Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

 

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years


The Cold War Protestors are Back
April 7, 2003

By Jon Christian Ryter
Copyright 2003 - All Rights Reserved
To distribute this article, please post this web address or hyperlink

efore I get too deeply involved in this, let me preface my remarks by admitting at the onset that the socialist utopians in the United States and Europe and the communist extremists in the Western Hemisphere, in Asia and in the “former” Soviet Union are correct when they vehemently declare that the United States and Great Britain are fighting a war in which Standard Oil and the Seven Sisters (the Rockefeller oil entities), and Royal Dutch Shell and the European oil cartels (the Rothschild-Nobel-Samuels interests) have a vested interest in winning. It’s a fact. They do.
     Everyone who understands geopolitics, or has ever studied the economic history of the United States or the industrial development of the world, knows that to be a fact. An elite cadre of the world’s wealthiest industrialists, bankers and merchant princes exercise too much influence on the governments of almost every nation in the world--including the former and current fascist and communist countries that openly rail against the free enterprise system. It’s a fact. They do. Furthermore, anyone who has followed the globalist attempt to create a fluid global economy knows that the war in Iraq is, at least in part, a war about oil since the price of crude oil dramatically, and instantly, impacts the economies of every nation in the world.
     Because of its ability to instantly play havoc on the markets of the world, oil has become one of the most powerful weapons of war used by the Muslim nations against the United States and its capitalist allies of Europe, Asia and South America.
     Standard Oil, Gulf, Texaco, Mobil, Amoco, BP, Sunoco, Conaco, Sohio, Atlantic Richfield, Royal Dutch Shell didn’t start a war against Iraq. Nor did they initiate a war against the stateless Muslim cousins of the Israelis--the Palestinians--(who have spent their entire existence as unwanted carpetbaggers in most of the Arab states in the Mideast), or against Syria or Iran- or, for that matter, against our pseudo allies: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain or Qatar.
     In the mid-1970s the Muslim world concluded it was imperative to declare a holy war--a Jihad--against the transnational merchant princes, the global money barons and the kings of industry who were beginning to structure the rudimentary principles of world government through a series of UN global summits. Establishing the initial phases of world government was to begin in late 1979 or early 1980. Initially the money barons and merchant princes intended to introduce preliminary non-binding models of world government in the form of four or five regional trade alliances like the European Economic Community (now the European Union). There would be a Western Hemisphere trade zone, a European zone and Asian and African trade zones. Each trade zone would share a common currency, a common central bank, and open borders. While Australia would prefer to be part of the European Union zone because of its heritage as part of the British Empire, it appears they may be stuck in the Asian zone (where China wants it), or the sub-Pacific island tier groups around Australia and New Zealand may form a 5th economic zone. Regardless, it will be a temporary alliance however its accomplished since within a year or two of the regionalization of the world’s currencies, all of the currencies will be merged into a global monetary unit that will likely appear as some form of electronic cyber-currency agreed upon by the world’s central banks and the stock markets of the economic zones.
     And thus, the reason for the global Jihad against the overlords of banking, business and industry. It is the logic behind the alliance between the Islamic zealots and the Cold War era communist protesters. Both the religious zealots and the communist atheists are determined the destroy the capitalist free enterprise system before a unified transnational free enterprise system, that is cemented by a universal central bank and a parliamentary world government, is fully implemented by 2010.
     The Qur’am (Koran) is both the theological and political law of the Muslims. The Qur’am forbids usury (the loaning of money for interest) and condemns those who practice it because usury enslaves the borrower to the lender. Usury is the foundation of capitalism. Capitalism is the basis of the Islamic world’s view of America as the Great Satan. The communists, on the other hand, view the captains of industry, the money barons, and the merchant princes as totalitarian aristocrats who, using their wealth, have enslaved the proletariat. Both fervently want to destroy capitalism. For that reason, they are not quite as strange bedfellows as they appear to be.
