, of which he was an avid reader. He and I even co-authored a piece, “<a href="https://www.wnd.com/2013/05/obamas-sword-and-shield/">Obama’s Sword and Shield</a>,” for The American Spectator in May 2013 (he also <a href="https://spectator.org/41366_open-letter-pasdaran-generals/?utm_source=LibertyNation">did a piece</a> for this magazine in June 2009). Pacepa was a fan of this publication.


	I believe Pacepa first reached out to me in 2010, when I published my Cold War tome, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610171462/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=amspectator-20&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;creativeASIN=1610171462&amp;linkId=95f8e53029fd5d5bba28806b732e85df">Dupes</a>. Pacepa was cited a number of times, particularly for his disturbing insights into how easily communist officials were able to manipulate gullible progressives in the West. That was a subject that troubled and perplexed Pacepa; it fascinated him but also nagged at him. He had seen it from the Truman years through Vietnam and still into the 21st century.


	“They were like putty in our hands,” said Pacepa of the ability of Western liberals to be duped by communists, from the “strong leftist movements [in Western Europe] that we secretly financed” to the vast amounts of disinformation cooked up and spoon-fed to Western liberals who gobbled it up.


	Consider Vietnam: “During the Vietnam War,” said Pacepa, “we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America’s presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren’t facts. They were our tales.” (<a href="https://spectator.org/33921_duped-foggy-bottom/?utm_source=LibertyNation">Recall a young John Kerry’s 1971 Senate testimony</a>.) They were lies. Nonetheless, said Pacepa, millions of Americans “ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy.”


	According to Pacepa, it was the odious Yuri Andropov, then head of the KGB, who conceived this dezinformatsiya campaign — that is, disinformation campaign — against the United States. The Soviets devoted exorbitant spending to that cause. “Vietnam,” Andropov told Pacepa, had been “our most significant success.”


	Pacepa read my book and was very pleased to see that I had focused upon what he judged one of the most significant but underreported and least understood phenomena of our times: the cynical but remarkable power of disinformation.


	In fact, it turned out that he was writing a book on precisely that subject and by that very name: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936488604/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=amspectator-20&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;creativeASIN=1936488604&amp;linkId=354ba76b3915d7e457c1b7eaacbf5a09">Disinformation</a>. He and co-author Ron Rychlak published the book in 2013 through WND Press, and they asked me to write the foreword (former CIA director James Woolsey wrote the introduction). It was a landmark book that everyone ought to read. It will indelibly impact the way you view history and current affairs.


	That groundbreaking book exposed the KGB disinformation schemes against figures like Pope Pius XII (the smearing of Pius XII as “Hitler’s Pope” was begun as a mass Soviet disinformation campaign launched by a Radio Moscow broadcast in 1945) and Cardinals Stepinac and Mindszenty and Wyszyński, as well as the duplicity of groups like the World Peace Council and World Council of Churches. The material on the Soviet promulgation of the insidious Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy is an awakening. The authors chronicled Andropov’s anti-Zionism campaign, support of Islamic terrorism, and promotion of virulent anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism among Middle East Arabs. By 1978, the Soviet bloc planted some 4,000 agents of influence in the Islamic world, armed with hundreds of thousands of copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (and military weapons). Militant atheistic communism sought a handmaiden in militant jihadist Islam, with extremist Muslims exploited by Soviet manipulators. They promulgated not only acts of terrorism but egregious acts of “diplomacy” like the infamous UN Resolution 3379 declaring Zionism a form of racism.


	Pacepa revealed how many vicious myths created by communists have been unwittingly adopted by mainstream historians and journalists. He said the very handbook on Soviet/communist dezinformatsiya opened with this in capital letters: “IF YOU ARE GOOD AT DISINFORMATION, YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING.”


	Pacepa would see these patterns in modern American “journalism,” though it wasn’t always clear if duped American journalists were wittingly or unwittingly spreading disinformation (or “fake news,” to use a modern term). Often, they simply believed what they wanted to believe — just as the Kremlin knew they would.


	Beyond Disinformation, Pacepa wrote a number of fascinating works, including a remarkable 2007 book on the Kennedy assassination, titled <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566637619/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=amspectator-20&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;creativeASIN=1566637619&amp;linkId=d8d43f76bd37da3f75bb64516bacbef0">Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination</a>. Pacepa believed that the Soviets were involved in early steps leading toward or helping to precipitate the assassination. He argued that Oswald had been recruited by the KGB when he first entered the Soviet Union. Over the next two years, however, several things complicated the picture. By 1962, once Oswald was settled in Texas, Khrushchev (allegedly) changed his mind about killing Kennedy. Consequently, claims Pacepa, “the KGB tried to turn Oswald off.” It was too late.


	For the record, this theory of Soviet involvement is disputed by Kennedy assassination investigators and by the Warren Commission, but this much we do know: Moscow did its damnedest to direct eyes of suspicion elsewhere. The Kremlin blamed the Kennedy shooting on (as Pacepa put it) “racists, the Ku Klux Klan, and Birchists.” Pacepa confirmed that the KGB had a thorough, ongoing disinformation campaign to blame the Kennedy assassination on domestic elements in the United States. He reported that on November 26, 1963, Soviet General Aleksandr Sakharovsky landed unannounced in Bucharest and met with Pacepa and other high-level members of Romanian intelligence and leadership. This was his first stop in a “blitz” tour of KGB “sister” services in the Communist Bloc. “From him,” recalled Pacepa, “we in the DIE [Romanian intelligence] learned that the KGB had already launched a worldwide disinformation operation aimed at diverting public attention away from Moscow in respect to the Kennedy assassination, and at framing the CIA as the culprit.” Nikita Khrushchev himself, said Sakharovsky, wanted it made clear to the sister services that “this was by far our first and most important task.” They circulated rumors that “the CIA was responsible for the crime” and that Lyndon Johnson and the “military-industrial complex” had been involved.


	The effort would be called Operation Dragon. It became, said Pacepa, one of the most successful disinformation operations in contemporary history. Pacepa pointed to Hollywood film director Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008Y7R1LM/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=amspectator-20&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;creativeASIN=B008Y7R1LM&amp;linkId=7e94201b6bb59826e49a5ba7e7d76077">JFK</a>, which blamed the Kennedy assassination on a cabal that included the CIA, Lyndon Johnson, and the military-industrial complex. It was nominated for eight Academy Awards.


	There are so many intriguing items like this from this intriguing figure that was Ion Mihai Pacepa. I could go on and on. One more item of interest to readers here:


	The scourge that is Liberation Theology has rotten roots. Those roots go back not only to twisted Jesuit theologians in Latin America in the 1970s but, according to Pacepa, to the KGB. Pacepa went so far as to claim that <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-soviet-spy-we-created-liberation-theology-83634">Liberation Theology was created by the KGB</a>. “The movement was born in the KGB,” stated Pacepa unequivocally, “and it had a KGB-invented name: Liberation Theology.” He said that “the birth of Liberation Theology” came from a 1960 “super-secret Party-State Dezinformatsiya [Disinformation] Program” approved by Aleksandr Shelepin, then-chairman of the KGB, and by Politburo member Aleksey Kirichenko, who coordinated the Communist Party’s international policies. The program “demanded that the KGB take secret control of the World Council of Churches,” which was based in Geneva, and use it “as cover for converting Liberation Theology into a South American revolutionary tool.”


	Again, I could go on. The late Lt. Gen. Pacepa knew a lot.


	Ion Mihai Pacepa died on February 14. Fittingly, he passed away at an undisclosed hospital in an undisclosed location somewhere in the United States. There <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/ion-mihai-pacepa-highest-ranking-soviet-bloc-defector-to-the-west-dies-at-92/31105240.html">was no official announcement</a>.


	The loss of Mike Pacepa is a loss for many, especially his beloved wife and family. It is also a loss for history and contemporary understanding of certain events. He shared with us gems of information and even disinformation. Perhaps most helpful of all, he warned us not only about what to believe but what not to believe.


	Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College in Grove City, Pa., and senior academic fellow at the Center for Vision &amp; Values. Dr. Kengor is author of over a dozen books, including A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism, and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

Death of a Defector: Ion Mihai Pacepa, RIP

This article originally appeared in Spectator.org.


	On February 14, 2021, the world quietly lost one of the most intriguing, enduring figures of the Cold

Reprinted From the <a href="https://spectator.org/">American Spectator</a>.


	In a cancel culture targeting everyone from Confederate to Union generals, Columbus to Winston Churchill, Francis Scott Key to even Abraham Lincoln and all of Mt. Rushmore, and where the racial statements and attitudes of every historical figure are scrutinized, it’s funny who gets a pass.


	A 16-foot-tall bronzed Vladimir Lenin stands unscathed in liberal Seattle, and a new monument to the Bolshevik godfather just went up in Germany. Particularly curious, one wonders why Karl Marx goes untouched.


	There are monuments to Marx in Europe, one just erected in 2018. In the United States, there’s a handsome profile of Marx carved in porcelain at one of the Smithsonian museums and a flowery painting at the Guggenheim. In 2018, for the bicentennial of his birth, one of America’s top colleges, Carnegie Mellon University, held a yearlong celebration of Marx, including an accompanying art exhibit dedicated to the man. And who knows how many busts of Marx sit in professors’ offices, safe from protesting college students with spray-cans.


	Of course, the reality is that Marx gets a pass from the left because he’s of the left. Leftists ignore or try to separate him from the ideology bearing his name that helped produce over 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone. The dread “dead white European male” tag conveniently eludes Karl Marx, nor does he raise the needle on the Left’s bigotry meter. But alas, he should.


	Karl Marx was, after all, a bigot. His attitude toward blacks and Jews alone (not to mention women) would stun Stonewall Jackson. Ugly racial-ethnic stereotypes by Marx are littered throughout his writings.


	Consider how Marx spoke of his own son-in-law, Paul Lafargue, husband of his daughter Laura. Paul came from Cuba, born in Santiago, and Marx thus viewed him as marred by “Negro” blood and denigrated him as “Negrillo” or “the Gorilla.” Karl never let up his ridicule of poor Paul. In November 1882, still 14 years after Lafargue and Laura married, Marx complained to Engels that “Lafargue has the blemish customarily found in the negro tribe — no sense of shame, by which I mean shame about making a fool of oneself.”


	Marx had a friendly audience for such views in Friedrich Engels, his Communist Manifesto partner. Engels, a proud Darwinian, averred that Paul possessed “one-eighth or one-twelfth nigger blood.” In 1887, Lafargue had been a political candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. In an April 1887 letter to Paul’s wife, Engels cruelly opined, “Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.”


	It is no wonder that Marx’s son-in-law had such low self-esteem. In fact, one day in November 1911, Paul ended it all. He killed himself in a suicide pact with Marx’s daughter. In fact, two of Marx’s daughters killed themselves in suicide pacts with their husbands.


	Karl Marx freely dispensed with nasty epithets aimed not only at blacks but at Jews. Biographer Jonathan Sperber notes that Marx’s correspondence is “filled with contemptuous remarks about Jews.” Even his admiring biographer Francis Wheen, who habitually defends nearly everything about Marx, admits that he “sprayed anti-Semitic insults at his enemies with savage glee.”


	Of one contemporary, Marx blasted his “cynical, oily-obtrusive, phony-Baronial Jew-manners.” Particularly loathsome to Marx was anyone he suspected of part Jewish and African roots. Marx referred to his fellow German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle as a “greasy Jew,” “the little kike,” “water-polack Jew,” “Jew Braun,” “Yid,” “Izzy,” “Wily Ephraim,” “Baron Itzig,” and “the Jewish Nigger.” In a July 1862 letter to Engels, Marx confidently observed of Lassalle, “It is now perfectly clear to me that, as the shape of his head and the growth of his hair indicates, he is descended from the Negroes who joined in Moses’ flight from Egypt.” Lassalle’s “cranial formation,” detected Marx, was the giveaway. Marx did, however, allow for an exception: “unless his mother or grandmother on the father’s side was crossed with a nigger.” Marx chortled, “This union of Jew and German on a Negro base was bound to produce an extraordinary hybrid.” He also hastened to add, “The fellow’s importunity is also niggerlike.”


	One of Marx’s worst expressions of anti-Semitism was his painful 1844 essay “On the Jewish Question.”


	“What is the worldly cult of the Jew?” asked Marx. His answer: “Haggling. What is his worldly god? Money.” He growled, “Money is the jealous god of Israel before whom no other god may exist…. The bill of exchange is the actual god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.” The Jew, Marx snarled, had become “impossible.” The German chillingly concluded, “The emancipation of the Jews, in the final analysis, is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”


	In his seminal edited volume on Karl Marx and religion, Saul Padover said that Marx — who was, ironically, an ethnic Jew — had “learned to despise and hate the people from whom he originated. This was an expression of what the Germans call Selbsthass (self-hate), a trait which Karl Marx displayed throughout his whole life.” Padover was taken aback by “the extent and virulence of his anti-Semitism.”


	Karl Marx summed it up plainly in a letter to his longtime friend Arnold Ruge in 1843: “the Israelite faith is repulsive to me.”


	Much more could be said. This is far from a full testimony of Marx’s awful attitudes.


	Remember: the Left’s standard for canceling a historical figure is bigotry. And really, it often takes only one offensive statement from an entire lifetime. That being the case, why hasn’t Karl Marx been canceled? Why aren’t angry mobs staging sit-ins outside professors’ doors insisting their busts of Marx be tossed to the ash-heap of history? Why do universities celebrate the man? And where’s Black Lives Matter on this one?


