I think you are on to something. And it is scary how many in the media seem to be helping them with their cause.
In 2000, they had absolutely no problem with trying to STEAL an election. The dems actually tried to subvert the US Constitution.
And now we know that Kerry has already got over a 100 lawyers ready to go in Florida with filings for recounts...to an election that does not happen for months.
Folks like Pelosi and the others are members of the 'Progressive' groups and caucus. The association they work with uses 'Progressive' in their title. They changed it from 'Liberal' which was used when they changed from something like 'American Socialist' which was changed from some 'American Communist' title.
People better wake up. There are folks like ADA and others who push this socialist agenda.
Gore was proof...they will do anything for power. Term limits will be the first thing they may go after. They will preach the social agenda garbage...and when they get what they want...the fools that vote for them will see what people in the USSR saw...
That there never was a real socialist intent...and they got suckered into a tyrant style government where people got taken out behind the factory and shot when they did not produce enough for their 50 cent a day pay scale.
That may sound extreme...but that's how the USSR types worked it. They were elitists who had no real intent of helping the little people. They don't want others to have what they have. Kerry is a prime example of this. A snob of militant style.
Gotta hope Kerry does not win.
Interesting you mention that. The Joseph Rauh mentioned in the article was a cofounder of the ADA. My opinion after researching the ADA is that it was either infiltrated from the beginning or set up as a front to lure in moderate liberals. There's a lot of interesting information on the ADA in Steven M. Gillon, Politics and Vision: The ADA and American Liberalism, 1947-1985. There is also some interesting information on the ADA here:
Although the authors of the report clear the ADA of charges of being a front, a closer look at some of the individuals mentioned and actions described raises some questions--I've bolded some key names:
During the past few years we have received many inquiries concerning the status of this organization, and therefore deem it appropriate to devote some space to it here. This organization is in no sense a Communist front, or in any way subversive. It was started in Washington, D. C., on January 4, 1947, by a small group of ultra-liberals from the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party. Some of the early members were Leon Henderson, Wilson Wyatt, Chester Bowles, Harry Girvetz, Carey McWilliams, Sr., Gus Gaynor, Joseph Rauh, Walter Reuther, Stanley Mosk, and David Dubinsky. It was to be a
But this sort of criticism diminished as the A.D.A. came to the defense of embattled liberals who were clamoring for an emasculation of the government's loyalty and security program in the face of indisputable evidence of infiltration of the most sensitive positions by Soviet agents and dedicated American Communists. The ADA has attacked the Subversive Activities Control Board, the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations, federal and state committees on un-American activities and the use of informants who were once Party members. As this program began to assume shape and to gain momentum there was a corresponding and understandable absence of criticism in the Party press. Of course it is perfectly clear that simply because an organization, or an individual, is in favor of something the Communist Party also espouses, does not necessarily mean that the organization or individual is subversive or following the Communist Party line for some ulterior motive. We repeat, however, that some of the techniques employed by A.D.A. leaders, and the fact that it has opposed with considerable vigor almost the entire loyalty-security program of the government, it has made it the target of considerable criticism.
In California, the A.D.A. started business in March 1947 under the direction of the actor, Melvyn Douglas. During the thirties, Mr. Douglas had drifted very close to the Communist Party, joining a few relatively innocuous front organizations, and with his wife, Helen Gahagan Douglas, had entertained some ardent Communists in their home from time to time. But both Mr. and Mrs. Douglas quickly saw the movement for what it really was, and repudiated it. Moreover, they made no secret of their antipathy toward Communism and have since been forthright about this attitude. Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., a Washington lawyer, together with Anthony Wayne Smith, an attorney and liberal philosopher, has been active in the affairs of the A.D.A. since its inception. Rauh has represented many clients summoned before Congressional committees investigating Communism—as, of course, is his right—but his zeal got the better of his caution in 1954. To place this incredible affair in its proper perspective, it is imperative that we have no doubt concerning the position of the A.D.A. about what it terms "informers." Rauh wrote in the organization's publication, The Progressive, in May 1950:
"Let us do away with confidential informants. dossiers, political spies... No one can guess where this process of informing will end."
― 142 ―
But that was four years before Mr. Ruah [Rauh] ran into Paul Hughes, who had recently been discharged from the Air Force and needed money. He went first to an agent of the McCarthy committee and tried to sell him a lurid tale about overseas subversion at a strategic air force base. The agent properly checked the story, found it false, and got rid of Mr. Hughes. The latter then tried the F.B.I., where he met with an equally chilly reception. Then he contacted the editor of a liberal publication, who suggested a conference with Ruah. These two credulous gentlemen believed Hughes' statement that he had been a secret agent for the late Senator McCarthy and that—with appropriate financial assistance—he could and would expose the dire methods the McCarthy committee had employed. So, over a period of nine months, a period of gestation for the birth of the purposed expose, Hughes got $2300 from the editor of the liberal journal and $8500 from the A.D.A. leader. During this time he made long reports, in considerable detail,—all completely fabricated and spun from his own active imagination—and finally committed the inevitable blunder that led, not only to his downfall, but the exposure of Ruah's actions as well.
Hughes made the mistake of posing as a private investigator, was summoned before a Federal Grand Jury and testified that a former Communist named Harvey Matusow had been pressured to repudiate his sworn statements to federal agencies by none other than Hughes' benefactor, Joseph Ruah. This, too, was an outright lie, and Hughes was promptly indicted for perjury. This, of course, made it necessary for Ruah to appear and testify at the trial, and out came the nauseating fact that while excoriating the use of informants by official agencies of the government in their fight against subversion, Ruah had himself hired a paid informer and a political spy to get the goods on the late Senator Joseph McCarthy. Hughes had never worked for McCarthy or his committee, and indeed had been quickly detected as a transparent fraud by an alert McCarthy agent. Thus Ruah tried his best to use an informer and a spy--but was too naive to even find a good one.
Since this affair the A.D.A., still under Ruah's leadership, has demanded bail for the eleven Communist leaders tried at Foley Square and convicted under the Smith Act; has protested a contempt conviction of Vincent Hallinan as a result of a court appearance for Harry Bridges; declared that the Communist threat in this country is vastly over-rated, and is presently demanding that the government restore to J. Robert Oppenheimer his access to secret information.