Therefore it is clear that the Islamic Jihad against the United States and the other industrialized nations and against the World Bank and the World Trade Organization is, in reality, a Jihad against the oil barons, the merchant princes, the banking cartels and the industrialists who the Muslims feel threatens their existence. However, their war is not being waged exclusively against the people who are bankers, industrialists, Wall Street stock traders or portfolio managers. It is a war that the Islamic extremists decided to wage against average wage-earning Americans on September 11, 2001. A declaration of war against one class of Americans is a declaration of war against all Americans--and all Americans (excluding the handful of native born dissidents who lack a fundamental understanding of liberty or an appreciation of the freedom that protects their right to protest) will respond to the threat leveled against their neighbors.


     During the Vietnam era, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment guaranteed dissidents the right to burn the American flag as a form of protest even though countless thousands of Americans have shed their blood to defend the Stars and Stripes. In Vietnam, protesters like Jane Fonda and her husband (of the moment) Tom Hayden, committed treason by giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. Because the Justice Department was afraid to charge Fonda with either sedition or treason, she escaped punishment. But her efforts, and those of other prominent Tinseltown types that help shape public opinion in America, prolonged for a decade a war that should have been over in 90 days by using the media to tie the hands of the military, preventing them from fighting to win the war by forcing them to use UN rules of engagement that are designed to maintain the status quo by preventing anyone from actually winning.
     As a result, over 55,000 Americans died in Southeast Asia. The United States suffered its first defeat in war. From its Vietnam experience, America learned that when its enemies see what they construe to be division within the population of the United States, defending America’s principles becomes harder because this nation’s enemies become more determined, believing that if they can win the “political war” as they did in Vietnam (the media war aimed at the politicians who must seek re-election every two years), they will win the military war--even in the face of superior enemy strength on the battlefield. Because of dissidents like recently fired journalist NBC/MSNBC Peter Arnett (who was previously fired by CNN for allowing himself to be a pawn for Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War), socialist protectors Susan Sarandon and her left-leaning husband Tim Robbins and American communists like Andy Stapp and his wife Deirdre, Michael Meyerson (who was made an honorary nephew of Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam War), Nicholas DeGenova, Brian Becker and Leslie Cagan, Iraq is winning the political war around the world even as the U.S. military puts itself in harms way to protect Iraqi noncombatants as it overwhelmingly wins the military war.
     The Cold War era communist anti-war protectors learned that lesson as well. Propaganda spinmeisters have always used “popular protest” to the detriment of this nation even when those protesting represent minuscule portions of the population. The net result is that where America’s enemies might have otherwise become psychologically demoralized due to America’s ability to degrade their military forces and making them less aggressive militarily, or even forcing them to capitulate on the battlefield, the political dissidents in the United States and around the world give America’s enemies hope that if they persist on the battlefield they can prevail by winning the political war in the Congress of the United States where US presidents must go to fund their wars, or in the international community where America must exert dollar diplomacy to sway its friends and allies in the international political wars.
     It was this knowledge in 1917 that led Woodrow Wilson to seek a series of laws to punish seditionist speech when America became involved in what became known as “Mr. Wilson’s War.” On May 6, 1918 Congress passed the Sedition Act which allowed law enforcement agencies to punish seditious Americans who, through word or deed, lent aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States in times of war.
     Even though the Sedition Act of 1918 is still on the books, as the century wore on, free speech--particularly from communist dissidents--became more important than the lives of America’s youngbloods who were fighting and dying in the trenches, bomb craters and ditches in Europe and Asia. By the Vietnam era, as entertainers like Bob Hope were entertaining the troops around Saigon, Tinseltown’s communists were entertaining Ho Chi Minh’s troops around Hanoi and providing them with all the public relations ammunition they needed to win the political war in the media. As a result of people like Jane Fonda, 55,000 American fighting men, doctors, nurses and other noncombatants in Vietnam died in vain. Today Jane Fonda claims to have found religion but she is still involved with communist front organizations like NOT IN MY NAME and NOT IN OUR NAME. And with the Tinseltown elite, a new generation of seditionists have filled in the void created by the Cold War era traitors who either died or tired of the fight to destroy democracy.

     On Monday, March 31, 2003 recording artist Madonna announced to the French equivalent of the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, that she had decided not to release her new shock video, AMERICAN LIFE, in the United States--at this time. The forever liberal New York Times decided that might be a good idea because, in their view, releasing the video in the United States at this time would be tantamount to “...looking at the final stages of [Madonna’s] long career.” The video, which contains images of transvestite soldiers and also images of stealth bombers and missile launches interspersed with flashing images of the American flag as Madonna straddles a toilet and urinates. The five minute video features a nuclear mushroom cloud mixed with the innocent faces of Iraqi children is the most controversial piece of trash that the matron of trash ever created. In the climax of the video, after seeing American soldiers kill Iraqi children, Madonna yells: “F**k it!” and takes a hand grenade which she then throws at a George W. Bush look-alike.
     The video, produced by Warner Brothers (AOL-TimeWarner), was labeled by Internet news guru Matt Drudge as the most controversial work ever made by an artist. In his column on Tuesday, April 1, Drudge reported that he had received an advance copy of the video. A month before the video’s release Drudge reported that Warner Brothers was editing was in progress on “...the most shocking antiwar, anti-Bush statement to come from the show business community.”
     While Madonna claimed in her interview with Agence France-Presse that not releasing the video in the United States was her choice, it is likely that AOL TimeWarner pulled the plug on the release here based on the backlash that hit Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines after she told a German audience that she was ashamed to say that George Bush came from Texas.
     Madonna said her decision to postpone an American release of AMERICAN LIFE was based on the fact that the video--and the song--was made before the Iraqi War began. Yet the lyrics of the song, AMERICAN LIFE, which is part of Madonna’s new album, will be released in late April. “I do not believe it is appropriate to air [American Life] at this time. Due to the volatile state of the world and out of sensitivity and respect to the armed forces, whom I support and pray for. I do not want to risk offending anyone who might misinterpret the meaning of this video,” she said. “The video,” she added, “is an expression of my wish to find an alternative to violence, to war and destruction...It’s me being ironic and tongue in cheek.” Yet, Madonna and Warner Brothers did not hesitate to air the video on German Music TV on Monday, March 31. The video, Warner Brothers admitted, will likely be aired throughout Europe where the Bush Administration is not popular. Sales in Germany are brisk. Warner Brothers expects sales in France to be just as good as sales in Germany.
     It’s a safe bet that Madonna will join the Hall of Infamy with Hanoi Jane Fonda.
     Hanoi Jane, who one would think had learned her lesson a decade ago when she championed Ho Chi Minh and his communist regime in North Vietnam and saw her own movie career go down the toilet, has thrown in with the new socialist movie matriarch of NOT IN OUR NAME, to protest the War in Iraq. And Barbra Streisand--whom not even Tinseltown likes--joined Sarandon’s antiwar protest only to receive a slap in the face from Saddam Hussein himself. Saddam, who liked the idea of having Tinseltown demand that George W. Bush not wage his war against Saddam “in their names,” refused to allow Babs Streisand to go to Iraq and become a temporary human shield and protect Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Babs who, like Fonda, never saw a communist despot she didn’t love had to be mildly miffed at Saddam because he didn’t want Jews bleeding on his WMD. Rebuffed, Babs--who views herself as a leading expert on the environment because she donated over a half million dollars to environmental organizations--probably didn’t send Saddam a check.
     • Shocking as it may seem, one of the new seditionists is actually a former president of the United States. His name is James Earl Carter. Carter, the 39th President of the United States, is the only president in modern times to criticize the actions of a sitting president. Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize at the urging of several European Union leaders as a slap in the face to President George W. Bush’s Mideast policies. Carter is the only president since 1945 never to order American troops into conflict.
     Showing his contempt for Bush’s war policies, Carter met with London Daily Mirror correspondent Alexandra Williams in Plains, Georgia and endorsed he Daily Mirror’s NOT IN MY NAME/NOT IN OUR NAME stance on the Bush war in Iraq. Carter told the Daily Mirror--England’s most communist-leaning “traditional” newspaper--”[t]here has been a virtual declaration of war but a case for preemptive action has not been made. We want Saddam Hussein to disarm, but we want to achieve this through peaceful means.” Carter added that he believed the nation which posed to greatest threat to world peace was the United States.
     Carter travels around the world as an emissary of the communist utopians who are still attempting to create a communist-controlled totalitarian world government. As their spokesman, Carter does not hesitate to shoot off his mouth even though he is even more clueless now (if its possible) than he was when he resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Jimmy Carter who, because of his Nobel Peace Prize, has become a legend in his own mind, must be viewed as one of the greatest threats to the free world because he lends the good name of the office of the President of the United States to terrorists organizations and gives those organizations a legitimacy they do not deserve. He spent four years as the pawn of the utopians within the Council on Foreign Relations to the detriment of the United States. Since he “retired” from politics he has become an even more dangerous pawn to the communists because now he is even less informed than he was as president--but he does not hesitate to throw his name and his former elevated position in America behind any socialist cause. One of those “back slappers” was Alexandra Williams of the London Daily Worker--oops, I meant Daily Mirror.
     When Carter decided to lend his name to the communist-sponsored antiwar groups NOT IN MY NAME and NOT IN OUR NAME, through the most socialist European newspaper, he was asked if he knew about the Mirror. Looking at a copy of the newspaper, he said: “I know the Daily Mirror. It know it well. It’s getting the message out.”
     Carter is just as dangerously clueless today as he was when he was in the White House. Fortunately today, he no longer has his finger on the button.
     • Peter Arnett, the former CNN reporter who made TV journalism history in 1991 by remaining in Baghdad with CNN anchor Bernard Shaw during the Gulf War and became Saddam Hussein’s official Iraqi ambassador to Ted Turner, made history by becoming the pawn of the Iraqi government once again. Arnett, who was fired by NBC on Monday, March 31 for giving a propaganda interview to Iraq’s Propaganda Minster was hired on Tuesday, April 1 by the Daily Mirror. By April 5 Arnett would springboard his Mirror connection and gain a job with Al Jazeera TV. Al Jazeera, which had been banned from reporting from Baghdad by the regime, was suddenly welcomed back to Iraq’s capitol. Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize during the war in Vietnam, was among a handful of international reporters left in Baghdad after hostilities began on January 20, 1991. His reports were used not only by CNN but by NBC and its joint Microsoft venture, MSNBC. In 1998 Arnett aired a report on CNN that accused American forces of using SARIN nerve gas on a Laotian village in 1970 to kill
American defectors. The report was false. CNN fired Arnett’s assistants and reprimanded Arnett. CNN did not renew Arnett’s contract when it expired.

     Working for National Geographic Explorer under contract with MSNBC, Arnett granted an interview to the Iraqi propaganda machine--for propaganda purposes--to undermine the US military. In the interview, which was broadcast on Sunday, March 30, Arnett said it was clear that in the United States there was a growing opposition to the war, and a growing challenge to President Bush about the war’s conduct. He said the United States had delayed the war as they scrambled to “rewrite” their war plans. It was Arnett’s statement--spread through the international media community before the interview aired--that led to the firestorm of questions about the military “pause,” and whether or not the Defense Department was rewriting their war plans because of the unexpected strength and tenacity of the Iraqi army. And, at that time, the liberals, believing Arnett knew something they didn’t know, jumped on the bandwagon denouncing Rumsfeld, Meyers, and Tommy Franks for underestimating the Iraqis and not sending enough troops and equipment to the Gulf, and giving the Saddam regime a tactical political victory while the Iraqi military forces were being decimated on the ground. “Clearly the American war plans misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces,” Arnett told the Muslim TV audience around the world. “Our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments.”
     General Tommy Franks, Centcom commander, was livid when the media began throwing questions at him whether or not the Coalition had “paused” to regroup and send for reinforcements in order to defeat a foe the Pentagon had sorely underestimated. No one understood why the question was being phrased until Al Jazeera aired the Arnett interview on Sunday, March 30. On Monday, March 31 after first defending Arnett and claiming that Arnett had given the interview to state-run Iraqi TV only as a professional courtesy, NBC saw the potential revenue losses from advertisers who were livid that NBC had Arnett on their MSNBC payroll. They fired Arnett. Arnett bounced back a day later and ended up on the payroll of the communist sympathizing Daily Mirror and as the new Caucasian propaganda minister for Al Jazeera.
     The New Zealand-born, naturalized American Arnett apologized to the American people for giving Saddam a tactical political victory that the Iraqis could use to shore up their support in the Muslim world that would ultimately cost American lives, adding that he was going to try to leave Baghdad. He joked that “...there’s a small island in the South Pacific that...I’ll try to swim to.” However, the Peter Arnett whose interview with TV Guide appeared in the April 5 issue of that publication was anything but apologetic. “I was furious with Ted Turner and Tom Johnson [Johnson was president of CNN in 1998 when Arnett was fired]. They threw me to the wolves after I made them billions and risked my life to cover the first Gulf War.”
     In reality, Arnett did not risk his life during the first Gulf War except perhaps as a victim of friendly fire (or enemy fire depending on Arnett’s true political perspective). Bush #41 suggested Arnett was a purveyor of propaganda for Iraq in 1991. Most Americans who watched Arnett challenge the targeting techniques of the United States military while accepting as fact the fictitious reports proffered by the Iraqis were angered by Arnett’s pro-Saddam bias. Arnett, of course, is still in Iraq--and proudly proclaimed that he was the last international journalist in Baghdad when the Saddam regime evicted all other foreign journalists from the Iraqi capitol--even their friends and illegal business partners from France and Germany.
     I think the State Department, using the USA Patriot Act, needs to revoke Arnett’s citizen status and deport him to Baghdad. Let him apply for Iraqi citizenship to Saddam’s lieutenants before they are all killed or executed for war crimes.


America’s colleges and universities have been hotbeds of communist activity since the 1930s when America’s leading foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Pew Foundation, the Carnegie Trust and the Ford Foundation and several other wealthy families began to endow those universities with millions upon millions of dollars providing those institutions of higher learning surrendered to the Foundations “curriculum discretion” whenever they endowed a chair. In exchange for money, the foundations were given the right to control the ideological slant of the curriculum taught in Americas best universities and colleges and, in every instance, the final edit rights of the universities textbooks. America’s free enterprise titans did not like the free enterprise system once they achieved success because, in their minds, there was not room at the pinnacle for competition. Socialism stifles competition.
     As a result, from 1920 on (after Congress rejected the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson’s attempt to create a world government through the League of Nations) the ideological slant of America’s universities increasingly leaned to the left. Throughout the 20th century, the doctrinal philosophy of America’s best colleges and universities became cesspools of communist thought as America’s titans of business and industry altered the motives of America’s past in order to change the direction of America’s future.
     For that reason it should not have surprised anyone that a University of South Florida professor, Sami Al-Arian, proved to be one of the key American leaders and a bagman of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian has been accused in a federal indictment of being the principle organizer to the PIJ in the United States. Posing as a moderate Muslim, Al-Arian had the ear of the Bush White House and was lobbying the Bush Administration to repeal parts of the USA Patriot Act that allowed the Justice Department to use highly classified information to arrest and detain foreigners who were suspected of being terrorists. Al-Arian selected the right cover for his covert activities since most of his peers were not likely to report him even if they knew he linked to a Palestinian terrorist organization since most of his fellow instructors and professors sympathized with the Palestinians. In fact, to many of them, Al-Arian would be considered something of a celebrity in their midst. For that reason that, even though they are required by law to do so, almost no college level instructors or professors, prior to September 11, 2001, notified the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the US Border Patrol when foreign students--in this country on student visas that required their attendance in classes--left college and vanished into the American landscape.
     In March Glendora, California Citrus College speech class professor Rosalyn Kahn, who also works as a part-time instructor at Pasadena City College and Los Angeles City College, violated the free speech rights of her students when she forced them to write antiwar letters to President George W. Bush as a mandatory assignment. The grades of students who refused were penalized. The letters were part of a required assignment in Kahn’s Speech 106. A firestorm resulted when students complained to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [FIRE] and Thor Halverssen released the story to the media. In his press release, Halverssen said “...Miss Kahn abused her power and demonstrated that she is not fit to be in higher education.” Christopher Stevens, the first student to complain to FIRE, told the Washington Times that before he called FINE he went to Citrus College administrators for help. Even though Stevens credits the college with finally correcting everything, the fact remains that they did nothing until Halverssen got involved.
     When Louis Zellers, CEO of Citrus College did check, he learned that Stevens’ allegations were correct. Kahn was suspended from Citrus College. In addition, educators supposedly checked to see if Kahn had abused her authority at either Pasadena or LA City College. If they did, and if she did, those colleges did not release the information. It was learned that Kahn had a history of forcing students to write ideological protest letters for advocacy issues important to her. One letter mandated by Kahn was sent to California State Senator Jack Scott protesting his position on teacher cuts in California. In addition to the letter to Scott, Kahn ordered her students to flood other State legislators with postcards denouncing the education spending cuts. While not subversive, the fact that Kahn was able to manipulate the students in her charge is indicative of a much more serious problem--high school, college and university professors using their podiums to promote political agendas.
     One such subversive is Columbia University professor Nicholas DeGenova, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Latino Studies. Participating in an antiwar“teach-in” at the Low Library at the university on March 26, 2003, DeGenova called for the defeat of the United States military in Iraq and said he would like to see “...a million Mogadishus...” take place in Iraq. The crowd was shocked at DeGenova’s remark and remained silent for a couple of minutes. But they warmed up to his rhetoric quickly when he said that Americans who call themselves patriots are also white supremacists. They applauded. And they applauded when DeGenova said: “If we really believe this war is criminal then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the US war machine.” But the words the struck a chord of anger in patriotic America was not the slap in the face delivered by DeGenova at them, but the instructor’s remark that he would like to see another Mogadishus.
     So would Saddam Hussein (if he’s still alive). The Iraqi dictator distributed thousands of copies of the Columbia Pictures hit BLACK HAWK DOWN to his commanders as a training film on how to defeat the Americans by forcing them to engage in urban warfare. The movie, you will recall, recapitulates the 1993 ambush by a Somalian warlord in Mogadishu in which 18 American rangers were killed because Bill Clinton and his Defense Secretary, Les Aspin, thought that soldiers on a “peace keeping mission” should not be armed as well as their possible adversaries.
     Because of the narrow streets in Mogadishu the Muslims were able to trap the Rangers and Navy Seals who were attempting to rescue the crew of a Blackhawk helicopter that was shot down by a shoulder-fired Stinger missile. Eighteen Rangers died that day. When he saw the movie, Saddam Hussein viewed it as a “how-to” video. Saddam should have ordered himself a copy of WE WERE SOLDIERS as well. In WE WERE SOLDIERS, Mel Gibson played the real life role of Lt. Colonel Hal Moore who introduced the Huey helicopter to warfare in Vietnam in 1965. