Commie Pinko Propaganda

[Guest guest]

Ronald Reagan was right when he said these folks would be "left in the trashbin of history". Even though Soviet communism collapsed (defeated by Reagan), their agitprop people still exist around the world to push anti-Americanism.

 

Anti-War Protests Have Big Price Tags

 

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

 

SEATTLE — Large anti-war protests come with a hefty price tag.

 

Money is needed to rent or buy stages, sound systems, permits and portable toilets, and tabs often run as high as $200,000 per demonstration — much more than the average grassroots peace group will ever have in its coffers.

 

So who is picking up the tab?

 

"The major anti-U.S. government demonstrations are organized by people who have been around for a long time, particularly the Workers World Party, which has existed for more than 30 years now and has always supported the enemies of the United States," said Herbert Romerstein, a retired agent of the U.S. Information Agency.

 

The Workers World Party describes itself as Marxist in nature.

 

Officially, protest organizers are groups such as Not in Our Name and International A.N.S.W.E.R., but the demonstration's sponsors have long histories of backing anti-government causes.

 

Not in Our Name is financed by the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization. I.F.C.O. is a million-dollar-a-year non-profit that supports Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and once sponsored a group headed by Sami Al-Arian — the University of South Florida professor being charged with fundraising for terrorist organizations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

 

A.N.S.W.E.R. is an offshoot of the International Action Center, which intelligence officials say is a front for the Worker's World Party. A.N.S.W.E.R. canceled a scheduled interview with Fox News but a worker in the Seattle field office acknowledged there are ties.

 

"There are some Workers World Party members in A.N.S.W.E.R.," said A.N.S.W.E.R. coordinator Jim McMahan.

 

The International Action Center was founded by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who is a longtime public face of the anti-war movement.

 

The Workers World Party supports North Korea's brutal regime and I.F.C.O. defied U.N. sanctions when it made a trip to Iraq in the mid-1990s. Now, both are sugar daddies to the anti-war movement.

 

"The American people have the right to know whether stooges of [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il or Castro or Saddam Hussein are involved in these demonstrations," Romerstein said.

 

The groups bankrolling these protests say they're spending their money the way donors would want, and protest organizers say it doesn't matter where the money comes from — the message is their own.

 

Others wonder if knowing the fringe politics of the people paying the bills might keep some demonstrators off the streets.

 

But anti-war organizers — regardless of their financial backing — are plugging ahead and are actually planning more aggressive action that they say will be hard to ignore, despite the fact that the United States is on the brink of war with Iraq.

 

"People will step up their actions, there will be active civil disobedience," said Simona Sharoni of United for Peace in Thurston County, Wash.

 

Direct Action, a San Francisco Bay-area group of anti-war veterans, has been drawing up their own battle plan should there be a war.

 

They say they will shut down 70 targets in San Francisco alone, including power plants, water systems, the Federal Reserve, oil companies, the Pacific Exchange and the Transamerica Building.

 

And their hit list goes beyond economic targets.

 

Some protesters are promising to chain themselves to fences at schools and day care centers so working parents will have to stay home from their jobs. Organizers say this will give others a chance to contemplate how war affects the children of Iraq.

 

"The civilians in Iraq are losing their lives and one day of work is worth a thousand lives," said Leone Reinbold, an anti-war activist in San Francisco.

 

Reinbold helped organize the World Trade Organization protest in Seattle three years ago. She blames the violence and damage on anarchists from the radical fringe, not the mainstream demonstrators.

 

All the same, police departments from coast to coast know that keeping things peaceful won't be easy.

 

"We know based on the last one that each preceding demonstration has been a little bit more volatile than the one before," said Deputy Chief Greg Suhr of the San Francisco Police Department.

 

Some protestors are vowing to bring traffic to a standstill, as they recently did on a Seattle bridge. But many wonder if paralyzing the morning commute and engaging in similar disruptions will win converts or make enemies of people losing patience with their tactics.

[Guest guest]

Still Against the War? Is Dissent OK?

 

http://www.care2.com/go/z/4925

 

War has begun, but should we just accept it? While most

Americans support the troops, many Americans feel that

the war is unjust and an inappropriate use of U.S. power.

 

Does disagreeing with the war mean you aren't patriotic or

that you don't love your country?

Absolutely not, according to one of the greatest presidents in American history, Theodore Roosevelt.

 

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

 

- Roosevelt in 1918, challenged Woodrow Wilson's sweeping

crackdown against dissent after the American entry into World War I.

 

While Roosevelt was a major supporter of WWI, he firmly

believed the public should be allowed to express dissent.

 

Clearly, the ability to stand up in opposition to our leaders has made America strong and unique. It's not only American; it's one of our founding principles.

 

- Visit our Peace Action Center to set up a peace vigil. or, tell your representatives that you are still against the war in Iraq and you are disturbed that we've jumped into this with so little support from the rest of the world or even within the United States.

 

http://www.care2.com/go/z/4925

 

- Discuss the war and the peace effort with other Care2 members:

 

http://www.care2.com/go/z/4922

 

[Guest guest]

this is so typical of the American government... to blame the communists for everything.

Maybe a few communist parties organized some of the rallies. But you know what? Almost all of the people protesting are NOT communists, and are just against the war

[Guest guest]

they should know, and the American people should know, that communists are organizing many of these protests.

[Guest guest]

They call themselves "socialists" where I come from, as if the rest of us don't have any such 'compassion'. Always ready to support popular causes to rally and recruit more troops. True believers treat it like their religion and justify any kind of actions in the name of their indisputedly just causes. Ultimately they can be seen as totally duplicitous and self-serving. There's a heirarchy they follow to obtain political positions of power, starting with tenants' reps then on to school trustees. Demos, etc. provide recognition and credits. A few years back they actually gained enough influence to form the government to take, quickly revealing their hypocrisy and general ineptness while skyrocketing deficits and making a general mess -- not to mention flooding the workforce with all their cronies and supporters at huge public expense. Their methods are anything but democratic, but apparently that's just for the rest of us and used conveniently to manpulate the masses 'in our own best intersests'. Sorry, can't write anymore now, too much nausea and anger starting to set in...

 

[new guest -- no previous posts on this thread]

[theist 1]

Nice to know others are seeing behind the mask of these pro-abortion godless demons.

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, in my case at least, seeing and doing something about it are two different things. I live in ciy housing and my local councillor is totally committed to the "socialist" party, in fact her husband is now the national leader. I'm seen as 'biting the hand that feeds me' by not supporting their many 'causes', what to speak of actively confronting them. Also, major university is on one side of me and the fashion/club district on the other!

 

Today there's another massive anti-war demo at the USA consulate, only a few blocks away -- You're right-on though about pro-abortion -- enjoy at all costs is their religion alright, preferably with others paying, especially those nasty rich capitalists. The worst have to be those who themselves become rich and powerful by manipulating the poor and innocent -- those masks you refer to are made of 100% hypocrisy!

 

No, you're not alone, brother, but the stage belongs to them right now. Maybe that's because so many are natural actors...did you enjoy watching the Hollywood types rationalize the annual awards dress-up fun while still expecting us to take their war protests seriously. Idiots abound!!!

[Guest guest]

you are all scaring me...talking like true fanatics. You should never forbid anyone from doing anything- even if it is abortion... God gives everyone the free will to decide.

As for communists, they are not all bad. I don't think that you know enough about socialism to judge it. I'm not talking about Marxism, but there is a place in socialism for God.

It's very sad for me to see that even Hare Krishna devotees can be so close-minded. I guess American propaganda has done it's work on you.

As for whether or not rallies against war are organised by Communists- who cares? People are rallying against war and not for communism.

[Guest guest]

 

You should never forbid anyone from doing anything- even if it is abortion

 

 

Yes, you should. Law is simply codified morality. I once had a professor who argued that an unborn child did not have a right to life. His argument was that rights only exist where a contract can be entered into by two individuals. Thus you have rights and responsibilities. Since a fetus can't enter into a contract he can't have rights.

 

I pointed out that a one year old child also can't enter into a contract. He can't talk, or reason. So a one year old has no right to life. If a parent decided to kill the child it was perfectly acceptable. The professor conceded the point and said yes, that one year old children do not have a right to life. Now of course, I told my professor he was nuts. So shall we not forbid infanticide? Of course we should. We shouldn't just let people do whatever they want.

 

 

As for communists, they are not all bad.

 

 

No most of these guys are just stupid. It is fascinating that everywhere communism has ever been tried it has failed. And failed SPECTACULARLY. Its not that "Oh just the right people weren't in charge." It is a philosophy that is fundamentally flawed. I'd go into all the flaws of communism (information flow etc...) but that'd get off topic.

[Guest guest]

have you a right to thrust your morals unto others??? No. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Remember, in the age of Rama nothing was forbidden by law.

do I think abortion is wrong? Yes, but the parent reaps the negative karmic effects of the abortion.

But you know...as for the fetus...it is nothing. Physical bodies are just encasings. The soul is immortal.

 

And it's wrong of you to make such a harsh and unjustified remark that communists are stupid. I will never go so far as to say the same about capitalists.

 

What do you think about communism by the way? Perhaps I can enlighten you?

[Guest guest]

 

But you know...as for the fetus...it is nothing. Physical bodies are just encasings. The soul is immortal.

 

 

Fine, lets legalize murder. "Your honor, my client O.J. Simpson did murder Nicole Brown Simpson. But the body is just an encasing, and he didn't kill her soul. Her soul is immortal. And beside who are we to judge anyways?"

 

 

Perhaps I can enlighten you?

