Inaugural Parade Protests (ANSWER News Conf. C-Span 11:59 pm EST 12/17)

"The A.N.S.W.E.R., my FRiends..."
(To be sung to Bob Dylan's "Blowin' In the Wind")

How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?
How many Dreams must each Tyrant kill before he's forced to step down?
How many lives must the Socialists kill, before RATS are forever banned?!!

The A.N.S.W.E.R, my FRiends, is Lib'ralism's DEAD!!!
The A.N.S.W.E.R. is fightin' 'gainst RATS' Spin!!

How many fears must the Networks create before RATS're squashed by the FRee?
How many years can RAT-sheeple insist that Mass-Murder's just peachy-keen?!!
How many times can RATS' Hearts trick their Heads, pretending Slick's blacker than me?!

The A.N.S.W.E.R., my FRiends, is helping FReep RATS' pigs,
The A.N.S.W.E.R. is blowin' out the Ditz's!!!!

How many times must Lib'rals be duped before they will see Slick LIES?
How many victims must one man have before the Rapist hears her cries?
How many deaths will it take 'til World knows that Central Authority is VILE?!!

The A.N.S.W.E.R., my FRiends, is Fightin' 'Gainst Left's Spin,
The A.N.S.W.E.R. is taking down Clinton.(gettin' outta the UN?!)

FReegards...MUD (02/23/2003)

Their home page:

http://www.c-span.org/

Check the left index

Oh yea, these guys are nuts.

Let's see...Roosevelt led us into WWII. Germany didn't attack us. 112,000 per year killed from our side. Iraq is doing good in that area.

Didja get it working?

The guy is a walking joke. Indeed a big time loser.

Show is on now.

I'm not sure this will work right, but we'll see.

This (click here) should be the Real Media "live" feed of the taped show.

If those don't work, go here to http://c-span.org/ and click on one of the C-SPAN "live feeds" (center bottom of page).

Listening now. Thank you.

You're very welcome.

Oh yes. He is whining for permits for where he wants to be vs. what he is being given.

Thank you.

where's Michael Berg when they really need him ?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1161415/posts

The WWP, main force behind the Antiwar ANSWER, Splits

It is secretly being screamed all over left circles. The Workers’ World Party (WWP) has splintered. This will have no importance in the news if it wasn’t for the fact that for a long time the WWP – a formation of about 300 militants nationwide -- allegedly dominated ANSWER, one of the main antiwar coalitions in the US.

According to unofficial reports, the entire West Coast membership of the WWP left the organization following the discussions about the Presidential ticket of the organization. According to different sources, some of those leaving the group opposed the WWP running candidates for President and Vice-President and pushed for a line of activism rather than electoralism.

They argued that the party was too small and irrelevant to play any role in the elections and that that would alienate many allies in the antiwar movement who are supporting John Kerry, the Democratic Party candidate, as the “lesser of two evils.” The WWP have fielded presidential and vice-presidential candidates in the past, gathering a handful of votes in a few states.

This group allegedly does not support the Democrats or endorsing John Kerry, but they simply contend that the party should not oppose the “Anyone but Bush” trend, which translated into real world terms means “Nobody but Kerry.”

The majority in the leadership disagreed and pushed for the John Parker – Theresa Gutierrez displacing the Monica Moorehead – Gloria LaRiva team who represented the party in the last few elections. Gloria La Riva is heading the splinter group or was pushed out of the Workers World Party as a result of the crisis.

The Workers World Party (WWP) is allegedly a socialist party which was founded in 1959 by Sam Marcy after spliting from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). While Trotskyists were present in its initial formation, the WWP soon became pro-Maoist and even flirted briefly with the North Korean regime of Kim Il Sung. While the leadership of the party denies it vehemently, opponents characterized it as a neo-stalinist grouping.

Most likely, both characterizations are wrong as the WWP’s main characteristic is not theoretical but activist by nature, although adopting any “progressive” movement that emerged both domestically and abroad. Thus, they endorsed and supported the failed candidacies of Jesse Jackson, Cuban leader Fidel Castro and even Slovodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia. They went so far as to support the massacre of Tianamen Square by the Chinese Communist Party, mirroring its explanation that was a CIA-inspired conspiracy.

But the WWP played an important role in providing the infrastructure for the antiwar movement during both Gulf Wars and lead a coalition, ANSWER, that many characterize as little more than WWP front groups. Criticisms of their soft stands towards Saddam Hussein during the last war were also leveled against the party. They did manage, however, to provide an umbrella for the first and some of the most significant and massive antiwar demonstrations in the recent past.

