Posted on 02/11/2021 8:12:34 PM PST by L.A.Justice
And more the spring and summer of 2022. Along with another surge in COVID-22 to ensure massive mail in voting.
Marcus Raskin came from Milwaukee’s Russian community to the University of Chicago in the 1950s, where he studied under former New Dealer Rexford Tugwell, who had been closely associated with Henry Wallace and Jerome Frank and Soviet cells in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration; and Quincy Wright, who in 1931 had been a member of a Communist front called the League for the Organization of Progress, then presided over by Karl Marx’s former associate Eduard Bernstein. After serving as Wright’s assistant, Raskin went to Washington, where his association with left-wing Wisconsin Congressman Robert Kastenmeier and FDR’s son James Roosevelt brought him in contact with a far-left wing of the Democratic Party which had formed around Eleanor Roosevelt and other former supporters of Henry Wallace and Adlai Stevenson. This far-left group managed to place some people like Raskin in the JFK administration, but found JFK too “moderate” for their liking, so Raskin, Kastenmeier, FDR’s former financial advisor James Warburg (a long-time funder of Soviet causes), Philip M. Stern (another Soviet front financier born to Sears heiress Edith Rosenwald Stern, whose father Julius had likewise been a leading CP financier), and others founded what became the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). IPS became one of the leading channels of Communist influence in Washington during the Cold War, when it was linked to agents of the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Vietnam, and the Communist movements in Chile and Nicaragua. By cultivating ties to politicians such as Ted Kennedy, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry, IPS gradually gained lobbying influence, to the point where it now has its own Congressman to promote its treasonous agenda, Jamie Raskin.
Are the Republicans going to present any defense or simply call for a vote and end this charade?
Rep. Robert Kastenmeier (D-Wisc) was one of our “Dirty Red Dozen” congressmen/women during the 60s/70s. These were MOC whose pro-communist actions and statements separated them from the run of the mill leftwing liberal.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn in the future that he was a secret member of the CPUSA.
Off the top of my head, the first “Dirty Dozen” included:
* Bella Abzug - a reportedly secret member of the CPUSA along with her husband. Documents about her membership are missing at the National Archives. We tried to find them.
* Donald Fraser (D-Minn) - insane!!! So far-left that he once fell off the world.
* John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich) - father was a Walter Reuther (ex-CP) follower and a leader of the 1950’s United Auto Workers Union. Conyers Jr. was the top CPUSA/SWP supporter in the Congress outside of Abzug.
* Charles Hayes (D-Ill) - identified CPUSA labor leader
* Augustus Hawkins (D-CA) , admitted former CPUSA member and reliable CP front supporter
* The Burtons - Phil, John and Sala; hardcore California reds
* Hugh DeLacy - (D-Cal) - hardcore red. Key influence on Leon Panetta, Rep., CIA director, etc. Leon left any reference to DeLacy out of his autobiography but put a nice tribute to him in the Cong. Rec. They were more than just friends.
* Parren Mitchell (D-Md) - came from a long line of leftist politicians in Maryland. Hardcore red, esp. promoting their “Transfer Amendment” in Congress and might have been the congressman who had identified/convicted? Soviet spy Victor Perlo testify before a joint congressional committee on economic spending.
* Later: George Crockett Jr. (D-Mich) hardcore CPUSA member and Soviet supporter esp. with Conyers on voting against condemning the Soviets for shooting down the KAL 007 Korean civilian airliner.
* Charles O. Porter - D-Ore) one termer as I recall but longtime CPUSA front supporter
I have forgotten the names of most of the second “Dirty Dozen” but you get my drift.
Pete McCloskey was another one in Congress; Chris Dodd was there before he moved to the Senate. Had a few Senators in there, too—J. William Fulbright, Wayne Morse, Tom Harkin, Alan Cranston, Claiborne Pell, Thomas Eagleton, Robert Kennedy started traveling with Cesar Chavez and the Vietcong when he wanted to cozy up to the left for the 1968 election, Ted Kennedy who became increasingly compromised and eventually helped the Soviets against Carter and Reagan, John Tunney, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, let’s not forget Joe Biden joined this bunch when he came into the Senate after the 1972 election, setting the stage for him to get involved in the SALT II negotiations with Andrei Gromyko. . .