 

 

Ummm... no thank you. Your position that we should just let people do what ever they want enlightened me plenty /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

 

...You should never forbid anyone from doing anything- even if it is abortion... God gives everyone the free will to decide...

 

 

Yes, personal choice is there, but who pays for the wrong ones? Why should I finance others' abortions on demand, especially when they're used as a form of birth control? Enjoy at your OWN expense! Don't force me to finance your karma!

[Guest guest]

 

What do you think about communism by the way? Perhaps I can enlighten you?

 

 

Thanks, but history speaks for itself...the young are naturally idealistic, but it takes truly wilful ignorance to continue believing in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The title of this thread concerns "propaganda" which I took to include indoctrination of innocents roped into 'socialistic' philosophy by demonstrations in support of 'grassroots' causes all can identify with, but ending up under the influence of hard-core communists.

 

Initially it may seem that "power to the people" is a good thing, however when the truth of who is living off whom is realized, capitalism can be seen as far superior in the opportunity it offers. These are my personal views, gained through my own experiences, not theoretical book learning. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions also -- even if that means copy/pasting others' words.

[Guest guest]

My stepfather lives in Russia and grew up during the Soviet regime. He is very spiritual and believes in communism. Maybe I can enlighten you?

[Guest guest]

read the Bhagavad Gita, what did Krishna call a body???

And I stated 100 times that I think abortion is wrong but we should NEVER force people. They have to live with their own karma and will receive their own punishment. You are not God. Society is not God and we do not have the right to infringe upon anybody's free will.

[Guest guest]

why should I finance the war if I don't want to? Unfortunately our kali yuga government is like that

[Guest guest]

By Anonymous

 

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

 

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in

violation of security council resolution 1441. A

country cannot be allowed to violate security council

resolutions.

 

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including

Israel, were in violation of more security council

resolutions than Iraq.

 

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point

is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction,

and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a

mushroom cloud over NY.

 

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons

inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

 

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the

issue.

 

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range

missiles for attacking us or our allies with such

weapons.

 

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but

rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the

weapons to.

 

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical

or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq

in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

 

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an

evil man that has an undeniable track record of

repressing his own people since the early eighties. He

gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a

power-hungry lunatic murderer.

 

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a

power-hungry lunatic murderer?

 

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what

Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive

first strike on Kuwait.

 

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But

didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know

about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

 

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of

today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical

weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released

an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us,

proving a partnership between the two.

 

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading

Afghanistan to kill him?

 

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really

Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the

tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership

between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

 

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden

labels Saddam a secular infidel?

 

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the

tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

 

PN: He did?

 

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda

poison factory in Iraq.

 

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in

the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

 

WM: And a British intelligence report...

 

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an

out-of-date graduate student paper?

 

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

 

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding

evidence from inspectors...

 

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief

weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

 

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence

that cannot be revealed because it would compromise

our security.

 

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of

weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

 

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their

JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

 

PN: So what is the point?

 

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq

because resolution 1441 threatened "severe

consequences." If we do not act, the security council

will become an irrelevant debating society.

 

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the

security council?

 

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

 

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

 

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the

willing to invade Iraq.

 

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

 

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for

starters.

 

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave

them tens of billions of dollars.

 

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

 

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries

was against war.

 

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority

expresses its will by electing leaders to make

decisions.

 

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the

majority that is important?

 

WM: Yes.

 

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was

selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-

 

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our

leaders, however they were elected, because they are

acting in our best interest. This is about being a

patriot. That's the bottom line.

 

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the

president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

 

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

 

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they

have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and

our allies.

 

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any

such weapons.

 

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

 

PN: You know this? How?

 

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years

ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

 

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

 

WM: Precisely.

 

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical

weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten

years.

 

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

 

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that

such weapons exist, we must invade?

 

WM: Exactly.

 

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of

usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND

long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND

it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND

threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

 

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

 

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using

diplomacy?

 

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because

we cannot allow the inspections to drag on

indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and

denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us

tens of millions.

 

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

 

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about

security.

 

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite

radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our

security?

 

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to

change the way we live. Once we do that, the

terrorists have already won.

 

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of

Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the

Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

 

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

 

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

 

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because

the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and

he has failed to do so. He must now face the

consequences.

 

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do

something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would

have an obligation to listen?

 

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

 

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United

Nations?

 

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

 

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the

Security Council?

 

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

 

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the

majority of the Security Council?

 

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

 

PN: In which case?

 

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the

veto.

 

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does

not support us at all?

 

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security

Council.

 

PN: That makes no sense.

 

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there.

Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating

surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and

cheese, no doubt about that.

 

PN: I give up!

 

(Source: Unknown)

[Guest guest]

so what if ANSWER is a communist organization? 300,000 people showed up on the streets, and not all of them are party-line commie pinkox. We're americans being american and participating in a democratic process, so why does it matter what ideological dogma the organization that rented stage follows? Every person out there has their own reasons for being there.