While respected for their antiwar work, the WWP was never able to capitalize from its leading role in organizing the movement as the party remained small and its electoral results never amounted to more than a few thousand voters. Signs of the internal difficulties emerged when the West Coast branches declined to participate in the primaries of the California Peace & Freedom Party – something they have done for over a decade and a half – which was interpreted as a shift away from electoral politics as the P&FP had been in the past the source of most of the WWP’s presidential ticket’s votes nationwide.

In the recent past, the most openly pro-Democratic Party wing of the antiwar movement launched a number of virulent attacks against the WWP and ANSWER, many of which were tantamount to red-baiting and reactionary attacks. In fact, many of those forces split the antiwar movement and formed rival coalitions like the UFPJ (United for Peace and Justice) which refused to link the Iraq war with the occupation of Palestine and have a pro-Democratic Party platform.

So far, neither the newspaper of the WWP or its web page have published anything about the party crisis, and they are trying to keep it under wraps as much as possible. We have noticed, however, that the ANSWER webpage has two URLs, one for the West Coast, and one for the rest of the country, possibly reflecting the lines of the split. We also noticed that the WWP and its allies in ANSWER are pushing to support the demonstrations at the National Conventions of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which seems to indicate that the WWP’s majority was able to impose its more left-based platform on these campaigns and to discipline its remaining loyalists.

It is important, however, for the WWP – and for the faction that abandoned it -- to come up publicly and explain the political reasons behind the split and how that could affect the antiwar work of ANSWER, not to satisfy a morbid wish to know the latest gossip gripping a small socialist group, but to help the rest of the left comprehend how that can affect their common antiwar activities.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A426_0_2_0_C/

Communists Run Anti-War Demonstration

A growing "anti-war" movement encouraged by Hollywood and the media is working to undermine public support for American foreign policy and portray the Bush Administration as more of a threat to the world than the regimes in Baghdad or Pyongyang. A key fact – completely ignored by the major media – is that open and identified communists are playing key roles in sponsoring the protests.

The January 18 rally in Washington, D.C., heavily publicized by C-SPAN, was a classic case of communists using front groups to attract "useful idiots" to their activities. The Iraqi regime called the rally "an emphatic dissent against preparations for war…"

The communist role was apparent to those with an elementary understanding of the key players. Two leading members of the communist Workers World Party, the WWP -- Brian Becker and Larry Holmes -- organized and orchestrated the day's events, and several other communist and socialist groups openly participated in the rally under banners denouncing "imperialism." Holmes served as an emcee for much of the event. Brian Becker played a public role as an organizer and a speaker, was in the staging area of the march where he gave numerous interviews to the press, and orchestrated the affair as demonstrators moved from the Capitol. But the media didn't identify them as WWP members.

The WWP, formed in 1958 by a communist named Sam Marcy, has taken up the role that used to be played by the Moscow-oriented Communist Party USA, which has diminished in importance since the demise of the old Soviet Union. But like the CPUSA, the WWP believes in working with the Democratic Party and liberal-left groups that form its base of support.

C-SPAN ran live coverage of this rally and re-aired the event several times during the day and night. But it misled viewers by telling them that a group called International A.N.S.W.E.R., which stands for "Act Now to Stop War and End Racism," was behind it. In fact, International A.N.S.W.E.R. and its predecessor, the International Action Center, were started by the WWP, of which Becker and Holmes are leading members. Holmes appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal program before the rally to promote it. But C-SPAN ignored the patriotic counter-demonstration staged by FreeRepublic.com and failed to interview anyone on the air who could rip the mask off the communist-inspired event.

Many C-SPAN viewers were disgusted. When a viewer called C-SPAN to complain about the prolonged coverage of the anti-American rally, the host said it was designed to balance programs that conveyed the Bush Administration view. But the coverage was deceptive because C-SPAN didn't identify the real nature of the sponsoring group, International A.N.S.W.E.R., and didn't alert viewers to the full scope of communist and socialist groups in attendance. Two days after the rally, C-SPAN was still featuring a link on its own Web site to International A.N.S.W.E.R.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1303902/posts

"Operation infinite FReep (operation Hail to the chief)....Protest ANSWER jan 20th in Washington DC"

Posted on 12/17/2004 7:17:16 PM PST by Thunder90

"Before the W2 ball on Jan 20th, go out and help Protestwarrior protest ANSWER in operation Hail to the Chief, and show these people that they are not in the majority."

These search terms have been highlighted:

brian

becker

cpusa

Page 1

June 2003

CONTENTS

America At War:

The Enemy Within

page 1

Briefly Noted:

page 6

Summary: With the swift air and

ground war against Iraq now history, the

U.S.-led war against international ter-

rorism moves forward with renewed mo-

mentum. But the Iraqi campaign also has

spurred on the anti-war movement, which

began taking shape after 9/11. We should

expect anti-war protests to accelerate

rather than diminish in the months ahead.