	We know the answer. Karl Marx is an icon to the Left. Just like progressives’ calls for tolerance and diversity, their calls for canceling and removing are highly selective — or, more bluntly, highly hypocritical.

So Why Not Cancel Leftist Karl Marx?

Reprinted From the American Spectator.


	In a cancel culture targeting everyone from Confederate to Union generals, Columbus to Winston Churchill, Francis

"We have no reason to create millionaires,” declared Fidel Castro to his Politburo. “We fight not to create millionaires.”


	Castro, for the record, was much more than a millionaire. In 2006, Forbes magazine estimated his net worth at $900 million and rising. The communist tinhorn despot ranked among the top 10 wealthiest rulers in Forbes’ annual survey, with a stash of cash and land equating to likely over a billion dollars at the time of his death.


	And yet, all Cuban workers — from doctors to teachers, baseball players, dentists, farmers, janitors — subsisted at a mandated “living wage” of $1,200 per year, while the Castro brothers and a close-knit band of apparatchiks literally owned the island. Like all communist countries that tout spreading the wealth, Cuba has its filthy rich; they’re the “1 percent” of Communist Party cohorts.


	Yes, American progressives and Occupy Wall Street maniacs, if you want to see a society of true 1-percenters, with an income gap that would make you cry into your Starbucks cup, go to a Marxist country. There, 99 percent of the masses make the same poverty wage, while 1 percent confiscate wealth and property.


	But hey, at least the serfs have “free” education and health care!


	That’s the ridiculous retort of the American Left, including Bernie Sanders.


	A big fan of Castro’s revolucion is America’s top revolutionary, Bernie Sanders, who in August 1985 gushed and blubbered, “In 1961, we invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world.”


	Well, not everyone. Not Bernie, at least.


	“All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro,” Sanders mocked. “They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society.”


	Bernie, then a presidential elector to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, today promises his own transformed society. He announced his 2020 presidential campaign vowing to “transform the country” and complete “<a href="https://spectator.org/bernies-bread-lines-and-revolution/">the political revolution</a>.”


	That campaign includes a class-warfare campaign of agitation and propaganda.


	Eerily Castro-like, Bernie echoes Fidel, albeit ratcheting up the zeroes: “There should be no billionaires,” <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2019%2F09%2F24%2Fpolitics%2Fbernie-sanders-ultra-wealth-tax-billionaires%2Findex.html&amp;data=02%7C01%7CKengorPG%40GCC.EDU%7Cac4795bbf20142ff176c08d782fbfbee%7C8391896022184cd381fe302a8e771da9%7C0%7C0%7C637121891092260278&amp;sdata=9zFgh6WagyNZDcA9jk3ydhJg5BEKV3pFpfr%2Fmftr%2F5s%3D&amp;reserved=0">declares Bernie</a>.


	Presumably, Bernie would have made exemptions for his wealthy pal in Havana, and no doubt for himself as well.


	Bernie personally is worth at least a couple million. Like a long line of limousine leftists, mansion Marxists, and Dom Perignon Trotskyists, Bernie is no beggar. The 1980s <a href="https://spectator.org/bernie-bolshevik-party-boy/">Bolshevik Party Boy</a> has sworn no vow of poverty or oath of economic equality with California fruit pickers and Kentucky coal miners.


	Politico last May referred to Bernie as “a three-home-owning millionaire with a net worth approaching at least $2 million.” Bernie <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/us/politics/bernie-sanders-millionaire-net-worth-taxes.html">acknowledged to the New York Times</a>&nbsp;his millionaire status. Among <a href="https://heavy.com/news/2019/06/bernie-sanders-house-home-photos/">his latest homes</a> is one he and his wife Jane bought with cash, $575,000, in the Champlain Islands, where they summer together. Graced with 500 feet of Lake Champlain beachfront, this is Bernie’s dacha on the Black Sea.


	In addition, Bernie and Jane in 2009 dropped $405,000 on a handsome Colonial home in Burlington, Vermont. The socialist couple wasn’t finished with the land grabs. They forked over $489,000 for a row house in Washington, D.C.


	Stumping for socialism seems a pretty lucrative deal.


	But the masses are expected to ignore that, just as they were expected to shrug off Fidel’s excesses. Leaving his lakeside dacha for his all-expenses-paid campaign trail, Bernie pivots on a dime and rolls up the sleeves to champion the proletariat. The billionaire bourgeoisie must be liquidated!


	“Billionaires should not exist.” The new fist-in-the-air slogan of the Sanders movement for social justice.


	Bernie grimaces, snarls, snaps a glance at the saps in his socialist army: “<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/sanders-facing-billionaire-donors-snub-says-billionaires-shouldnt-exist">not a single billionaire has donated to our campaign</a>.” The suckers cheer their leader.


	Not that Bernie is against campaign cash. In fact, it’s interesting that as Sanders stokes class envy, he wallows in a mass infusion of contributions from rich liberal cronies. His <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/01/bernie-sanders-raised-34point5-million-in-4q-in-2020-democratic-primary.html">campaign reports</a> that in December he raised more than $18 million, his best month of the election cycle, and now leads all Democrats with an impressive $34.5 million raised in the fourth quarter of the most recent fundraising session. It’s doubtful that all that coin from the cash-basher came from miserly millennials chipping in a few bucks from their parents’ allowances. You can be sure that a pile came from rich people that Bernie might otherwise denounce as capitalist reptiles. You can also be certain that Bernie and buddies — in the name of economic justice — will not be redistributing any of those precious greenbacks to immigrants at border detention centers.


	“Our political revolution is powered by the working class,” snorts Bernie, explaining that such is why “not a single billionaire has donated to our campaign.”


	That being the case, the Brooklyn–Vermont–Washington millionaire should put his money where his mouth is and empower the working class by funneling greedy campaign cash back to the people — the rightful owners from whom it was no doubt stolen. Sanders should sanctify the revolution, redeeming these profits and converting them into ploughshares for the working man.


	Fat chance. Bernie is basking in the cash. Bernie money is good money.


	“Capitalism as an economic system has to be radically altered and changed,” said Bernie <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ilanbenmeir/bernie-sanders-despised-democrats-in-1980s-said-a-jfk-speech#.nkWvoO2G9">in December 1987</a>.


	But as for his pocketbook, Bernie wants no radical alterations. His wallet is fat, just the way he and his fellow champagne socialists like it.


	* * *


	<a href="https://spectator.org/bernies-billionaires/">This article originally appeared in The American Spectator</a>.


	<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/number7cloud/48036980607">Photo by Laurie Shaull</a>

Bernie’s Billionaires

"We have no reason to create millionaires,” declared Fidel Castro to his Politburo. “We fight not to create millionaires.”


	Castro, for the record, was

Bernie’s Billionaires

On October 20, 1981, the guys and gals of the Weather Underground finally did it. They at last carried out a criminal act that not only led directly to deaths but also landed at least some of them in prison. Unlike Bill Ayers, one of several Weather Underground fugitives fleeing the FBI who would later boast, “Guilty as hell, free as a bird! America is a great country!,” the orchestrators of this incident didn’t get away with it.


	This time, the plotters, including Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, pulled off an armed robbery of a Brinks truck outside the Nanuet Mall in Nanuet, New York, in which two “pigs” (read: police officers) and a Brinks guard were killed, plus three other officers seriously wounded. Losing their lives that day were Brinks guard Peter Paige and police officers Edward O’Grady and Waverly “Chipper” Brown.


	Brown, incidentally, was the only black officer on the force; in fact, he was the first African American member of the Nyack, New York, police department. This was ironic given that the perpetrators did the job in part to finance their war against “racism” in America, the apotheosis of which would be the establishment of a “New Afrika” in America’s southern states.


	Kathy Boudin was driving the getaway truck, a U-Haul. The haters of capitalism stole away with over a million bucks they stuffed in their greedy pockets — quite literally blood money.


	Boudin was no stranger to violence. She had escaped a precarious brush with death a decade earlier. On March 6, 1970, three Weather Underground troops were fatally injured in an accidental explosion at an apartment in a wealthy section of Greenwich Village in a plan that went awry. As David Horowitz has documented, the original plan had been to produce nail bombs to detonate at a military dance in Fort Dix, New Jersey, where the communist revolutionaries hoped to murder young Vietnam vets reunited for an evening of happiness with their wives. The plan backfired.


	Among the dead were Diana Oughton, Terry Robbins, and Ted Gold, all dear friends of Boudin, Gilbert, and Weathermen leaders Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Mark Rudd, Jeff Jones, and John Jacobs. When the bomb went off, Boudin was reclining in a cedar-lined sauna. She stumbled naked out the front door of the smoking apartment, walking away from the dismembered corpse of Oughton, her deceased former Bryn Mawr classmate.


	The detonation and death of her friends seemed to have not been enough to set Boudin straight. A decade later came the Brinks blowup.


	The Brinks conspirators were arrested. Boudin did long-term prison time when her father, a notorious left-wing attorney, was unable to save his client-daughter from jail. Gilbert did even longer time, as did co-conspirator Judy Clark. Boudin and Clark devoted part of their time in jail to lecturing fellow inmates about “social justice.” Gilbert is still in the penitentiary. Clark just this year was granted parole.


	Gilbert had been a classmate of SDS-leader-turned-Weatherman Mark Rudd. Gilbert was a sociology major and chairman of Columbia’s Independent Committee on Vietnam. Rudd described Gilbert as sensitive and brilliant. If not for a life in prison, Rudd notes that Gilbert would have had “a career as a respected professor” in sociology.


	No doubt. Such was the path of all these communist revolutionaries: American higher ed. Our universities are havens of Sixties radicals. That’s where the real takedown has taken place.


	In prison, Kathy Boudin studied education, publishing articles in journals like the Harvard Educational Review. Her liberal friends fought for her parole, which eventually came in 2003.


	Boudin was permitted admission into Columbia Teachers College, where she earned an Ed.D. and became an adjunct assistant professor at the Columbia University School of Social Work. According to her <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ssw/faculty/adjunct/boudin.html">bio</a>&nbsp;on the university’s website, Boudin’s work focuses on “mother-child relationships,” “criminal justice,” “restorative justice,” and “health care.”


	But Boudin and Gilbert left another legacy, which, alas, brings me to my focus here today.


	At the time of the Brinks robbery, Boudin was not only a Marxist revolutionary but also a Marxist mother. With Gilbert, she had a 14-month-old infant named Chesa. In fact, mom and dad had just left the baby with a sitter that October 20 before they ventured off for their Brinks heist. With Chesa in the hands of the sitter, Boudin put her hands on the wheel of the getaway truck.


	Once Chesa’s mom and dad were tossed into the slammer, the baby boy was without a mother and father. What would happen to Chesa? Who would raise the radicals’ son?


	Well, the radicals chose two fellow radicals to raise the boy.&nbsp;No less than the infamous Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn subsequently raised the orphaned child. Boudin happily agreed to let Bernardine become her son’s mother. She turned over the nurturing of her son to the author of the “four-finger salute” that Bernardine had conceived in December 1969 at their “War Council” in Flint, Michigan; Bernardine adopted it as the new slogan of the Weathermen. The four fingers represented the fork that Charles Manson’s “Helter Skelter” killers had left in the womb of actress Sharon Tate after murdering her in Los Angeles in August 1969.


	“Dig it!,” reveled Bernardine from the War Council podium. “First they killed those pigs. Then they ate dinner in the same room with them. Then they even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!”


	It was a sick display. Even Mark Rudd shuddered. Rudd many years later recalled that the assembled “instantly adopted as Weather’s salute four fingers held up in the air, invoking the fork left in Sharon Tate’s belly.” Rudd translated this message for the wider world: “The message was that we sh-t on all your conventional values, you murderers of black revolutionaries and Vietnamese babies. There were no limits to our politics of transgression.”


	No, there were not. And the charming, loving Bernardine became mom to Chesa Boudin.


	So, where is Chesa today?


	The answer to that question brings us to the events of November 5 in the ideological loony bin that is San Francisco.


	<a href="https://spectator.org/da-candidate-chesa-boudin-and-his-four-parents-terrorist-legacy/">Chesa Boudin</a>, the boy of Kathy and David and Bernardine and Bill, is now a grown man with radical views of his own. Earlier this month, the radical citizens of San Francisco elected the radical son as their district attorney. This son of two Weather Underground terrorists — <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/11/headlines/chesa_boudin_wins_san_francisco_district_attorneys_race">described by Democracy Now! as Weather Underground “activists”</a> — is now the DA-elect of San Francisco.


	Predictably, of course, Chesa is as left-wing as they come and has been for a long time. Back in March 2009, in an article he wrote for the Nation, Chesa described himself as a “foreign policy adviser to President Hugo Chavez.” Now he seeks to bring the Chavez revolution home to San Francisco. The son of two convicts sentenced to prison for murder promises to reform the criminal justice system.


	The San Francisco police union is not exactly enamored. It <a href="https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-police-union-dumps-50k-into-committee-against-da-candidate/">dumped $50,000</a>&nbsp;into a new political action committee to defeat the 39-year-old radical. “After further evaluating the positions and words from Chesa Boudin, we have determined that he is not only the wrong choice, but the dangerous choice, for district attorney,” warned Tony Montoya, president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association. “He will work harder at finding ways for criminals to get back on our streets than protecting crime victims and increasing neighborhood safety.”


	Chesa says his parents’ experience inspires his plans to reform the justice system. “Chesa Boudin’s parents were incarcerated when he was just fourteen months old for driving the getaway car in a robbery that tragically took the lives of three men,” <a href="https://www.chesaboudin.com/about">Chesa’s campaign website says</a>. “Chesa’s father is still in prison. Chesa knows first-hand the destructive impacts of mass incarceration…. This experience caused Chesa to dedicate his career to making our country safer by reforming our criminal justice system.”


	Interestingly, the “progressive” Chesa struggled to get the backing of the California Democratic establishment, most of whom,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kqed.org/news/11786019/reformer-chesa-boudin-defeats-suzy-loftus-in-race-for-s-f-d-a">including</a>&nbsp;Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, endorsed his Democratic opponent. But he was vigorously endorsed by the likes of former Communist Party USA vice-presidential candidate Angela Davis <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2019/10/29/headlines/sanders_endorses_chesa_boudin_for_san_francisco_district_attorney">and by the runner-up</a>&nbsp;for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders.


	Chesa’s victory was celebrated by Bernie, who hailed his comrade <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1193337033500037120">from his Twitter account</a>: “Now is the moment to fundamentally transform our racist and broken criminal justice system by ending mass incarceration, the failed war on drugs and the criminalization of poverty. Congratulations <a href="https://twitter.com/chesaboudin">@chesaboudin</a> on your historic victory!”


	Fittingly, Bernie invoked the language of “fundamental transformation,” calling to mind the promise of one Barack Obama. Yes, the Obama who was friends with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. As even the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html">New York Times&nbsp;acknowledged</a>, it was a special moment in the Chicago living room of Bill and Bernardine in 1995 when Illinois State Sen. Alice Palmer announced a young, unknown Barack Obama as her chosen successor. The rest was history. Obama became the man who on the eve of the November 2008 presidential election vowed to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Americans voted for him overwhelmingly.


	That transformation continues apace as more and more Americans elect leftist radicals like Chesa Boudin.


	One wonders what’s next for Chesa’s and Obama’s Democratic Party. Maybe a U.S. Senate seat in California? No doubt Californians will be ready for that transformation, too. The wheels of “progress” push forward. And the ghosts of radicals past haunt us still. Nice job, San Francisco.

Radical Son: The Rise of Chesa Boudin

On October 20, 1981, the guys and gals of the Weather Underground finally did it. They at last carried out a criminal act that not only led directly to deaths

Radical Son: The Rise of Chesa Boudin

Reprinted from <a href="https://spectator.org/">The American Spectator</a>.


	In college, I was left of center,” explained James Comey in an interview with&nbsp;New York&nbsp;magazine, “and through a gradual process I found myself more comfortable with a lot of the ideas and approaches the Republicans were using.” Comey voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980, but says that four years later, in 1984, “I voted for Reagan — I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”


	Comey was once a communist. And look deeper at his statement: “I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”


	Which leaves us wondering if James Comey has yet figured it out.


	Kudos to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-16/both-comey-and-brennan-both-voted-communist-while-cold-war-was-raging">Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge&nbsp;</a>for unearthing this gem from an interview&nbsp;<a href="http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/n_9353/">Comey gave to&nbsp;New York&nbsp;magazine&nbsp;</a>back in 2003 when he first arrived in Washington.


	This odd blast from Comey’s past explains some things. While somewhat surprising, it actually makes sense, because James Comey is politically puzzling. You can’t quite figure him out, and apparently neither can he. He’s hard to pin down politically, to take seriously. He’s sort of a political-ideological enigma, a jester (clown seems too harsh). This weird communist statement is kind of instructive.


	Granted, James Comey did full penance in 1984 by swinging all the way to the other side and voting for Reagan. He was far from alone. I could rattle off names of individuals who were once communists but by 1984 joined the rest of respectable America in voting for Reagan. Sources as diverse of David Horowitz, Marvin Olasky, Ron Radosh, Joseph Farah, even Father Robert Sirico, among others, were far left but eventually became Reagan conservatives.


	And yet, as Tyler Durden notes, the same can’t be said of John Brennan, the Obama CIA director who around this same time voted for the Communist Party presidential ticket of Gus Hall and Angela Davis and has remained on the left ever since.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/john-brennan-cia-communist-vote/index.html">Brennan admitted publicly</a>, in September 2016, that when he took his polygraph test for the CIA in 1980, he had already cast a ballot for Gus Hall as president of the United States. Hall was a stooge of the Kremlin, a shameless lackey for Moscow, and he was John Brennan’s choice. Remarkably, Brennan even suggested he had been a member of the Communist Party. He recalled telling the polygrapher: “I said, ‘I’m not a member of the Communist Party,’ so the polygrapher looked at me and said, ‘OK,’ and when I was finished with the polygraph and I left and said, ‘Well, I’m screwed.’”


	Busted, right? Apparently not. Jimmy Carter’s CIA let him in, allowing him to rise one day to the heights of head of the agency under Barack Obama.


	But the Brennan aspect sheds light on something still more troubling about this scenario. This means that President Barack Obama had not only the first CIA director who had been a communist but, simultaneously, the first FBI director who had been one. Leave it to Obama.


	And worse, Barack Obama himself was probably a communist in 1980. I laid this out at length in my book on Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, which was appropriately short-titled,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Communist-Paul-Kengor/dp/1451698097/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+communist+paul+kengor&amp;qid=1558389381&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1">The Communist</a>.


	For that book, I interviewed Dr. John Drew, who met Obama at Occidental College, where Drew had run the campus Marxist organization. Drew’s girlfriend introduced the young Obama as “one of us.” Drew told me: “Obama was already an ardent Marxist when I met him in the fall of 1980. I know it’s incendiary to say this, but Obama was basically a Marxist-Leninist.”


	You can read&nbsp;Dreams From My Father&nbsp;and catch Obama ruminating about how he “hung out” with Marxist professors and attended “socialist conferences.” John Drew hastens to add that what Obama did not explain in&nbsp;Dreams&nbsp;is that he “was in 100 percent, total agreement with these Marxist professors.” Drew continued:

<blockquote>
	
		At the time I met him — this was probably around Christmastime in 1980, because I had flown out during Christmas break from Cornell, where I was doing my graduate work — young Obama was looking forward to an imminent social revolution, literally a movement where the working classes would overthrow the ruling class and institute a kind of socialist utopia in the United States. I mean, that’s how extreme his views were.… I was kind of more [in] the Frankfurt School of Marxism at the time. I felt like I was doing Obama a favor by pointing out that the Marxist revolution that he and [our friends] were hoping for was really kind of a pipedream…. I was still a card-carrying Marxist, but I was kind of a more advanced, East Coast, Cornell University Marxist, I think, at the time. [Obama] kind of thought I was, you know, a little&nbsp;reactionary… like I was kind of insensitive to the needs of the coming revolution. [Obama] was full-bore, 100% into that simpleminded Marxist, revolutionary mental framework.
</blockquote>


	Of course, to repeat, people do change, often dramatically — though they usually tell us about the change and how and why. Obama, however, never did, not even in two lengthy memoirs published before he set foot in the Oval Office. We have no conversion narrative from Obama — nothing explaining when and where he left all that Marxist junk behind.


	Obama certainly didn’t vote for Reagan in 1984. Quite the contrary, in chapter 7 of&nbsp;Dreams, the future apostle of “hope and change” employed the word “change” seven times in the opening paragraphs, including the need in the 1980s for “change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds.”


	Reagan and his&nbsp;minions, and their&nbsp;dirty deeds. Obama perceived an America that needed a “change in the mood of the country.” Reagan’s “morning in America,” beloved by millions, to the point where Reagan won 49 of 50 states, needed to be changed in Obama’s America.


	Barack Hussein Obama yearned for an America more like him. And like John Brennan, he remained on the far left. One wonders if a young Obama and a young Brennan — and maybe even a young comrade Comey — bumped into one another at one of those socialist conferences.


	“I chose my friends carefully,” Obama wrote in&nbsp;Dreams From My Father. “The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz [sic] Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints.”


	Well, in 2008, they shook America. They took the White House.


	(Mr. Durden, can you find any old photos of John Brennan smoking a cigarette in a leather jacket? Maybe at a&nbsp;Dead Kennedys&nbsp;show?)


	Just a handful of years ago, ladies and gentlemen, America had a unique troika running the White House, the FBI, and the CIA. What a fundamental transformation it was.

Comey Was a Commie?

Reprinted from The American Spectator.


	In college, I was left of center,” explained James Comey in an interview with&nbsp;New York&nbsp;magazine, “and

Reprinted From <a href="https://spectator.org/">The American Spectator</a>.


	On Friday morning I was sitting alone gumming a bowl of oatmeal in the breakfast area of a Hampton Inn in Pontiac, Illinois, when I was assaulted by an absurdity on the widescreen TV. There I was, calmly minding my own business, keeping my big mouth shut for a change, opening it only for the next scoop of tastelessness. Just then, a group of maniacs from the&nbsp;Today&nbsp;show ruined my tranquility by babbling obliviously and ecstatically about International Women’s Day.


	International Women’s Day? Seriously? Had I slipped back in time a hundred years ago to, er, Leningrad, March 8, 1919? Judging from the giggling guy and gals on the screen, I had not. I checked my phone. It was March 8, 2019. And I was in America.


	Some&nbsp;Today&nbsp;show dingbat gushed feigned excitement about the great holiday. Sitting to his left were two or three fashionable ladies likewise sharing his jubilation. The male host turned over the segment to a lady reporter outside the building, who was flanked by two young women prattling on about the liberation of the “music industry” from some sinister male dominance that obviously has deprived the likes of Madonna and Barbra Streisand of millions of dollars in riches. Behind them all was a gaggle of girls cheering about something else that had something to do with International Women’s Day.


	It was confusing. All of these women and yet —&nbsp;and yet&nbsp;— no Comrade Clara.

<div>
	<div id="spectator_300x250_right2" align="center">
		&nbsp;</div>
</div>


	That’s right. No Comrade Clara. Where was Clara Zetkin?


	It was then that I realized that, no, I hadn’t slipped into a time-warp overnight somewhere along Rt. 55 on my way from Eureka College to the Union League Club in Chicago later that day — both places where, ironically, I would deliver lectures celebrating America’s defeat of international communism in the last century.


	I guess the celebration is premature.


	Recall, dear leaders, that we Americans won the Cold War and defeated the likes of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Clara Zetkin.


	Because of the laws of nature, Clara wasn’t at&nbsp;Today’s studios on Friday. Never hopping an elliptical a day in her life, never doing a Pilates workout, and surely never prancing around in yoga pants, Clara died 86 years ago. She died in Moscow, of course. She was there in the rollicking 1930s, the cusp of Stalin’s wondrous five-year plans, and just missed his Great Purge and mass famine imposed upon the Ukraine.


	But Clara was there in New York on Friday in spirit. And it seems unfair that the folks at&nbsp;Today&nbsp;offered no acknowledgment of this matron of International Women’s Day. Not even a photo!


	Of course, let’s be honest, and sadly serious for a moment. Most of these modern products of our universities have no idea who Comrade Clara was, or would give a rip, and would surely hurl cries of “McCarthyism” at me for raising the specter of the old German socialist-Marxist. Clara will not be condemned. Communism will not be condemned. I will be condemned. As usual, anti-communism will be condemned.


	Swimming along with the cultural tide, infused by the&nbsp;Zeitgeist, choked by what R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. calls the&nbsp;Kultursmog, they only know what they’ve been taught. More so, they are victims of their progressive professors’ many sins of omission — chief among them the utter failure to teach the lessons, the damage, and the outright horrors of communism.


	They’ve been duped.


	Hence, as a public service, I’d like to here pause to enlighten them on the origins of the communist holiday they commemorated last week.


	Clara Zetkin was a big-time German pinko. A Marxist theorist and proud feminist-socialist, she also claimed the banner hoisted today by the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her charming congressional colleague from Dearborn, Michigan, Ms. Tlaib — that is to say, Clara was a “democratic socialist.”


	And International Women’s Day was Clara’s thing. If you doubt me, take a glance at the piece (including the accompanying photo of the women carrying the banner, “WOMEN OF THE WORLD UNITE”) on “<a href="http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/the-origins-of-international-womens-day/">The Origins of International Women’s Day</a>” in&nbsp;People’s World, longtime flagship publication of American communism and successor to the&nbsp;Daily Worker. Right from the horse’s mouth:

<blockquote>
	
		Within the last twenty years, many thousands of women worldwide have begun to celebrate International Women’s Day (IWD). However, the way in which the day is marked often bears little resemblance to the original IWD purpose and origins. This is a great misfortune.
</blockquote>


	How so? What was the motivation for “IWD?” The&nbsp;People’s World&nbsp;writer provides an accurate answer:

<blockquote>
	
		IWD was founded at the beginning of the last century to both highlight and celebrate the struggle of working women against their oppression and double exploitation.

	
		Today, this fight has not been won — their struggle is still our struggle. Thus, it is timely to remind women and men in the labor movement and elsewhere of the inspirational socialist origins of IWD in the hope that it will ignite again a progressive socialist feminist women’s movement rooted in an understanding of the class basis of women’s inequality. We can learn from our history, but first we must rediscover it.
</blockquote>


	Assisting in that rediscovery,People’s World&nbsp;notes (correctly) that the first historic demonstration launching IWD took place on March 8, 1908 by “women workers” on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. From there, Clara and the European worker-masses rose up:

<blockquote>
	
		Meanwhile, news of the heroic fight of U.S. women workers reached Europe — in particular, it inspired European socialist women who had established, on the initiative of the German socialist feminist Clara Zetkin (1857-1933), the International Socialist Women’s Conference.

	
		This latter body met for the first time in 1907 in Stuttgart alongside one of the periodic conferences of the Second [Communist] International (1889-1914).

	
		Three years later in 1910, Zetkin proposed the following motion at the Copenhagen Conference of the Second International: “The Socialist women of all countries will hold each year a Women’s Day, whose foremost purpose it must be to aid the attainment of women’s suffrage. This demand must be handled in conjunction with the entire women’s question according to Socialist precepts.”

	
		The motion was carried. March 8 was favored.
</blockquote>


	From there, notes&nbsp;People’s World, the Bolsheviks got into the full swing and adopted International Women’s Day as a national holiday that would last throughout the entirety of the USSR:

<blockquote>
	
		In 1917 in Russia, International Women’s Day acquired great significance — it was the flashpoint for the Russian Revolution. On March 8, (Western calendar) female workers in Petrograd held a mass strike and demonstration demanding peace and bread. The strike movement spread from factory to factory and effectively became an insurrection.

	
		The Bolshevik paper&nbsp;Pravda&nbsp;reported that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/the-women-who-helped-lead-the-russian-revolution/">the action of women led to revolution</a>, resulting in the downfall of the tsar, a precursor to the Bolshevik revolution. “The first day of the revolution was Women’s Day… the women… decided the destiny of the troops; they went to the barracks, spoke to the soldiers, and the latter joined the revolution… Women, we salute you.”

	
		In 1922, in honor of the women’s role on IWD in 1917, Lenin declared that March 8 should be designated officially as Women’s Day. Much later, it was a national holiday in the Soviet Union and most of the former socialist countries.
</blockquote>


	There you go. That says it all, doesn’t it? It was a national holiday in Lenin’s and Stalin’s USSR.


	Well, it looks like our intrepid “progressives” in the United States have picked up the torch. They are poised to make IWD a national holiday in the United States, too.


	International Women’s Day marchers, unite!&nbsp;Today&nbsp;show producers and hosts and reporters, unite! To borrow from Trotsky’s and Stalin’s&nbsp;Pravda, “We salute you!”


	Where is Clara today, as the women of&nbsp;Today&nbsp;honor her legacy? Clara Zetkin is buried in the wall of the Kremlin, where she was placed nearest the rotting bosom of Vladimir Lenin. There for the red funeral with tears in their eyes were Lenin’s widow and Stalin himself.


	That was the genesis of International Women’s Day.


	Ladies, if you bite from the fruit of International Women’s Day, you are eating the fruit of a poisoned tree. You are a sucker.

The Today Show Celebrates Communist Holiday

Reprinted From The American Spectator.


	On Friday morning I was sitting alone gumming a bowl of oatmeal in the breakfast area of a Hampton Inn in Pontiac

<div>
	
		Reprinted from <a href="https://spectator.org/">Spectator.org.</a>

	
		Over the weekend, a throng of angry protesters gathered outside the Capitol Building with signs and t-shirts touting a new battle cry: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/BelieveWomen">BELIEVE WOMEN</a>. It’s a slogan that took off with the #MeToo movement, but it’s in hyperdrive right now.

	
		The left found this slogan useful in serving its latest political purpose: an attempted takedown of Brett Kavanaugh. According to the new mantra, women never lie about sexual abuse, and thus anything and everything that Christine Blasey Ford alleged of Brett Kavanaugh was, ipso facto, accurate. Every charge she leveled must be believed, because women do not lie about sexual assault.

	
		Well, here I would like to interject to remind liberals of one of their favorite historical morality tales: What about the case of the Scottsboro boys? And therein, what about Victoria Price and Ruby Bates?

	
		Recall, liberals, that this has been one of your sacred cows for many decades. As a public service, I herewith share the story:

	
		On March 25, 1931, two white women, Victoria Price and Ruby Bates, claimed that they had been gang-raped by nine black teens along the railroad from Chattanooga to Memphis. The boys had hopped a train ride, as had the two girls, who were with two white boys. A fight broke out inside the train car, with the white boys tossed off, leaving the white girls and black boys together. The white boys informed the nearest stationmaster that they had been in a fight with the black boys. The stationmaster took quick action. At the next stop, a town called Paint Rock, Alabama, a militia/posse took the law into their hands and “arrested” the black boys, transporting them to jail cells in nearby Scottsboro. The charge was that they had raped the white girls.

	
		As news spread, enraged whites gathered outside the jail, ready to form a lynch mob. The governor of Alabama called in the National Guard.

	
		Local authorities promised the seething vigilantes that justice would be hastily served, guaranteeing quick trials and verdicts. On cue, five days later, on March 30, 1931, an all-white jury indicted the nine boys, and the trial began shortly thereafter.

	
		Thus ensued a whirlwind of complications, from miscarriages of justice to incompetence to retractions. The attorneys who defended the boys were judged too old or too drunk. The boys themselves did not always help their cause: one alleged that everyone was guilty except for himself; two others confessed but later withdrew their admissions, saying they had confessed under physical duress; and the remaining six pleaded innocence.

	
		Not calming the storm was a racist jury, eager to execute the boys. Even as the prosecution argued that the youngest should get life in prison rather than capital punishment, the whites pressed for the gallows for the entire group. All were convicted and sentenced to death.

	
		The story was far from over. A mistrial was declared, appeals were rapidly set in motion, and newspapers began reporting that the two girls were not pure lambs but, rather, Tennessee prostitutes. Yes, prostitutes.

	
		A second round of trials commenced in March 1933.

	
		In the most sensational development of the second trial, Ruby Bates recanted her earlier testimony, claiming she and Victoria Price had not been raped, and had concocted their story out of fear they might be charged for a federal crime because they had crossed state lines while practicing an “immoral” form of business with the white boys; the prosecution contended that Bates was lying, and had been paid off. The jury again voted for conviction, but the judge vetoed.

	
		The case of the Scottsboro boys became a crusade and cause célèbre for the left, especially the communist left. Communists adopted the Scottsboro case as a major campaign to recruit blacks to Communist Party USA. In one particular instance, their success was sensational: CPUSA’s cynical Scottsboro campaign caught the attention and began drawing into the Communist Party a young journalist and editor in Atlanta named Frank Marshall Davis, who decades later would become a mentor to a Hawaiian adolescent named Barack Obama. Yes, Barack Obama, America’s first black president. (I address this in great detail in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Communist-Paul-Kengor/dp/1451698097/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1538825309&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+communist+paul+kengor">my biography of Davis, The Communist</a>.)

	
		The American left insisted on the innocence of the black boys accused of sexual assault. The left insisted that the two women had lied about the sexual assault. You could not believe the women.

	
		So, how does this square with the left’s BELIEVE WOMEN movement today? What does a righteous progressive do with the Scottsboro case now, given the new refrain that women never lie about sexual assault? How to reconcile the Scottsboro boys with the Ford-Kavanaugh case?

	
		Well, truth be told, with the ideological perversities and pathologies of the left, this one can be (partly) tidied up with some nifty identity-racial politics. Here you go: the Scottsboro boys were black men, whereas Brett Kavanaugh is a white man, and a pro-life white man, and a conservative Catholic, and seeking to fill a crucial Supreme Court seat that could threaten the left’s holy grail: Roe v. Wade. Thus, Kavanaugh is a complete reprobate, never to be believed. By contrast, on the left’s ideological totem pole, the Scottsboro boys assume, by nature of their skin color, an elevated victim status that compels them to be believed, just as Kavanaugh’s position at the bottom rung of the pole (near the slimy pond scum) demands a verdict of presumed guilt.

	
		For the confused, or unanointed, just ask a Millennial college grad. This is what your children learn in our universities with your life savings. This is the price you pay for their indoctrination.

	
		But while those curious mental gyrations help a liberal navigate how and why Brett Kavanaugh must be presumed guilty and the Scottsboro boys presumed innocent, it does leave the messy problem of what to do with the left’s new dogma that women never lie about sexual assault.

	
		Again, what about Victoria Price and Ruby Bates?

	
		Yes, yes, I know — they were white southerners. That’s a definite bottom-dweller on the totem pole. But still, they were women. And women, we are told, quite categorically, must always be believed. And one of these two women admitted to lying. Both, at one point, reportedly lied about being raped.

	
		So, liberals, especially those of you dominating our universities, how will you reevaluate the Scottsboro case in light of your new-fangled political sloganeering in October 2018? I’d like to be in the Gender Theory classroom at Swarthmore or Yale when the gals take up that one. Then again, maybe not.
</div>

Women Who Lied About Sexual Assault

Reprinted from Spectator.org.

	
		Over the weekend, a throng of angry protesters gathered outside the Capitol Building with signs and t-shirts touting a

When Progressives Colluded With the Kremlin in a Presidential Election

Reprinted from Spectator.org.


	How many ways have progressives worked with the Kremlin over the years? The examples are legion. When I was researching my

Reprinted from <a href="https://spectator.org/">Spectator.org</a>.


	The ability of the communist left to <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Dupes-Americas-Adversaries-Manipulated-Progressives/dp/1935191756/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1489016841&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=paul+kengor+dupes">consistently dupe</a> an ever-wider group of suckers never ceases to amaze. It’s practically another constant of the universe.


	<a href="https://spectator.org/womens-marchers-unite/">I wrote here a few weeks ago</a> about the now-infamous Women’s March, a parade of perversity and vulgarity that erupted after the Trump inaugural in January, where none other than Angela Davis — America’s longtime leading female Marxist revolutionary — was honorary co-chair and featured speaker. Comrade Angela fired up the female faithful as they donned ridiculous pink hats and cheered her revolution. Now, this week, the female front was enlisted again, this time going not pink but red — figuratively and literally.


	Last week we had International Women’s Day. If you know little to nothing of the history of this event, then you probably know more than the vast majority of young ladies and oblivious corporate sponsors tapped as dutiful foot soldiers.


	The fact is that the origins of International Women’s Day are communist-socialist. That reality is so unavoidably obvious that the <a href="https://www.internationalwomensday.com/About">“About” section</a> at the official International Women’s Day website candidly lays out the origins in touting this glorious “collective day of global celebration” and <a href="https://www.internationalwomensday.com/">“calls on the masses”</a> to “help forge a better working world.” Take a look at this surprisingly honest historical timeline provided at the website:

<blockquote>
	<h3>
		International Women’s Day timeline journey</h3>

	
		1909 
		In accordance with a declaration by the Socialist Party of America, the first National Woman’s Day (NWD) was observed across the United States on 28 February. […]

	
		1910 
		In 1910 a second International Conference of Working Women was held in Copenhagen. A woman named Clara Zetkin (Leader of the ‘Women’s Office’ for the Social Democratic Party in Germany) tabled the idea of an International Women’s Day. She proposed that every year in every country there should be a celebration on the same day — a Women’s Day — to press for their demands. The conference of over 100 women from 17 countries, representing unions, socialist parties, working women’s clubs — and including the first three women elected to the Finnish parliament — greeted Zetkin’s suggestion with unanimous approval and thus International Women’s Day was the result. […]

	
		1913-1914 
		On the eve of World War I campaigning for peace, Russian women observed their first International Women’s Day on the last Sunday in February 1913. In 1913 following discussions, International Women’s Day was transferred to 8 March and this day has remained the global date for International Women’s Day ever since. […]

	
		1917 
		On the last Sunday of February, Russian women began a strike for “bread and peace” in response to the death of over 2 million Russian soldiers in World War 1. Opposed by political leaders, the women continued to strike until four days later the Czar was forced to abdicate and the provisional Government granted women the right to vote. The date the women’s strike commenced was Sunday 23 February on the Julian calendar then in use in Russia. This day on the Gregorian calendar in use elsewhere was 8 March.
</blockquote>


	I must concede kudos to the International Women’s Day website developers for sharing this accurate history. This is spot on.


	Readers will, of course, recognize many of these dates and names, especially the Russian ones. They may not identify names like Clara Zetkin. Old Clara was a big-time German commie — or, as leftists will prefer to call her, a socialist or “social democrat.” In fact, Lenin and Trotsky and pioneering cultural Marxists like Herbert Marcuse were also social democrats. Clara was a cheerleader for Lenin. I have clips from Working Woman magazine, the January 30, 1934 edition, which I copied from the Soviet Comintern files on Communist Party USA. This particular edition included a preview of the coming International Women’s Day of March 8, 1934. It featured a glowing review of Clara’s lovely book <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1924/reminiscences-of-lenin.htm">Reminiscences of Lenin</a>, including praise for the late despot’s “warm smile,” “keen joy” for workers, “clear thinking,” and “masterly eloquence.” This was Clara’s valentine to Vladimir the killer in January 1924, at his death, amid her “hour of grief” and “deepest personal sorrow” at the “irreparable loss” of this “great man.”


	Perhaps passages of this blast-from-the-past could be posted in the “About” section of the International Women’s Day website?