“If Trump is “convicted” he won’t be imprisoned. He can still hold rallies. ...”
Absolutely.
The truth is exactly the opposite of their headline, which says
“Trump could stoke more violence if not convicted”
I agree with everything John Robert’s said about Trump at this “trial”.
Correct.
Expensive stores were warned by the FBI of credible threats of riot following the election if Trump won.
And Justice Roberts refused to hear challenges to election law and constitutional violations because the Left may riot.
“Same thing happens with a DUI.”
Would you explain, please? Are you referring to check points? Revocation of license? 4th amendment issues with breathalyzers/blood samples and punishment if failing to submit? I am not entirely following. Maybe you have a better point?
I think Laura Ingraham has also attacked Trump for supposedly not condemning the attack fast enough.
If Trump had gone on Twitter immediately once he was told of the mob's actions inside the Capitol, what impact would that have had? Were all the people inside constantly checking for tweets? Would they have immediately left, including the Antifa members who had disguised themselves as pro-Trump people?
Just that legal action is taken not on the basis of actual offenses committed as in inflicting bodily harm, but the mere potential to inflict bodily harm is now subject to arrest and prosecution.
Ok. You are kinda saying that driving drunk isn’t really hurting anyone until it hurts someone and then it is a crime and should be prosecuted. Prosecuting merely being behind the wheel before any crime in the true sense of crime, i.e., harm to another, is to preprosecute. To prosecute on such grounds is the slippery slope to prosecuting people on mere potential. WHy not prosecute everyone of legal drinking age who has a license simply because the potential to get behind the wheel and do harm is there. Am I on track with your thought?
“stoking things” are we? mebbe a coup/insurrection resulting i Congress having to barricade themselves on Capitol Hill and Biden barricading himself in the White House -somehow isn’t “stoking things”?!
Yes. My sense is that early jurisprudence, i.e. that in Mosaic civil law, treated of actual, physical offenses. The shift toward prosecuting potential offenses has been long and hard so that we are now bordering on prosecuting wrongthink.
:-)
I’ve heard that tne Navy is ‘The Marines’ ride’.
(On the other hand, I know that Navy Corpsmen have saved the lives of Marines, often suffering great harm themselves in the process.)
I didn’t mention the Senators as being a part of the “Dirty Dozen” communists/sympathizers in Congress during the 1960’s/70s and later 80’s because my focus was on the House per se.
Cranston - Office of War Information (loaded with NKVD/GRU agents), the murder of anti-communist labor leader Carlos Tresca which Cranston tried to cover up as being a communist assassination; possibly Institute for Pacific Relations; hardcore communist in my opinion.
John Tunney - one of the stupidest senators in American history. I think I heard him speak. Pathetic POS. Kennedy used him as his puppet-courier to the Soviets.
Wayne Morse - there are people who will swear that he was a communist and someone wrote a little booklet about him which had a lot of serious documentation in it on his Marxist positions on American policies. He was extremely anti-American and even pro-VC.
McCloskey - I think an honest but misguided RINO. Made some bad choices in who he associated with.
Fulbright- the Mystery Man. Wouldn’t trust him with anything and he seemed to be trying to sabotage our efforts in So. Vietnam. I read many of his Sen. Foreign Relations Committee hearings and I cannot find anything other than a few cheap words about stopping communist aggression in SE Asia. His staff was terrible, leftists. Some showed up in anti-defense groups, Macy, one spelled with a C (in the American-Soviet Accord group), etc.
Harkin - a liar, fake Vietnam veteran, friend of Don Luce (that says it all), supporter of pro-Hanoi/VC fronts (see if he is a sponsor of Medical Aid to Indochina), Con Son island liar, supporter of the Marxist Sandinistas of Nicaragua (esp. in S. Steven Powell’s “Covert Cadres” about IPS, the studies of the Council for Inter-American Security, and Human Events newspaper.
Pell - a well meaning fool
Eagleton - a stupider well meaning fool
Eugene McCarthy - the stupidest well meaning fool
Robert Kennedy - opportunist; once a hawk on Vietnam;
turned with the wind
George McGovern - communist sympathizer to the point that he should have been given an honorary membership in the KGB.
Got fooled by their propaganda operations when he made an emergency landed on a Tito Partisan-held island and got the royal propaganda tour/talks, etc.
And the Democrat Party let these traitors and fools rise to the top of their leadership. That is what led to Schumer, Durbin, Harris, (Pelosi), Schiff, fake Viet vet Blumenthal, Hillary, etc. turn it into a Marxist cesspool of subversion and lies.
Fulbright and Morse (both soft on Cuba) were mimicking CP talking points on Vietnam verbatim. From March 1966 to January 1969 (with embassy wiretap records backdated to July 1965), their contacts and that of other Congressmen, Senators, and Congressional staff with Soviet bloc embassies were put under FBI surveillance on direct orders from the White House, with biweekly reports prepared for the President. Bill Clinton was on Fulbright’s staff at the time, working as a messenger and clerk. He was hired by Fulbright’s long-time chief of staff Lee Williams, who shared Fulbright’s views on Vietnam. As President, Clinton appointed him to the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board.
Max, it's DiscoverTheNetworks.org (with an 's' at the end of network)
Without the s an entirely different website comes up.
Apparently doesn't matter anyway, as it appears no one on this thread has attempted to go there to check it out. Else they would have remarked that the link didn't go where as intended. Meanwhile, it's an incredible source for background info on various communist groups and individuals. Been using it for 20 or so years now in my researches.
Thanks for the info you presented here. First rate as always.
Thanks for your response. I am certainly not trying to pick a fight but I am enjoying this thought process and want to press it a little more.
I understand what you are saying, that merely having alcohol content in your system does not constitute a crime; you are not physically harming anyone, assuming that is the legal definition of crime. I can remember a time when you could legally drive with an open can of beer in certain states. It was only an issue if you were drunk and your ability to operate the vehicle was impaired. We can see how the potential realm has expanded from this.
If we take the idea, I will say our idea, of merely having alcohol in your system not meeting our definition of a crime, what about other nonharmful activities? Reckless driving, driving at a high rate of speed, is not really harming anyone, though annoying and risky it may be, it does not really meet the definition of a crime though you will be arrested for your potential to do harm.
Being loudmouth and belligerent in your home or in public used to not be a crime, but today were your wife to call the police and say she feels threatened, off to the lockup and away go your weapons; no trial, no conviction, and no crime. You will be confined due to your “potential” to do harm. Another expansion.
Were I to go down an alley in the city and discharge a weapon into a large trash container, I am not really harming anyone. I would certainly be arrested because of the potential to harm. The same could be said for carrying a weapon. I have not robbed anyone or shot anyone nor do I have any intention to do so but the law I violate is based on my potential to harm.
This has crept into other aspects of society where I can be censored because what I say may have the potential to harm or cause others to act in a manner which may be harmful. It no longer matters if anyone has been hurt or if it can be proven my words motivated someone to harm someone, such rhetoric is now considered unacceptable and may be regulated. Of course this will expand as people become more and more sensitive.
While I have a great deal of concern about DUI checkpoints and the manner in which law enforcement detains people and forces us to submit to sobriety tests against our 5th amendment rights and understand how all of this is based on potentiality I do recognize that DUI, reckless driving, and speeding are menace to our safety and it needs to be addressed. I could also say the same about leftism being a menace yet I do not want leftists silenced because I recognize that the same law that could silence them could silence others I agree with but that is precisely what is happening to the right; we are being silenced because we are thought a menace but their definition, though there is no proof of harm. But you have to admit, we would sound more than a little kookie saying that drunk driving is a right guaranteed in the bill of rights.
Thanks again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.