Here are the principal radical groups

organizing protests against U.S. security

policy.

America At War: The Enemy Within

Radical Left Uses Anti-War Movement to Wage War on America

By John J. Tierney

The principal organizers of the anti-war movement are products of

Marxist and other radical left organizations.

U

nlike hostile regimes, professional

anti-war protesters do not lie low after the

American military successfully demon-

strates how to use force to depose a tyrant.

If anything, the tanks, artillery and airpower

directed against Saddam Hussein have

only enflamed protesters’ outrage and

encouraged more activism. A statement

issued for an April 12, 2003 demonstration

by ANSWER, the largest umbrella protest

group, is defiant on this point:

It would be the most tragic and

wasteful outcome if this movement

- less than a year old - decided that

its efforts had failed because Bush

and the Pentagon proceeded with

their slaughter in Iraq. The war on

Iraq does not prove the failure of

the anti-war movement. If any-

thing, the war on Iraq proves only

that the economic, political and

military authority in the United

States is morally bankrupt. It is

nurtured by a system that has be-

come addicted to militarism and

war.

As clashes between U.S. soldiers and

Iraqi citizens are sure to be a feature of

news coverage during the coming months,

we can expect that the issue of the Ameri-

can “occupation” of Iraq will be the new

rallying cry of radical protest groups.

Protest is an integral part of the anti-

war movement’s campaign against Ameri-

can foreign and defense policy—and, in-

deed, against American society in general.

When U.S. military power scores victories

against terrorists and sustains the Bush

Administration’s foreign policy, protest

groups suffer a tactical defeat. Yet even

though protesters have not derailed the

war against Saddam, the determination and

staying power of the anti-war movement

should not be underestimated. Organizers

of the current anti-war movement are vet-

erans of past protests. Despite many lost

battles, they are stubborn and resilient. To

them, political struggle is perpetual and

systemic.

The U.S. has been down this road be-

fore. The sights and sounds of anti-war

protest—police barricades, bullhorns blast-

ing, graffiti and slogans—are reminiscent

of the 1960s protests against the Vietnam

War. Within months of the 1968 Tet Offen-

Page 2

OrganizationTrends

2

June 2003

Editor: John Carlisle

Publisher: Terrence Scanlon

Organization Trends

is published by Capital Research

Center, a non-partisan education and

research organization, classified by the

IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity.

Address:

1513 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036-1480

Phone: (202) 483-6900

Long-Distance: (800) 459-3950

E-mail Address:

jcarlisle@capitalresearch.org

Web Site:

http://www.capitalresearch.org

Organization Trends welcomes

letters to the editor.

Reprints are available for $2.50

prepaid to Capital Research Center.

sive, amidst a relentless chorus of nation-

wide protest, President Lyndon Johnson -

who had won the greatest plurality in U.S.

election history just four years earlier -

announced he would not seek re-election.

The Vietnam War went on for seven more

years, but the center of political gravity—

American government willpower and citi-

zen support for its exercise—was severely

crippled.

Will the aftereffects of the Iraq war

and the ongoing war against terrorism

generate another “Vietnam syndrome”?

It’s unlikely, but it would be reckless to

dismiss the ability of professional anti-war

groups to stoke dissent, promote turmoil,

and engage in activities that undermine

the legitimate use of U.S. power.

The Major Anti-War Groups:

Radical Left Leadership

Professional anti-war groups wage war

on America even as they profess a humani-

tarian concern about collateral damage that

any large-scale military action is bound to

produce. Typically, their tactics are overt,

loud, disruptive, emotional, anti-intellec-

tual and—above all—ideological. They

stage mass rallies to win maximum public-

ity and they make their points using slo-

gans, graffiti, chants, songs and profan-

ity. Examine their tactics and you will learn

their real intentions.

One other way to determine the aims

of protest groups is to follow their money.

It takes money to master the logistics,

administration and paraphernalia of mass

demonstrations. Find the donors to groups

opposing the war against Saddam and

fighting U.S. anti-terrorism policies and

you may learn the real ambition of the

protest. Some donors, like the Ford and

MacArthur foundations, are mainstream

liberals. But others, such as the Bill of

Rights Foundation, have explicit radical

left political agendas.

Whatever the funding source, one

thing anti-war groups have in common is

radical leaders. The training ground of

anti-war activists includes the Workers

World Party, Communist Party USA, Na-

tional Lawyers Guild, All-African Peoples

Revolutionary Party and other Marxist and

hard left organizations. It should raise a

red flag anytime former U.S. Attorney Gen-

eral Ramsey Clark is listed as a speaker at

a demonstration or a member of a group’s

board of advisers. Clark has the shameful

distinction of participating in a mock war

crimes trial in Pyongyang, North Korea

that denounced U.S. foreign policy to-

wards that regime. He also joined the Inter-

national Committee to Defend Slobodan

Milosevic. Unfortunately, Clark has been

an all-too-frequent participant at rallies

opposing U.S. policy towards Iraq. In

opposing the war, the movement’s leaders

are really attacking American political val-

ues and institutions.

Not In Our Name

Not In Our Name is one of the newest

of several hard core political groups that

have seized upon the war against terrorism

and U.S. action in Iraq in order to mobilize

protests against the Bush Administration.

The group was created in March 2002 in a

meeting between an assortment of left-

wing veterans, including partisans from

the Revolutionary Communist Party, the

All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party,

Refuse and Resist, the International

League of People’s Struggle, and the Na-

tional Lawyers Guild, the 1930s-era Com-

munist front group whose members claim

to act as the “people’s lawyer.” Not In Our

Name was set up to act as an umbrella

organization that would attract liberal and

left-leaning celebrities, artists and intel-

lectuals—recognizable figures who would

lend authority to the group’s activities.

Not In Our Name has achieved exactly

what it wants: publicity about protest

against the war on terror. The group pub-

lished two full-page ads in the January 27,

2003 New York Times, which accuse the

Bush Administration of promoting “a spirit

of revenge” after 9/11 that has plunged the

country into “war abroad and repression

at home.” The statement is signed by hun-

dreds of celebrities, including Al Sharpton,

Jesse Jackson, actors Edward Asner and

Martin Sheen, folksinger Pete Seeger, and

novelist Kurt Vonnegut.

The organization uses two devices to

involve participants. Celebrities can sign

the “Statement of Conscience,” while other

folks must make do with the “Project,”

which organizes street demonstrations.

The “Statement” is primarily a forum for

political theater organized by Clark

Kissinger, a self-proclaimed “revolution-

ary Maoist.” Kissinger worked with the

Black Panther Party in the 1960s, founded

the U.S.-China People’s Friendship Asso-

ciation in 1971, and supported the Iranian

revolution in 1979. (He resigned from the

U.S.-China Friendship Association after

the death of Mao Tse-Tung to protest

China’s repudiation of the Cultural Revo-

lution.) Kissinger’s aim is to exploit what

Lenin called the “useful idiots.” He makes

sure that Not In Our Name wins the sup-

port of anyone who opposes the war, but

he keeps the organization free to pursue its

own extremist political agenda: “We

wanted people to sign the statement,” he

has said, “without having their names used

to endorse other actions.”

Not In Our Name says over 4,000

people contributed over $300,000 to pub-

licize its Statement of Conscience. The

group also receives financial support from

Page 3

3

June 2003

OrganizationTrends

nonprofits not previously interested in

U.S. foreign policy. According to press

reports, the Bill of Rights Foundation is a

funder. It is mainly known for providing

support for the legal defense of Mumia

Abu-Jamal, a radical with ties to Fidel Castro

and Mideast terrorism who has been on

death row for two decades for murdering a

Philadelphia policeman in 1982. In 2001,

the foundation, which is actually a 501(c)(3)

nonprofit and not a private foundation,

had expenses of over $102,000, and $95,737

went to Jamal’s legal defense fund.

Not In Our Name is also funded by the

Interreligious Foundation for Community

Organization (IFCO), a group founded in

1967 to “advance the struggles of op-

pressed people for justice and self-deter-

mination.” At a recent solidarity confer-

ence in Havana, IFCO’s executive director,

Rev. Lucius Walker, proclaimed, “Long

live the creative example of the Cuban

Revolution. Long live the wisdom and

heartfelt concern for the poor of the world

by Fidel Castro.” IFCO also sponsors

Refuse and Resist, an organization founded

in 1987 in response to Reagan era reforms.

Its organizers, which included Clark

Kissinger, “Chicago Seven” defendant

Abbie Hoffman and his attorney, William

Kunstler, pledged to “renounce all alle-

giance to this hateful Resurgent America

program.”

The mix of anti-American politics and

anti-war protest is a trademark of illegiti-

mate protest, and it is all tax-deductible.

We don’t know how much money the Bill

of Rights Foundation and IFCO have given

Not In Our Name because federal laws do

not require tax-exempt nonprofits to reveal

pass-through gifts to other nonprofits.

According to Bill of Rights Foundation

president Judith Levin, funding sources

are nobody’s business; all proceeds go to

the same cause: revolution against soci-

ety. Says Levin: “The connection is the

violation of civil rights of people in this

country.”

ANSWER

Act Now to Stop War and End Racism

(acronym: ANSWER) was the first and

largest group organized after 9/11 to op-

pose Bush Administration anti-terrorism

policies. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit, ANSWER

was the primary sponsor of mass marches

against the war in Iraq held in Washing-

ton, D.C. on April 12, 2003.

The Washington protest was coordi-

nated with anti-war actions in the capital

cities of more than 60 nations. ANSWER

and its affiliate, ANSWER International,

helped organize a coalition support net-

work of hundreds of U.S. and overseas

groups. More than 25,000 protestors con-

verged at Freedom Plaza, just blocks from

the U.S. Capitol, to loudly denounce the

war. (Large numbers came from Wiscon-

sin, New York, Michigan, California and

Northern Virginia.) Later, they marched

past several corporate offices, targeting

companies that allegedly stood to profit

from the war. For instance, they went to

the offices of the Halliburton corporation,

the energy firm once headed by Vice Presi-

dent Cheney, shouting “Halliburton War

Criminals!” Other throngs of ANSWER

protestors stood outside the Justice De-

partment building shouting “Get the hell

out of Iraq!” In addition to profanity-laden

chants, marchers carried signs with such

statements as “Money for Jobs, Not for

Empire.” Scuffles with police broke out,

but there were few arrests.

Other anti-war groups aided the AN-

SWER protest by inviting their members to

join the Washington crowd. They included

Not in Our Name, the National Lawyers

Guild and Black Voices for Peace.

ANSWER has a startling background.

The organization propping it up is a Cold

War communist relic called the Workers

World Party (WWP). WWP split from the

Socialist Workers Party in 1959 over the

Soviet invasion of Hungary three years

earlier. The Socialist Workers opposed the

invasion, as did other communist fronts,

but the WWP remained faithful to the So-

viet cause. WWP also supported the 1968

Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the

Viet Cong and North Vietnam, and the

communist governments of Cuba and

North Korea.

ANSWER’s links to the WWP are

hardly hidden and lie just beneath the

surface. It is a reincarnation of the old

Communist “Popular Front,” which played

a prominent role in the peace and unilateral

disarmament movements in the 1930s and

later during the Cold War, and whose own

roots are in the Communist International.

ANSWER’s Steering Committee is

comprised of the most radical Marxist or-

ganizations in the U.S. The most influen-

tial is the International Action Center (IAC),

a WWP front formed in 1991 by former U.S.

Attorney General Ramsey Clark, a leading

ANSWER operative. Other key WWP op-

eratives hold critical positions in Clark’s

IAC, including Sarah Flounders (coordi-

nator), Brian Becker (national co-director),

Sarah Sloan (youth coordinator), and

Gloria La Riva (a correspondent for Work-

ers World, WWP’s weekly newspaper).

IAC and ANSWER share office space in

New York City (39 W. 14th Street), and

both groups shared a website for the April

12th, 2003 war protest demonstrations.

Beside IAC, ANSWER’s Steering

Committee includes other radical groups

with no previous interest in Iraq or, for that

matter, the peace movement. For example,

the Korean Truth Commission (KTC) is a

long-time staunch supporter of North

Korea. It is little more than a North Korean

front organization that over the years has

sent eight separate delegations (including

IAC members Ramsey Clark, Sarah Floun-

ders and Brian Becker) to Pyongyang to

uncover “evidence” of U.S. “war crimes.”

The visits culminated in an International

War Crimes Trial of the United States in

Pyongyang. Clark was “Prosecutor,”

Flounders was “Tribunal co-chair,” and

Becker “Tribunal sponsor.”

Pastors for Peace (PFP), a pro-Castro

organization, is also on the ANSWER

Steering Committee. PFP is partially funded

by the Arca Foundation, a private founda-

tion (2001 assets $68 million, grants $3

million) that has given it more than $100,000

during the 1990s. Arca was founded in

1952 by North Carolina tobacco heiress

Nancy Reynolds Bagley; its president is

Washington, D.C. socialite-activist Smith

Bagley, who hosted young Elian Gonzalez

at his Georgetown home following Elian’s

forced seizure by federal agents. Using

Arca funds, PFP has managed to ship “hu-

Page 4

OrganizationTrends

4

June 2003

manitarian” aid to Cuba which winds up in

government hands.

Other ANSWER Steering Committee

members are the Muslim Student Alliance

and the Free Palestine Alliance. Links be-

tween ANSWER and radical Islam abound,

but one will suffice. In April 2002 AN-

SWER sponsored a Free Palestine Rally, in

which marchers carried signs reading,

“Chosen People: It’s Payback Time.”