	But there was much more to this year’s International Women’s Day. Its call for a better “gender world” was a distinctly and fittingly red one. Indeed, this is almost too delicious, but the January Women’s March organizers, who just happened to spearhead this year’s International Women’s Day, literally urged women everywhere to wear red yesterday. Yes, red, and to do so in “solidarity” with the “masses.” That call is issued without apology or irony at <a href="https://www.womensmarch.com/womensday">the Women’s March website</a>, along with two other eye-opening exhortations:

<blockquote>
	
		Anyone, anywhere, can join by making March 8th A Day Without a Woman, in one or all of the following ways:

	<ol>
		<li>
			Women take the day off, from paid and unpaid labor</li>
		<li>
			Avoid shopping for one day (with exceptions for small, women- and minority-owned businesses).</li>
		<li>
			Wear RED in solidarity with A Day Without A Woman</li>
	</ol>
</blockquote>


	What a perfect color for this year’s International Women’s Day: red. The color of the revolution.


	But the ironies don’t stop there. Consider the parade of duped organizations that this year’s comradely organizers managed to hook into their cause. No, I’m not talking about the usual suspects, such as those highlighted at <a href="http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/womens-groups-several-unions-plan-mass-marches-potential-womens-strike-march-8/">People’s World</a>, which I quote: “Backers include the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.domesticworkers.org/">National Domestic Workers Alliance</a>&nbsp;(NDWA),&nbsp;<a href="http://www.jwj.org/">Jobs With Justice</a>, the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.aft.org/">American Federation of Teachers</a>&nbsp;(AFT),&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/">National Nurses United</a>&nbsp;(NNU),&nbsp;<a href="http://rocunited.org/">Restaurant Opportunities Center United</a>&nbsp;(ROC United) and the&nbsp;<a href="http://now.org/">National Organization for Women</a>&nbsp;(NOW).”


	Those are just a smattering of the same-old-same-old; basically, the regular cabal of leftist grievance-mongers that rallied behind the classy Pussy Hats in Washington in January. No, look at this group of unexpected allies:&nbsp;The banner sponsors for this International Women’s Day included a select list of 10 prominent <a href="https://www.internationalwomensday.com/Partners">corporate partners</a> that served up themselves as this year’s cast of useful idiots. The list includes Caterpillar, BP, MetLife, PepsiCo, and Western Union.


	Wow, what a group of suckers.


	Do the folks at the PR office at Caterpillar have any concept of what they lent their name to? Maybe they do. Perhaps Caterpillar has simply gone radical left. I’m wondering if the women who work at Caterpillar got the day off yesterday. If not, hopefully they didn’t get in trouble if they simply “took the day off.” And did the boys at Caterpillar don red on the assembly line in solidarity with their repressed sisters?


	Hey, Caterpillar, here’s a follow-up idea for you, given that you appear to be on this communist-socialist kick: Clara Zetkin’s birthday is coming up on July 5. How about making this July 5 Clara Zetkin Day at Caterpillar? And don’t forget about this October. Gee whiz, that will be the centennial of the glorious Bolshevik Revolution! Ask yourselves: What would Clara do?


	Vladimir Lenin is fortunate to get credit for devising the term “useful idiots.” It’s a shrewd label. And this International Women’s Day seems to have smoked them out nicely.


	&nbsp;

Going Red for International Women’s Day… and Its Useful Idiots

Reprinted from Spectator.org.


	The ability of the communist left to consistently dupe an ever-wider group of suckers never ceases to amaze. It’s

Reprinted from <a href="https://spectator.org/">Spectator.org</a>.


	“The most important task,” said communist dictator Kim Il Sung in October 1971, in his address to the Democratic Women’s Union of North Korea, “is to revolutionize and working-classize all the women.”


	Kim hoisted the torch blazed by glorious female comrades such as Alexandra Kollontai (the Eleanor Roosevelt of the Bolshevik Revolution), Bella Dodd, Rosa Luxemburg, Ethel Rosenberg, Elizabeth Bentley, Lillian Hellman, Betty Freidan, Kate Millett, Angela Davis, and a bevy of true believers. Friedan and Millett were pioneers of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Millett, author of Sexual Politics, her dissertation at the ideological insane asylum known as Columbia University, became a cultural juggernaut when published in 1969. Time magazine hailed Kate as “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.”


	They were marchers for the revolution. And this past weekend, their ideological sisters lent their support to the <a href="https://www.womensmarch.com/">Women’s March on Washington</a>, an event that sources like CNN gave maximum publicity — a level of attention that absolutely will not be granted to this week’s March for Life in Washington, where the goal will be to preserve life.


	A list of the sponsors for the Women’s March is illuminating. The two lead organizations, highlighted as the March’s “premier partners,” were Planned Parenthood — America’s preeminent abortion factory — and the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>. As for the latter, if it confuses you why a group of climate comrades would march in lockstep with women whose highest priority is abortion, then you don’t understand the American left. Go to the <a href="https://www.womensmarch.com/">website of the Women’s March</a>, where “environmental justice” is featured among the leading “<a href="https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/">Unity Principles</a>,” right up there with “reproductive rights” (read: abortion) and “worker’s rights” and “LGBTQIA rights.”


	But that was just the start. Arm in arm with the sisters at the Women’s March were two touted “<a href="https://www.womensmarch.com/sponsors">Social Justice Partners</a>,” namely: Emily’s List and NARAL. For these girls, too, “women’s rights” means one thing: abortion. Abortion, abortion, abortion. The holy sacrament in the feminist church.


	The next major level of sponsors for the Women’s March was an eclectic cabal of fellow travelers and usual suspects: the ACLU, MoveOn.org, the Human Rights Campaign, the American Federation of Teachers, the AFL-CIO, and SEIU, the worst of the government unions.


	And then there was a longer list of March “partners,” a Who’s Who of the left: AFSCME, the toxic National Education Association, the National Organization for Women, National Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Occupy Wall Street, the NAACP, the Council on American Islamic Relations, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Human Rights Watch, People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Sierra Club, the National Urban League, the YWCA, the Center for American Progress, Code Pink, and a litany of Religious Left dupes such as the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, the Unitarian Universality Association, and the heretical Catholics for Free Choice.


	And there was a wider panoply of perversity: novel organizations like Free the Nipple, Got a Girl Crush, Pussy Hat Project, and the Georgetown University College Democrats.


	But alas, most enlightening was another curious collective of sponsors for the Women’s March, one that brings me full circle to the start of this article. The communists and socialists came out: Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America.


	Yes, Communist Party USA was a proud sponsor of the Women’s March on Washington, and the ladies were evidently proud to have them.


	Ain’t nothing too left-wing, apparently, for the Women’s Marchers.


	Among the Bolshevik element, consider some of the high-profile individuals who lent their names. Listed first among honorary co-chairs at the March website was none other than the delightful Angela Davis, <a href="https://www.womensmarch.com/honorary-cochairs/">where the glowing, lengthy bio</a> somehow avoided mentioning even one word of Ms. Davis’s most notable bona fides: Davis has long been, of course, one of America’s most infamous Marxist-Leninists. Comrade Angela was so high-ranking that she not only met with the worst communist despots in the Soviet Bloc but actually twice ran on Communist Party USA’s presidential ticket. The celebrated recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize, much appreciated by the Kremlin for her advocacy of the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, ran as vice president of the United States on the Communist Party ticket, alongside longtime CPUSA party secretary and hack Gus Hall. (As I noted in a <a href="https://spectator.org/did-barack-obama-vote-communist-in-1980/">recent piece for The American Spectator</a>, among those who voted for the Hall-Davis Communist Party presidential ticket was none other than John Brennan, Barack Obama’s CIA director.)


	Davis was one of many tragic academic byproducts of Herbert Marcuse, the leading Frankfurt School cultural Marxist. Marcuse was guru to the 1960s New Left. Davis is arguably Marcuse’s most long-lasting success. He took her under his wing at Brandeis University in the early 1960s. In 1965, she honored her professor by retracing his steps to the University of Frankfurt. He sent her to West Germany to study at his old haunt, the hideous “Institute for Social Research.” She returned in 1967, coming back to America to continue studies with Marcuse as her doctoral adviser. The blooming Bolshevik formally joined Communist Party USA the next year.


	Like any good communist, Davis’s road to the revolution included breaking a few eggs along the way. She was soon pursued on charges of kidnapping, murder, and conspiracy for her suspected role in the August 1970 murder of a prison guard. Like Weather Underground terrorists and Obama buddies Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, she landed on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list. And like Ayers and Dohrn, she escaped jail-time (“guilty as hell, free as a bird!” Ayers boasted), and then spread her wings in academia.


	Today, like her late mentor, Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davis is (naturally) a professor. She lists among her expertise the field of “critical theory,” the formal academic front-name for cultural Marxism. She holds forth on “LGBTQIA” issues to the wide-eyed freshmen whose duped parents hand over their children and lifetime savings to the universities to indoctrinate them.


	One might think that today’s left would shy away from figures like Davis. But again, anyone who thinks that doesn’t know the left. The likes of Angela Davis are not embarrassments to today’s left; they are heroes. In June 2016, the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art at the Brooklyn Museum feted Davis with its 2016 Sackler Center First Award, “honoring women who are first in their fields.”


	Among Angela Davis’s firsts, of course, was to be the first female comrade to run on a communist presidential ticket.


	And this past weekend, Davis was <a href="https://www.womensmarch.com/honorary-cochairs/">listed literally first</a> among the female comrades who were the poster-girls to the Women’s March on Washington. She and her cronies at Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America must have gotten quite a kick at the legions of oblivious ladies and splendid dupes who joined them in solidarity last weekend — all marching for “women’s rights,” of course. Forward!

Women’s Marchers, Unite!

Reprinted from Spectator.org.


	“The most important task,” said communist dictator Kim Il Sung in October 1971, in his address to the Democratic Women’s

Reprinted from <a href="http://nginx.spectator.org">Spectator.org</a>.


	Tom Hayden, the Vietnam War protester and SDS founder, died this past weekend at age 76.


	Hayden’s journey was in many ways tragic. Born December 1939 in the Detroit suburbs, he was not, unlike many radical leaders, a red-diaper baby. His parents were Irish Catholics who <a href="http://aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/the-catholic-roots-of-tom-hayden/?utm_campaign=NL_en&amp;utm_source=daily_newsletter&amp;utm_medium=mail&amp;utm_content=NL_en">named him after St. Thomas Aquinas</a> and sent him to Catholic school. His father was a Marine who worked for Chrysler, and an abusive drunk. Hayden’s parents had a rocky marriage and divorced when he was a boy, which affected him terribly. Hayden’s friend and ex-radical, David Horowitz, observed that Hayden harbored what Irving Howe once described as an “obscure personal rage,” possibly from his estrangement from his father. “Tom was indeed an angry man,” wrote Horowitz, “who seemed in perpetual search of enemies.”


	Hayden channeled that anger into a group that did much damage to America, and was the antithesis of anything that Thomas Aquinas would have ever imagined: SDS, Students for a Democratic Society.


	Hayden will be forever young and forever a hippie in the memories of many Americans, the snarling activist who married “Hanoi Jane” Fonda and literally wrote the script for SDS. Hayden wrote SDS’s manifesto, its founding Port Huron Statement, which Hayden’s cream-puff <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/tom-hayden-key-1960s-social-activist-and-political-partner-and-husband-of-jane-fonda-dies/2016/10/24/adc6d5da-a828-11e5-8058-480b572b4aae_story.html">obituary in the Washington Post</a> generously referred to as “an expansive utopian manifesto that extolled ‘participatory democracy’ as an antidote to the complacency and conformity of the Eisenhower decade.”


	Right.


	Hayden’s odd expressions of “participatory democracy” included another writing he scribbled: an infamous June 4, 1968 letter wishing “Good fortune!” and “Victory!” to the North Vietnamese colonels who were killing American boys in Southeast Asia — using the same kind of artillery that Hayden’s sweetheart Jane posed beside&nbsp;in her stint as a Viet Cong cover-girl. That was just one of countless disturbing actions by Tom Hayden at the time, all of which today’s leftists merrily sweep under the rug as they uphold him as a crusader for civil rights and (of course) “social justice.”


	But not etched in our memory was what might have been Tom Hayden’s swan song long after his and his wife’s cheerleading for the Viet Cong: namely, the document that he wrote for our President of Fundamental Transformation. Few know this, but Hayden was a founder of another group of destructive forces, a group called Progressives for Obama.


	The group’s members came together in 2008, coalescing around the only Democratic presidential nominee in their lifetimes who was far-left enough for them to support. They constituted a Who’s Who of the ’60s SDS crowd. Among the nearly 100 formal “signers” to Progressives for Obama were Mark Rudd, Carl Davidson, Jane Fonda, Thorne Dreyer, Daniel Ellsberg, Richard Flacks, John McAuliff, Jay Schaffner, and more. Columbia University was naturally well-represented, if not through the likes of Rudd, who shut down the campus in 1968, then through current faculty such as Todd Gitlin, a former SDS president who today is professor of journalism, sociology, and chair of Columbia’s doctoral program in communications.


	Whereas the likes of Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were thrust into the national spotlight in 2008 by conservatives like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, Progressives for Obama flew under the radar, largely unnoticed even by the right.


	Appropriately, spearheading Progressives for Obama was the man who had spearheaded SDS. Tom Hayden was one of the four “initiators” of Progressives for Obama, along with Barbara Ehrenreich, Bill Fletcher, Jr., and Danny Glover.


	It is no exaggeration to say that the signers list of Progressives for Obama resembled the roster of SDS-ers called to testify before Congress in December 1969 for their subversive activities. Aside from the likes of Hayden, Rudd, and Davidson, other SDS-ers among Progressives for Obama were Bob Pardun, who was SDS education secretary from 1966-67, and Paul Buhle, a professor who has recently sought to revive SDS.


	Among these names from the insane ’60s, all were fired up in 2008 over the unique opportunity that a fellow far-left radical, one Barack Obama, offered. They saw Obama as a golden chance, a once-in-a-lifetime moment, and they got it on November 4, 2008. Obama won the day, and they at last won the day, too.


	And therein, among the Progressives for Obama, the testimony of leader Tom Hayden was especially revealing.


	Understand that after his early life establishing SDS, meeting with and expressing “Good fortune!” and “Victory!” to the Viet Cong, and vigorously protesting the American system, Hayden went into politics, professional activism, and education. Like his erstwhile SDS brethren, Hayden grasped the power of higher education (which they have pervaded), and served as a professor at Pitzer College and also at Obama’s alma mater, Occidental College.


	Like Mark Rudd, like Bill Ayers, like Bernardine Dohrn (all of them now in higher education), Hayden had come to view a quick “revolution” of the system as too daunting, if not impossible. He had become much more patient, instead advocating a “progressive” evolution of slower, measured change. By 2008, he was seeking to advance the “progressive” cause within the established, mainstream Democratic Party.


	Of course, Hayden once helped blow up the Democratic Party’s national convention in 1968. No matter: the party of 2008 was different and warmly accepted him.


	Hayden was ecstatic over Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. He jumped in with both feet, looking to assist wherever he could, with a rush of enthusiasm not seen since his days undermining America in Vietnam. Not one to tinker around, Hayden got to work on a formal organization and unifying statement, as he had done for SDS — once again there at the creation. The man who drafted SDS’s pivotal Port Huron statement got to work drafting mission statements for Progressives for Obama.


	During the 2008 campaign, a touched Hayden was moved to verse over the emergence of Obama. In one article, titled, “Obama and the Open and Unexpected Future,” written for CommonDreams.org, self-described as a website for “Breaking News &amp; Views for the Progressive Community,” Hayden mused:

<blockquote>
	
		I didn’t see him coming. When I read of the young state senator with a background in community organizing who wanted to be president, I was at least sentient enough to be interested. When I read Dreams of My Father [sic], I was taken aback by its depth. This young man apparently gave his first public speech, against South African apartheid, at an Occidental College rally organized by Students for Economic Democracy, the student branch of the Campaign for Economic Democracy which I chaired in 1979-82. The buds of curiosity quickened.
</blockquote>


	Hayden saw in Obama a long-awaited vehicle for “economic democracy,” an instrument to channel an equal distribution of wealth — “economic justice,” or “redistributive change,” as Obama himself had once put it. Hayden wished that, “Win or lose, the Obama movement will shape progressive politics… for a generation to come.” He also hoped that that progressive movement likewise “might transform” Obama as well. Both could reinforce and shape one another.


	Hayden wrote that in June 2008. When Obama was elected later the following November, Hayden was beside himself with joy, surely shocked that the American electorate had finally voted for a president that Tom Hayden saw as his kind of president. Once upon a time, traditional Democrats like Hayden’s parents had shaken their heads in disgust at what Tom and his pals did to their party’s convention in Chicago in 1968, at what they did during the Days of Rage the next year, at what they did at Columbia during the student strike, and on and on. But now, by 2008, the Democratic Party was theirs. It belonged to the ’60s kiddies.


	The former SDS founder became particularly vocal in his praise for Obama once the election was over. During the election, the goal was to organize, raise money, but not speak too loudly, out of fear of driving away the moderates and remaining traditional Democrat moms and pops who had worked in the mines and the mills, who joined unions, who “clinged” to their God and guns, who prayed rosaries and filled churches, who were pro-life and anti-gay marriage. With the presidency now secured, Hayden could open up. Joined by his former comrades at the take-no-prisoners website of Progressives for Obama, he began regularly sounding off against Obama’s critics — those opposing “single payer” or the “public option” in “healthcare reform,” or government “management” of General Motors — with the subtlety of a howitzer.


	With the presidency won, Hayden and his allies were free to express themselves, to demonize health-insurance companies, the financial-services industry, AIG, the Big Three automakers, or whatever other capitalist “reptile” (Lenin’s phrase) stood in the way of President Obama’s desire for “reform” and mandate for “change.”


	In the two-term presidency of fundamental transformation under Obama, Hayden and friends achieved many of their common dreams.


	By this election cycle, in 2016, Tom Hayden must have been mesmerized by the revolution he and his fellow radicals had pulled off in the Democratic Party.


	Alas, it was fitting that Tom Hayden became seriously ill (his final stand) during a turn for the worse at the Democratic&nbsp;National Convention in Philadelphia this past summer, where he was striving to ensure that the Democratic Party continue along the radical path of fundamental transformation that he and his allies had been unable to achieve via SDS and the Weather Underground. That path, in the hands of Hillary Clinton, is assured.


	Today, at long last, for Tom Hayden and friends, the new Democratic Party and the new America is theirs. He can rest in peace, assured that his mission is finally being accomplished.

Tom Hayden: From SDS and Viet Cong to Progressives for Obama

Reprinted from Spectator.org.


	Tom Hayden, the Vietnam War protester and SDS founder, died this past weekend at age 76.


	Hayden’s journey was in many

Reprinted from <a href="http://spectator.org/">Spectator.org</a>.


	As it has for months now, People’s World <a href="http://www.peoplesworld.org/clinton-will-win-nomination-but-sanders-revolution-can-t-quit-now/">again this past week </a>carried a headline hailing <a href="http://peoplesworld.org/sanders-political-revolution-wins-in-new-hampshire-primary/">Bernie Sanders “revolution</a>.” As the successor to the Soviet-funded and directed Daily Worker, and as ongoing house organ of Communist Party USA, People’s World is pleased with the long march of “progress” in the Democratic Party. The far-left lurch of today’s Democratic Party is lovingly in line with what the comrades have long desired. These inheritors of the Soviet experiment see Bernie Sanders as an exciting culmination of what they have been fighting for. And they view Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the Democratic Party as having made a candidate like Bernie possible.

<div>
	<div>
		<div>
			
				If you think this is hyperbole on my part, you should educate yourself by reading what today’s communists are writing. As the latest exhibit, consider the instructive words of <a href="http://www.peoplesworld.org/john-bachtell">John Bachtell, Communist Party USA chair</a>, in the latest valentine to <a href="http://www.peoplesworld.org/the-sanders-campaign-political-revolution-and-the-2016-elections/">Bernie in People’s World</a>:

			<blockquote>
				
					The campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders is making a unique contribution to defeating the Republican right and has the potential to galvanize long-term transformative change. The campaign is also a movement. Millions are fed up with the same old establishment politics tied to Wall Street and the 1 per cent. It's reminiscent of the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns…. Seeds of change are being sown and foundations are being laid for deeper-going changes in the future….

				
					The campaign is expanding the collective political imagination and injecting radical ideas into the body politic. It has legitimized democratic socialism in the national conversation. Sanders is also influencing Hillary Clinton to adopt more progressive positions on a wide range of issues.&nbsp;
			</blockquote>

			
				Note the Obama-speak in Bachtell’s rhetoric, from the invoking of “transformative change” and “seeds of change” to pointing to the very model of Barack’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns. And observe the excitement about Bernie having “legitimized democratic socialism in the national conversation” and influencing Hillary to adopt “more progressive positions.”

			
				The head of Communist Party USA continued:&nbsp;

			<blockquote>
				
					But Sanders understands if he is elected his radical economic and social agenda including breaking up the big banks, universal health care, tuition-free university, massive jobs creation, expanding Social Security, and repealing Citizen's United will go nowhere given the vice grip the GOP and extreme right has on Congress.

				<div id="block-block-65">
					<div>
						<div id="div-gpt-ad-1442318544529-0" style="margin-left:10px;">
							&nbsp;</div>
					</div>
				</div>

				
					The only way to realize a radical agenda is through a "political revolution."… Sanders sees his campaign as part of <a href="http://peoplesworld.org/i-ll-sit-out-the-2016-elections-really/">a much bigger movement</a> that must be built.

				
					A political revolution rests on building a broad coalition…. A political revolution will be fueled by ongoing shifts in public attitudes. Majorities of Americans now favor taxing the rich, raising the minimum wage, immigration reform, abortion rights, marriage equality, criminal justice reform, and action to curb the climate crisis. New social movements are influencing millions at the grassroots including the Fight for 15, Black Lives Matter, The Dreamers, reproductive rights, marriage equality, and climate justice activists.

				
					A political revolution is based on the idea that <a href="http://www.cpusa.org/building-a-transformative-movement-and-party/">majorities make change</a>. It is not enough for majorities to believe in an idea, they must actively fight for it…. Movements are acting both within and outside the Democratic Party and comprise many of the key forces in the anti-right alliance.
			</blockquote>

			
				This pitch for Bernie in People’s World by the head of Communist Party USA employs the rally cry “political revolution” a dozen times in under a thousand words, plus repeated use of the words “radical” and “progressive.” Make no mistake: the comrades are jazzed for Bernie Sanders. They want, as another People’s World writer likewise puts it, nothing short of a <a href="http://www.peoplesworld.org/the-sanders-campaign-political-revolution-and-the-2016-elections/">“Bernie Sanders political revolution</a>.”

			
				Bachtell looks with hope at how Bernie’s struggle could transform the political landscape and further remake the party of Kennedy and Truman:

			<blockquote>
				
					A political revolution can transform politics if labor, its allies and the broad left put their stamp on the multi-class alliance, shape its politics and frame the issues debated for the elections. The Sanders campaign is helping do this…. It will be transformative if the anti-right coalition is united and mobilized. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-national-poll-hillary-clinton-holds-lead-over-bernie-sanders/">Polls</a> show that 86% of Clinton supporters will support Sanders in the general election if he is the nominee, and 79% of Sanders supporters will support Clinton if she wins. Sanders will need Clinton's supporters in order to win.
			</blockquote>

			
				Note, remarkably, the vast support for Sanders that exists not only among his own comrades but among Hillary Clinton backers. This is support, of course, for a man who has long been an avowed, unapologetic socialist, who was fully sympathetic to the communist universe.

			
				Also revealing is how today’s communists have hopped aboard the bandwagon of the new left’s cultural agenda, including on sexual-gender issues. I’ve been pointing this out for some time (see <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Takedown-Communists-Progressives-Sabotaged-Marriage/dp/1942475101/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1461597818&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=takedown+paul+kengor">my book on the left’s takedown of family and marriage</a>). The emergent Bernie-Democrat-socialist-communist-progressive-liberal coalition, advises Bachtell, “must fight uncompromisingly against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant attacks and all efforts to divide.”

			
				Workers of the world, unite — against “transphobia!” Who would have foreseen that one? Karl Marx, call your office.

			
				Some Democrats reading this will lash out at me, as the messenger. But I urge them to again carefully read the words I’m quoting. They come directly from the head of Communist Party USA, a man who is the successor to Gus Hall, to Earl Browder, to William Z. Foster, writing in the house organ of CPUSA, People’s World, successor to the Daily Worker. I ask Democrats: Does it not concern you that your no. 2 for the presidential nomination so fires up these literal communists? Does that not bother you?

			
				Unfortunately, I fear that many of today’s Democrats could care less, especially the Bernie millennials educated into pro-socialist imbecility by our public schools and universities. As one reader of The American Spectator put it after reading <a href="http://spectator.org/articles/66102/my-hunt-bernie%E2%80%99s-grandfather">my previous post on Bernie</a>, “I informed my son, now over 40, that Bernie was a Communist. He replied ‘so what!”

			
				Indeed, the Sanders campaign could mass-produce bumper stickers boldly touting “Bolsheviks for Bernie” sandwiched between grinning faces of Marx and Lenin and our contemporary products of the American university would shrug and cheer.

			
				Returning to the appraisal of Communist Party USA, John Bachtell finished with this: “A political revolution will help establish the foundations for <a href="http://peoplesworld.org/a-radical-third-party-i-agree/">a real people's party</a>, whether it results in a breakaway from or a takeover of the Democratic Party. Regardless of whether Sanders wins or not, the politics of the nation will never be the same and the fight for a political revolution will continue.”

			
				There we are, ladies and gentlemen. The new political revolution that “will continue” must come either with a breakaway from the Democratic Party or with a “takeover of the Democratic Party.” Once upon a time in America, it seemed it could have only come with a breakaway. But now, in the Obama-Bernie America, a takeover of the Democrats has greater promise than ever. Just ask the literal millions of modern Democrats pulling the lever for a 74-year-old socialist as their next president. And just ask Bernie Sanders’ advocates in Communist Party USA. They, too, feel the Bern.
		</div>
	</div>
</div>

Communist Party Feels the Bern

Reprinted from Spectator.org.


	As it has for months now, People’s World again this past week carried a headline hailing Bernie Sanders “revolution.” As

My Hunt for Bernie’s Grandfather

Reprinted from Spectator.org.

			
				When Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton debated in Brooklyn last week, they did so not far from Bernie’s childhood

Reprinted from <a href="http://spectator.org/">Spectator.org</a>.


	Some two thousand years ago, the Messiah journeyed into Jerusalem. He came as the people’s redeemer, to expiate their sins. As he drew near Bethpage and Bethany, he sent two disciples before him to fetch a tethered colt. He would mount the colt and ride it into the holy city to sounds of hosannas from the faithful — and to the rebukes of the Pharisees.


	Some two thousand years henceforth, Palm Sunday 2016, Barack Hussein Obama, political redeemer of the secular left, arrived in communist Cuba aboard Air Force One. It is an island once rich in the faith, only to be annihilated by Fidel and Raul Castro and their war on religion. “Heaven… right here in front of me,” was how Thomas Merton, the atheist-communist who became a devout Catholic monk, once described pre-Castro’s Cuba. “Every morning… I could find my way quickly to any one of a dozen churches as old as the seventeenth century. Almost as soon as I went in the door I could receive Communion, if I wished… and every fifteen or twenty minutes a new Mass was starting at a different altar…. Everywhere I turned, there was someone ready to feed me with the infinite strength of the Christ Who loved me.”


	That was the wondrous, pious Cuba the Castro brothers destroyed. And it is the Castro boys that Barack Obama, product of a pro-communist/pro-Castro mother and father and a literal Communist Party USA mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, is eager to embrace — and to forgive. Really, I’m sure that in his heart of hearts, Barack agrees with the Castros that America is the side that needs to be forgiven. America is the aggressor, the sinner that stands in need of reparation.


	That being the case, I’m equally sure that Obama felt no shame when Raul Castro snubbed him by not showing up to greet him when his plane landed — literally as 50 Cuban dissidents were arrested by the totalitarian state’s police goons. It was a humiliation, a disgrace, but a humiliation and disgrace that Obama, America’s president of fundamental transformation, no doubt felt was deserved.


	One modern Pharisee who rebuked Obama for this embarrassment is Donald Trump. Mercifully taking a break from torching Republicans as liars, losers, idiots, morons, and chokers, and from encouraging his own disciples to “knock the hell” and “knock the crap out” of dissenters at his rallies, Trump justly slammed Obama for the Castro slight.


	“Wow, President Obama just landed in Cuba, a big deal, and Raul Castro wasn’t even there to greet him,” Trump tweeted shortly before Obama blithely strolled inside the glorious Havana cathedral that the Castros have controlled for over half a century. “He [Raul] greeted Pope and others. No respect.”


	It was the best Tweet from the Tweet-master/insult-master in months. No one can sling it like Donald Trump. And he wasn’t finished.


	Speaking to an audience in Palm Beach, Trump ratcheted up the criticism: “He landed in Cuba and Raul Castro… who’s the head of Cuba, wasn’t there to greet him.” Trump’s acolytes howled loudly as he continued the Obama mockery. “Folks, what are we doing? What are we doing? Here’s how a thing like that is supposed to work: Number one, he [Obama] has his people call up and say, ‘Who’s going to be greeting the president?’ If they say nobody, you don’t go until somebody’s there. And the head of Cuba, who was there for the pope and he was there for other dignitaries that come in, but he wasn’t there for the president of the United States. I mean, we are amateur-hour folks! [more loud laughter]... Obama should have turned the plane around and left.”


	Trump was spot-on. He continued: “And I’m not knocking Castro — I mean, if they can get away this stuff, it’s great, they’re making a great deal.” Kind of like the deals the Iranians get from Obama, said Trump, fittingly framing Obama as a dupe and sucker to tyrants.


	Of course, Donald Trump is exactly right. But Trump is mistaken if he believes the mockery will teach Obama a lesson. No, Barack has shielded himself from the Donald’s chastisements. His face he has set like flint from buffets and spitting. His cheeks he has given to those who would pluck his beard, his back to those who would beat him.


	No, Barack Obama no doubt judges that America has been in the wrong toward Cuba since 1959. Let the Donald and other Pharisees cast stones. Barack knows that he has left a giant glass house 70 miles from the shore of Havana.


	President Barack Obama has gone to Cuba this Holy Week to make reparation and to atone for America’s vast catalogue of sins against the communist slave state. He holds his head high, his chin up. He shall not be put to shame — only his nation.

Obama Atones for America’s Sins in Cuba

Reprinted from Spectator.org.


	Some two thousand years ago, the Messiah journeyed into Jerusalem. He came as the people’s redeemer, to expiate their sins

<div>
	<div>
		<div>
			
				Reprinted from <a href="http://spectator.org/">The American Spectator</a>. 

			
				It was 16 years ago this spring that the Clinton administration handed over a six-year-old boy named Elian Gonzalez. Elian, his mother, and a dozen others had escaped the communist tyranny of Fidel Castro and his brother Raul. They attempted to do what an estimated 100,000-plus Cubans have risked since the Castro brothers began destroying that beautiful island nearly 60 years ago: they headed into treacherous, shark-infested waters in search of freedom. Tens of thousands have perished in that process.

			
				In November 1999, Elian’s group pushed off in a shaky aluminum craft. It was the best thing they could find in this surreal island without boats. Boats are banned by the communist regime.

			
				Like a scene right out of Hollywood, a storm hit, waves began crashing, the motor failed, the escapees profusely bailed water, and Elian’s mom clutched her son as the boat sank. Elian was placed in some sort of inner tube before passing out from exhaustion.

			
				Elian awoke to be spotted by two fishermen. He was brought safely to American shores, vindicating the sacrifice his mother made. She literally gave her life for him. He was free at last.

			
				Or so he hoped.

			
				Elian was taken in by relatives honoring his mother’s wishes. The story immediately made international headlines, and then Fidel descended, holding a staged press conference in Havana with Elian’s (divorced) father. Obviously not free to speak his mind, Elian’s dad demanded the child’s return.

			
				What would the Clinton administration do? What would President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Attorney General Janet Reno, do?

			
				As the media assembled in profusion outside the tiny Florida home in Little Havana where Elian was staying, we got our answer. Reno issued an edict to the family to surrender the boy by April 13. The family refused.

			
				And so, late at night on Good Friday 2000, while most of America slept, as did Elian, armed federal agents from the INS grabbed their gear and guns and got ready. As the night grew late, they stormed the one-story house before dawn, broke down the door, and seized the screaming Elian, whisking away the terrified child.

			
				The Clinton gang was handing over Elian. They were sending the boy back to communist Cuba. His late mother’s wishes be damned.

			<div id="block-block-65">
				<div>
					<div id="div-gpt-ad-1442318544529-0" style="margin-left:10px;">
						&nbsp;</div>
				</div>
			</div>

			
				Another great victory for Fidel.

			
				The incident perfectly symbolized the warped political prejudices of the American left: the child is rescued from the menacing hands of the anti-communists (the bad guys), turned over instead to the communists, the side where enlightened “progressives” rarely discern any great evil.

			
				It was a revolting display. And the people of Florida, especially the wider Latino community, were appalled at the Clinton administration. In fact, many observers to this day are convinced that Al Gore lost Florida in the 2000 election, and thus lost the overall election, because of that seizure of Elian. In a margin of victory for George W. Bush of a few hundred votes, the dark-of-the-night snatch of Elian by Vice President Gore’s boss arguably cost him the presidency.

			
				I mention this now because I’ve heard nothing about it while Hillary Clinton campaigns in Florida for the presidency. Surely many Florida Latinos are pondering the question: What was Hillary advising on Elian?

			
				Well, we do know that Hillary Clinton was on the side of sending Elian back to his father, and to Fidel and Cuban communism.

			
				“I believe personally that this little boy should be with his father,” <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/04/nyregion/mrs-clinton-says-mayor-is-exploiting-cuban-boy.html">said Clinton in April 2000</a>. At the time, the First Lady was running for the U.S. Senate seat in New York, where her opponent was Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who she accused of trying to “politicize” Elian. It was an amazing charge. Giuliani was defending Elian, not politicizing him.

			
				More than that, both Giuliani and (ironically) even Vice President Al Gore supported legislation to grant Elian permanent resident status in the United States. Hillary Clinton not only opposed the legislation but accused Giuliani of “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/02/nyregion/mrs-clinton-opposes-bill-giving-residency-to-cuban-boy.html">turning this young boy into a political football</a>.”

			
				Quite the contrary, it was Fidel who was playing football with the young boy—and with the Clintons. He kicked their butts up and down the field.

			
				Three weeks after these Hillary comments, Elian was nabbed by the feds. Seven months later, the voters of Florida registered their protest at the ballot box—against Al Gore—even as Gore had been captive to the decisions of the Clintons.

			
				Hillary must have learned from this, because she has ceased to raise the Elian saga since. She is silent on the fiasco in her memoirs. There’s certainly nothing in It Takes a Village. She has avoided the issue like the plague. Surely, she does not want to be associated with it in a run for the presidency, as Al Gore was.

			
				With Mrs. Clinton looking to woo Florida voters right now, someone should ask her about her support of the Good Friday grab of Elian. I doubt that Bernie Sanders will. I imagine that Bernie enthusiastically recommended sending Elian back to Fidel for that world-class healthcare, education, and other “free” stuff. But I bet Marco Rubio would like to know the details of her thinking. Rubio watched all of this intimately. In his memoirs, An American Son, Rubio writes:&nbsp;

			<blockquote>
				
					The notion that he [Elian] be forcibly returned to a regime his mother had given her life to rescue him from was unfathomable to us [the Cuban exile community]. In the 1960s, hundreds of Cuban parents had sent their children to live with foster families or orphanages in the United States to save them from life under communism. For those who had lived through the experience, returning a child to Cuba against his dead mother’s wishes was too much to bear.
			</blockquote>

			
				Rubio revisits the episode in detail. He recalls how Janet Reno’s deadline of April 13 had come and gone. On the evening of Good Friday, April 21, he and his wife Jeanette were talking about the case when he shared his hunch that the authorities might act the very next morning, so as to avoid apprehending Elian on Easter Sunday. They went to bed. He awoke at 4:00 a.m. to feed his baby daughter. After getting her back to sleep, Rubio had a sense that something might be going down. He hopped in his car and drove to Little Havana on empty streets. When he reached the neighborhood of Elian’s relatives, he saw a police car with lights flashing, blocking the intersection. Seconds later, several vans sped past Rubio toward the house. He describes what happened next:

			<blockquote>
				
					I parked my car and sprinted the three blocks to the house. Hundreds of people were wandering around in disbelief, many of them coughing and looking for a hose to wash pepper spray off their faces. Media trucks and camera crews were everywhere. Reporters interrupted early-morning broadcasts with breaking news that Elian Gonzalez had been seized in a predawn raid by a Border Patrol SWAT Team.

				
					I, too, was in disbelief…. The Cuban exile community had always been a bastion of pro-American sentiment. Exiles loved America and Americans. My grandfather and parents had been deeply patriotic, and regarded their new country with reverence and gratitude. Most Cuban Americans were pillars of their communities, deeply invested in our nation and always on the side of law and order. Now, perhaps for the first time in their lives here, they felt like they were on the outside looking in: raided by federal agents….

				
					As for Elian, he returned to his father and Cuba, where he became an active member of the Communist Party and loyal supporter of El Commandante.
			</blockquote>

			
				Rubio makes no mention of Mrs. Clinton. But I’m sure he has suspicions and questions.

			
				And so, could someone in Florida with a camera ask Hillary Clinton about this? It shouldn’t be too difficult to track her down. Does she have any regrets about sending this little boy back to this communist police state?
		</div>
	</div>
</div>

The Elian Gonzalez Travesty: Where Was Hillary?

Reprinted from The American Spectator. 

			
				It was 16 years ago this spring that the Clinton administration handed over a six-year-old boy named Elian

Reprinted from <a href="http://www.investors.com/">Investors.com.</a>


	A long-touted motion picture on prominent Hollywood screenwriter and communist Dalton Trumbo debuts in theaters this weekend. I will see the film, but first I'd like to share some background on Trumbo. I do so not as a film critic, but as a historian of the Cold War and communism, including the Hollywood front for which Trumbo was extremely active.


	For starters, it's crucial to keep in mind that communism was responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people in the last century, double the combined tolls of World War I and II.


	It's also vital to know that most American communists (small "c") did not actually join the Party. Only the hardcore went that far. Those who joined the Party took a major leap of faith. They became loyal Soviet patriots.


	Regardless of their American citizenship, Communist Party members in the Stalin era (when Dalton Trumbo joined the Party) swore an oath: "I pledge myself to rally the masses to defend the Soviet Union. . .. I pledge myself to remain at all times a vigilant and firm defender of the Leninist line of the Party, the only line that ensures the triumph of Soviet Power in the United States."


	They wanted the "triumph" of Soviet power in America. They truly took marching orders from the Kremlin. The most fanatical among them (Trumbo included) remained in the Party even after the signing of the Hitler-Stalin Pact that launched World War II. Stalin aided and abetted Hitler in that apocalyptic action, enabling history's deadliest war and the Holocaust.


	American members of the Communist Party were dedicated to what their General Secretary William Z. Foster called a "Soviet America," or what Langston Hughes called a "U.S.S.A." "Put one more 'S' in the USA to make it Soviet," proclaimed Hughes. "The USA when we take control will be the USSA."


	As for the Hollywood Ten, all were members of the Communist Party, and we've known their card numbers since the 1940s: Dalton Trumbo 47187, John Howard Lawson 47275, Albert Maltz 47196, Alvah Bessie 47279, Samuel Ornitz 47181, Herbert Biberman 47267, Edward Dmytryk 46859, Adrian Scott 47200, Ring Lardner Jr. 47180 and Lester Cole 47226.


	Soviet Propaganda


	Most remained vigorous in their Party work right up until they were called before Congress — i.e., the bipartisan Democrats and Republicans today tarred with the dread label "HUAC." Some, such as Alvah Bessie, traveled abroad and took up arms for the communists in wartime. The only one who repented was Dmytryk.


	What about their work in film?


	Communists knew that the film industry could be a tremendous source of propaganda. Vladimir Lenin said that "of all the arts, for us the most important is cinema." Grigory Zinoviev, head of the Soviet Comintern, ordered that motion pictures "must become a mighty weapon of communist propaganda and for the enlightening of the widest working masses." In March 1928, the Soviets held their first Party Conference on Cinema.


	The Bolsheviks realized that nowhere was the movie industry as advanced and influential as the United States, especially in Hollywood's Golden Age. Their American comrades wholeheartedly agreed.


	Dalton Trumbo declared that "every screenwriter worth his salt wages the battle in his own way — a kind of literary guerrilla warfare." He said that not employing the medium of film was "tantamount to abandoning the struggle altogether."


	A fellow screenwriter who militantly enforced that warfare was a nasty individual named John Howard Lawson, known as "Hollywood's commissar." In his "Film in the Battle of Ideas," published by the communist house Masses &amp; Mainstream, Lawson shrewdly instructed his comrades:


	"As a writer, do not try to write an entire Communist picture, (but) try to get five minutes of communist doctrine, five minutes of the party line in every script that you write." He insisted: "It is your duty to further the class struggle by your performance."


	As for Dalton Trumbo, he wrote some good movie scripts. He also wrote some that clearly echoed elements of the Party line.


	The trailer for the Trumbo movie shows him stoically meeting with Kirk Douglas for the classic film "Spartacus." Here's something you should know about "Spartacus": For the film adaptation, Trumbo wrote a script based on Howard Fast's novel, "Spartacus." Fast was the proud recipient of the Stalin Prize.


	Given such realities, Congress in October 1947 summoned Trumbo and Lawson and other screenwriters to ask about their use of film as covert propaganda. Congressmen had questions about the screenwriters' Soviet loyalties and whether these loyalties affected what they were writing for mass consumption.


	In response, these secret Party members screamed foul and wrapped themselves in a First Amendment that did not exist in the USSR and would be the first thing facing the firing squad in a Moscow-controlled "Soviet America." Rather than truthfully answer questions or try to persuade the public that their loyalties were to America and there was nothing to worry about, they denounced the congressmen, comparing them to Nazis.


	"You are using the old technique, which was used in Hitler's Germany," shouted Lawson. The congressmen, said the dedicated Stalinist, were "trying to introduce fascism in this country."


	A 'Seditious Organization'


	As for Trumbo, he held nothing back. "You have produced a capital city on the eve of its Reichstag fire," he lectured the congressmen. "For those who remember German history in the autumn of 1932, there is the smell of smoke in this very room."


	Trumbo was venomous in unhesitatingly torching his opponents as "Nazis." He wailed as he left the hearing room:


	"This is the beginning of an American concentration camp!"


	The irony here was amazing and tragic. Consider: At that very moment, the Soviets — to whom Dalton Trumbo was pledged — were actually taking over Buchenwald from the Nazis and making it their own concentration camp.


	But the irony was worse. Trumbo was prolific in numerous communist fronts, including the pernicious American Peace Mobilization, which Congress identified as "one of the most seditious organizations which ever operated in the United States" and "one of the most notorious and blatantly communist fronts ever organized."


	Founded in 1940, the group's objective was to keep America completely out of the war against Hitler, including no Lend-Lease aid to Britain as it was being savaged by Hitler's war machine. Why? Because Hitler, at that point, was allied with Stalin. And for American Communist Party members, any ally of Stalin had to be their ally, period.


	Because of this (and more), the likes of Allan Ryskind, historian of the blacklist and son of the late screenwriter Morrie Ryskind, has called Trumbo "Hitler's enabler."


	Much more could be said here. It took Congress pages to cover Dalton Trumbo's communist work. My article cannot do justice to his prodigious efforts, from being pro-North Korea during the Korean War to anti-Churchill when the prime minister delivered his "Iron Curtain" speech.


	And after all of it, doing virtually whatever the Communist Party asked, Trumbo said he "never regretted" joining. "As a matter of fact," he told biographer Bruce Cook, "it's possible to say I would have regretted not having done it."


	That is the truth about Dalton Trumbo. Please take it with you into the theater.


	Paul Kengor is a Cold War historian and author of "Reagan's Legacy in a World Transformed" (Harvard University Press, 2015). The forthcoming film "Reagan" (2016) is based upon his books "The Crusader" and "God &amp; Ronald Reagan."

The Truth About Dalton Trumbo Before His Biography Debuts

Reprinted from Investors.com.


	A long-touted motion picture on prominent Hollywood screenwriter and communist Dalton Trumbo debuts in theaters this

The Truth About Dalton Trumbo Before His Biography Debuts

Arthur Miller — Communist

Reprinted from Spectator.org.

			
				October 17, 2015 is the centenary of the birth of Arthur Miller, one of the literary left’s shining lights and

Arthur Miller — Communist

<a href="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/10/Jerzy_Popieluszko.jpg"><img src="/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/10/Jerzy_Popieluszko.jpg" alt="Jerzy_Popieluszko" width="268" height="152" /></a>Reprinted from <a href="http://spectator.org/">Spectator.org</a>.
It was October 19, 1984—30 years ago this week. A gentle, courageous, and genuinely holy priest, Jerzy Popieluszko, age 37, found himself in a ghastly spot that, though it must have horrified him, surely did not surprise him. An unholy trinity of thugs from communist Poland’s secret police had seized and pummeled him. He was bound and gagged and stuffed into the trunk of their cream-colored Fiat 125 automobile as they roamed the countryside trying to decide where to dispatch him. This kindly priest was no less than the chaplain to the Solidarity movement, the freedom fighters who would ultimately prove fatal to Soviet communism—and not without Popieluszko’s stoic inspiration.
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
The ringleader this October day was Captain Grzegorz Piotrowski, an agent of Poland’s SB. Unlike Jerzy, who grew up devoutly religious, Piotrowski was raised in an atheist household, which, like the communist despots who governed Poland, was an aberration in this pious Roman Catholic country. The disregard for God and morality made Piotrowski an ideal man for the grisly task ahead, which he assumed with a special, channeled viciousness.
Piotrowski’s first beating of the priest that evening was so severe that it should have killed him. Jerzy was a small man afflicted with Addison’s disease. He previously had been hospitalized for other infirmities, including (understandably) stress and anxiety. But somehow, the priest was managing to survive as he fought for his life in the cold, dark trunk of the Fiat. In fact, somehow he unloosened the ropes that knotted him and extricated himself from the car. He began to run, shouting to anyone who could hear, “Help! Save my life!”
He was run down by Piotrowski, a dedicated disciple of what a Polish admirer of Jerzy, Pope John Paul II, would dub the Culture of Death. “I caught up with him and hit him on the head several times with the stick,” Piotrowski later confessed. “I hit him near or on the head. He fell limp again. I think he must have been unconscious. And then I became—never mind, it doesn’t matter.”
It did matter. It certainly mattered to the helpless priest. What Piotrowski became was something altogether worse. He seemed overtaken by another force. As recorded by authors Roger Boyes and John Moody in their superb book, Messenger of the Truth, which is now a <a href="http://www.messengerofthetruth.com/">gripping documentary</a>, Piotrowski’s accomplices thought their comrade had gone mad, “so wild were the blows.” It was like a public flogging. Jerzy’s pounding was so relentless that it wouldn’t be misplaced to think of Christ’s scourging at the pillar. This young man in persona Christi, not much older than Jesus Christ at his death agony, was being brutally tortured. It was a kind of crucifixion; the kind at which communists uniquely excelled.
One is tempted to say that Piotrowski beat the hell out of Father Jerzy, but such would be inappropriate and inaccurate for such a man of faith. Really, the hell was coming out of the beater, in all its demonic force and fury.
After another round of thrashing, Piotrowski and his two fellow tormentors ramped up the treatment. They grabbed a roll of thick adhesive tape and ran it around the priest’s mouth, nose, and head, tossing him once again in the vehicle, like a hunk of garbage on its way to the heap.
Though he could barely breathe or move, Father Jerzy somehow again pried open the trunk as the car continued to its destination. This set Piotrowski into a rage. He stopped the vehicle, got out, looked sternly at the priest, and told him that if he made even one more sound, he would strangle him with his bare hands and shoot him. Boyes and Moody report what happened next: “He [Piotrowski] replaced the gun and lifted [his] club. It came down on the priest’s nose, but instead of the sound of cartilage breaking, there was a plop, like a stick hitting the surface of a puddle.”
The perpetrators didn’t realize it quite yet, but it was the final, deadly blow. The next time they saw Father Jerzy, they had no doubt.
The killers drove to a spot at the Vistula River. They tied two heavy bags of stones, each weighing nearly 25 pounds, to the priest’s ankles. They lifted him in a vertical position above the water and then quietly let him go. He sunk into the blackness below them. It was 10 minutes before midnight, October 19, 1984. “Popieluszko is dead,” announced Lieutenant Leszek Pekala to his collaborators in this revolting, sad crime. The third helper, Lieutenant Waldemar Chmielewski, solemnly and simply affirmed, “That’s right.”
They drove away, downing a bottle of vodka to try to numb what they had done. Pekala thought to himself as he drank, “Now we are murderers.”
Indeed they were. Of course, so was the system they represented. It and its handmaidens had consumed countless Jerzy Popieluszkos and tens of millions of others whose names tragically will never be remembered on the anniversary of their deaths.
This priest, however, was remembered, by the millions. When he didn’t show for 7:00 a.m. Mass the next morning, his parishioners were immediately alarmed. This wasn’t like the loyal and punctual man of the cloth. A search for his whereabouts quickly commenced. It would take some time, but the truth eventually prevailed, as it did against communism generally. Among those sickened by the news was a Polish priest in the Vatican, Karol Wojtyla—Pope John Paul II. The shocked pontiff could relate: he had experienced many fellow Poles and priests killed by totalitarianism. He himself was a survivor. The communists had wanted him dead as well; they tried to assassinate him three years earlier.
And like John Paul II, Jerzy Popieluszko’s torment at the hands of devils was not in vain. Millions of Poles poured out of their homes and into churches to pay him homage, as they had for their native son, Karol Wojtyla, back in June 1979—a historic, life-changing visit that a young Jerzy helped coordinate. Ironically, Jerzy had been charged with working between the Vatican and Polish Ministry of Health to arrange emergency safety measures during that trip. Then, too, he had the mission of protecting people from harm—harm by communism.
Ultimately, Jerzy Popieluszko’s struggle, like that of his pope, was not in vain. As Tertullian once put it, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. The communists could not extinguish Poles’ desire for the Church, for God, and for freedom. It would take another five years after his death, but the saintly priest’s demise had further fueled the flames for the torch of freedom and the corresponding crash and burn of communism.
In retrospect, Jerzy’s murder in 1984 marked the mid-point between two cataclysmic events that put nails in the coffin of communism: John Paul II’s June 1979 visit to Poland and the crucial free elections held in Poland in June 1989. Those elections, more than anything else, signaled the coming collapse of communism. Mikhail Gorbachev later said that when those elections were held in Poland, he knew it was all over. It was no coincidence that the Berlin Wall fell five months later.
Father Jerzy Popieluszko was one of many martyrs at the hands of atheistic communism. But his cause was an especially significant one. His service and death was not in vain.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.   
<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Subscribe</a> to Frontpage's TV show, The Glazov Gang, and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Thou Shalt Not Kill: When the Communists Murdered a Priest

Reprinted from Spectator.org.

It was October 19, 1984—30 years ago this week. A gentle, courageous, and genuinely holy priest, Jerzy Popieluszko, age 37,

Frontpage Mag

paul kengor

Was Bill de Blasio’s Mom a Commie?

BLM Founder Patrisse Cullors, Marxist Abolitionist

Death of a Defector: Ion Mihai Pacepa, RIP

So Why Not Cancel Leftist Karl Marx?

Bernie’s Billionaires

Radical Son: The Rise of Chesa Boudin

Comey Was a Commie?

The Today Show Celebrates Communist Holiday

Women Who Lied About Sexual Assault

When Progressives Colluded With the Kremlin in a Presidential Election

Going Red for International Women’s Day… and Its Useful Idiots

Women’s Marchers, Unite!

Tom Hayden: From SDS and Viet Cong to Progressives for Obama

Communist Party Feels the Bern

My Hunt for Bernie’s Grandfather

Obama Atones for America’s Sins in Cuba

The Elian Gonzalez Travesty: Where Was Hillary?

The Truth About Dalton Trumbo Before His Biography Debuts

Arthur Miller — Communist

Thou Shalt Not Kill: When the Communists Murdered a Priest

FPM Series

Disloyal Military

Progressive Fascists

Racist Mayors

The Point

Kamala Harris Compares Abortion Rules to Slavery

CDC Tells Millions of Americans to Mask Again. Will Anyone Listen?

Hunter Biden's Laptop Had Contact Info for US Officials Involved in China Policy

Gov. Hogan, Officials, Refuse to Enforce Laws to Stop Supreme Court Harassment

Another Day, Another Arrest for Threatening to Kill Supreme Court Justices

Events