The Mystery of ANSWER’s

Funding

ANSWER’s funding is unknown be-

cause IRS rules protect tax-exempt organi-

zations from making public disclosure of

their donors. Herbert Romerstein, one of

America’s leading counter-intelligence

experts, estimates that major peace dem-

onstrations cost at least $200,000, an

amount far in excess of what a typical

grassroots peace group can afford with-

out sizeable donations from outside

sources. Romerstein told Insight maga-

zine (March 4 –17, 2003) that “there’s no

such thing as a spontaneous demonstra-

tion,” and that organizers such as the

Workers World Party, with only a few

hundred people, could not possibly raise

that amount of money on their own. “No

very radical group in the U.S. has been

able to exist for very long,” he concluded,

“without direct foreign support.”

United For Peace and Justice

While Not In Our Name and ANSWER

coordinate the major anti-war protests,

many lesser protests in small cities and

college towns are handled by United for

Peace and Justice. Marches and sit-ins,

boycotts and petitions, candlelight vigils

and visits to the local officeholders are

among the tactics available to protesters.

It takes skilled organizers to decide which

tactics work best.

Leslie Cagan, a veteran Communist

Party USA (CPUSA) organizer, founded

United for Peace and Justice (UPJ) on

October 25, 2002. Her Communist party

roots can be traced to the 1970’s, when she

received “agitation and propaganda” train-

ing in Cuba. In the intervening years, Cagan

became a professional organizer for So-

viet-front groups and causes worldwide.

They ranged from mass protests against

U.S. arms build-ups (“Mobilization for

Survival”) to support for Marxist-Leninist

terrorist groups in the Third World.

Cagan’s colleague in UPJ is Michael

Myerson, whose “agitation and propa-

ganda” origins go back to the early 1960’s,

when he was first identified as a member of

the national council of the CPUSA.

UPJ helped coordinate protests in New

York after 9/11 and helped organize the

massive February 15-16, 2003 demonstra-

tions in the U.S. and around the world. Its

main contribution was to organize the dem-

onstration in New York City. Although

UPJ claims to have attracted 500,000 pro-

testors, most outside estimates peg the

number at about 100,000. Staged near the

United Nations behind steel barricades

and thousands of police—a federal judge

denied a UPJ request to march in front of

the UN building—the demonstrators

shouted slogans like “No Blood for Oil”

and “Stop Mad Cowboy Disease” as they

awaited a host of noted anti-war personali-

ties. Protestors listened to such speakers

as Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South

Africa, actress/activist Susan Sarandon,

actor Danny Glover, Martin Luther King

III, NAACP chairman Julian Bond, and

radical activist Angela Davis. Cagan con-

fidently – and wrongly as it turns out –

predicted that “there will not be a war

against Iraq. We will not let that happen.”

Also in attendance was Rep. Nydia

Velasquez (D-NY) who said “This is not

the kind of war I want to fight.” Velasquez

called the real fight the one against the

“real axis of evil: homelessness, poverty

and racism.” Another speaker was Ghanim

Khalil, an Arab-American serving in the

military who vowed not to report for duty.

Democratic presidential candidate Al

Sharpton told the crowd that President

Bush was “pursuing a manifest destiny

plan that will not secure America, but put

the whole world at risk.” Sharpton said the

real patriots were the protestors demand-

ing peace.

In addition, singers Pete Seeger and

Richie Havens serenaded the demonstra-

tors.

UPJ claims to be an antiwar coalition

of 200 groups with a budget of several

hundred thousand dollars. It will hold its

first National Strategy Conference in Chi-

cago on June 6-8, 2003. Its financial sup-

porters included anonymous foundation

donors who gave from $5,000 to $10,000 to

fund the February protests.

Institute for Policy Studies

The principal left-wing “think tank”

set up to oppose U.S. foreign and military

policies is the Institute for Policy Studies

(IPS). Labeled “Soviet fifth columnists”

by David Horowitz, once a New Left col-

league of theirs, IPS was a visible and

active supporter of North Vietnam thirty

years ago. Today it promotes the idea that

the Bush Administration is determined to

impose American economic, political and

cultural “supremacy” over the world.

Founded in 1963, IPS has been active

against U.S. anti-terrorism policies since

9/11 (For more background on IPS, see

“Return of the Radical Left?,” Organiza-

tion Trends, December 2001).

IPS receives much of its annual bud-

get ($2.2 million for 2003) from the Turner

($65,000 - 2000), Ford ($50,000 - 2002),

MacArthur ($50,000 - 2000) and Charles

Stewart Mott foundations ($50,000 - 2001).

Other IPS funding comes from the HKH

Foundation ($40,000 - 2000), Nathan

Cummings Foundation ($35,000 - 2000) ,

the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Founda-

tion ($10,000 - 2001) and the Town Creek

Foundation ($25,000 - 2000).

Liberal Anti-War Protest Groups

Unlike the radical Left, liberal religious

groups, affluent environmental organiza-

tions and other groups representing elite

special interests hesitated to join the anti-

war movement. But, belatedly, they orga-

nized their own groups to protest the

Administration’s Iraq policy.

The most prominent liberal antiwar

protest organization is the Win Without

War (WWW) coalition. Organized in De-

cember 2002, it is comprised of 38 member-

groups, including the NAACP, Sierra Club,

Greenpeace, National Council of Churches,

and Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH coa-

lition. It is backed by $1.5 million from the

Page 5

5

June 2003

OrganizationTrends

Tides Foundation. The group’s national

director is former Maine Democratic con-

gressman Tom Andrews.

WWW was a Johnny-Come-Lately to

anti-war protest, reflecting liberal confu-

sion over what position to take toward

Saddam Hussein. But because it enjoys

the support of major Washington liberal

advocacy groups, WWW spokesmen like

Andrews receive invitations to appear on

public affairs television talk shows like

Tim Russert’s “Meet the Press.” Currently,

WWW urges the UN, not the U.S. military,

to be in charge of humanitarian relief and

reconstruction in Iraq.

True Majority promotes e-mail-ori-

ented public relations activities and it spon-

sored highly expensive anti-war ads in the

New York Times ($40,000) and Wall Street

Journal ($210,000 for ads in the national

and New York metro sections). It ran three

ads in the New York Times in October and

December 2002, and on February 12, 2003

just prior to UPJ’s demonstration. The

December ad featured a photo of President

Bush with the caption, “Jesus changed

your heart. Now let him change your mind.”

The Turner Foundation and the San Fran-

cisco-based Ploughshares Fund (assets

$14 million, grants $3 million) have helped

True Majority underwrite its $1.5 million

operating budget.

True Majority was founded last year

by Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and

Jerry’s Ice Cream. It is a “project” of Priori-

ties, Inc., a 501(c)(3) group which is itself

composed of four ad hoc groups: Busi-

ness Leaders for Sensible Priorities (whose

members include Cohen, Ted Turner, real

estate mogul Peter Malkin and others);

Military Advisory Committee (which in-

cludes retired admiral Jack Shanahan and

former Reagan assistant secretary of de-

fense Lawrence Korb); and Religious Lead-

ers for Sensible Priorities and Entertainers

for Sensible Priorities (names too numer-

ous and too obvious to mention).

Code Pink is a new feminist group

organized to oppose the war in Iraq. Its

members have received much media atten-

tion by dressing in the color pink as they

peacefully demonstrate against the

Administration’s policy. Organized in

November 2002, the group has raised al-

most $80,000 through sales of pink t-shirts,

shawls and umbrellas on its website.

Code Pink apparently doesn’t like to

identify its real leaders. To learn more

about its organizers, inquirers to the Code

Pink website are referred to e-mail con-

tacts Jodie Evans, a board member of Bad

Babes and their Buddies; Starhawk, a co-

founder of the neo-pagan movement; and

Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of the group

Global Exchange. Global Exchange played

a lead role in the violent demonstrations

against the World Trade Organization in

Seattle in December 1999. Perhaps Code

Pink is not as peaceful and playful as it

purports to be.

Why Did the Protests Fail?

If President Bush and his top advi-

sors are correct in their view that the war

against terrorism will be long and pro-

tracted, then it should also be clear that

protest and dissension will be just as pro-

tracted. The short-term victory over

Saddam Hussein may, in the long run,

simply fuel the fires of anger and frustra-

tion against the U.S. both here and over-

seas. We need to understand that war

protest is a political phenomenon against

political policies. It will not disappear

after victories on distant battlefields. In

this sense, the nature of the political en-

emy at home is almost exclusively ideo-

logical and, thus, permanent and resolute.

The defeat of Saddam Hussein’s fascist

government does not mean the “real” war

is over; it has only begun. Fortunately, the

anti-war movement has been notably un-

successful to date.

The failure of domestic protest groups

to turn public opinion against the Bush

Administration has at least two explana-

tions. First, the modern American military

demonstrated its magnificent strategic

capacity and its companion technology.

During the Vietnam War, it should be re-

called, radical anti-war protests began to

influence public opinion only after the

hope of military victory was largely aban-

doned and there were thousands of casu-

alties. If the Administration avoids major

setbacks in the war against terrorism, we

should not expect protest movements to

have much influence on the public or on

public policy. But if setbacks occur or

terrorists attack us again, then we should

expect a heightened level and intensity of

protest activity.

A second reason why the protest

movement failed lies within the protest

movement itself. The anti-war organiza-

tions leading the protests are run by hard-

core ideologues. Most of their organizing

occurred during the Cold War and much of

their organizing genius is traceable to the

American Communist Party. In this respect,

they are their own worst enemies.

Writing in Liberty magazine (May

2003), Stephen Cox makes this trenchant

observation: “More clearly than ever be-

fore, I believe, the great liability of the anti-

war movement is … the anti-war move-

ment. It is a movement that programmati-

cally refuses to separate itself from radical

left sentiment.”

If hard core protest organizers are ever

able to expand beyond their self-imposed

left-wing corner and seek a measure of

political legitimacy, they may well make

more inroads against the war. Writing in

The American Conservative (March 10,

2003), British socialist Neil Clark offered

just that argument when he suggested the

creation of an international left-right coa-

lition against U.S. policies: “Until the Left

is ready in its hordes to link up electorally

with the old antiwar Right, the brutal truth

is that we have no chance of defeating the

Bush/Blair axis.”

Will such alliances emerge? That de-

pends on the future success of the war on

terror. Under the best scenario the Bush

Administration should produce a string of

brilliant successes. However, nothing is

guaranteed in the business of war. A rising

crescendo of anti-war activism will engulf

U.S. cities if things go wrong. But this time,

at least, we will know who the protesters

are, where they come from – and the true

purpose of their political agenda.

John J. Tierney is Faculty Chairman

at the Institute of World Politics, a Wash-

ington, DC-based research foundation.

Page 6

OrganizationTrends

6

June 2003

BrieflyNoted

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch says liberal activists have made abortion rights

the most important factor in determining whether Bush judicial nominees are confirmed. Many

Democratic senators deny having an abortion litmus test, but Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass)

says he opposes the nomination of Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals because he has “serious doubt about her ability to safeguard the constitu-

tional right to privacy and reproductive freedom.” Democratic senators filibuster nominees they

deem unfit on abortion rights, such as Owen and Miguel Estrada. A four-page memo from People

for the American Way president Ralph Neas argues that a filibuster is “the one remaining check

and balance in our federal system.” Kate Michelman, president of NARAL—Pro-Choice America,

says her group “will use every available resource to protect our rights and stop Owen.” The NARAL

web site will rate senators based on their vote on Owen. Planned Parenthood is lobbying sena-

tors and distributes position parents on nominees at Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.

Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) purchased a full-page ad in the May 13 New York Times to warn

readers that President Bush’s proposed tax cut “Leaves no millionaire behind...just millions of chil-

dren.” The ad says 40 percent of eligible preschoolers won’t get into the Head Start program, “mak-

ing it harder for hungry children to get nutritious meals at school,” that 570,000 children will be

dropped from afterschool programs, and that Medicaid will be cut so severely that 9 million children

will be denied “the quality health care they need.” An e-mail from CDF, which has a 501(c)(4) lobby

affiliate, urges Americans to call their congressman to vote NO on the Bush plan.

On April 30, the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) announced that Patricia Ireland,

former president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), will become its new chief ex-

ecutive officer. Ireland was NOW president from 1991 to 2001. Besides advocating abortion rights,

she opposed Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court nomination and lobbied for gender quotas in

hiring. In a 1991 interview, Ireland admitted to a relationship with a female companion while married

to her former husband. In a May 5 Boston Globe op-ed Cathy Young writes, “A married man who

unrepentantly admitted to having a mistress would not have much of a future in public life. So much

for complaints that women are still judged more harshly than men for their sexual behavior.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and several liberal groups, including the AFL-CIO, filed

lawsuits last year to overturn the campaign finance law’s restrictions on interest group political ads.

On May 2 they had reason to celebrate. A federal court struck down a broad ban on election-time

political ads. It ruled unconstitutional a provision barring interest groups from running ads mentioning

federal candidates in the month before a primary and within two months of a general election. While

the court upheld fallback rules that bar groups from airing ads that promote, support, attack or op-

pose a candidate at any time, the restriction is unclear. The law doesn’t say what it means to pro-

mote, support, attack or oppose a candidate.

Under pressure from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Kentucky Fried

Chicken (KFC) has pledged to improve the living conditions of the 350 million chickens it eventually

serves customers each year. KFC promises to provide chickens with “mental and physical stimula-

tion” and increase the space allotted each bird by 30 percent.

Page 7

This is the html version of the file http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3779256983.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:3fiKues-O0AJ:www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3779256983.pdf+brian+becker+cpusa&hl=en

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.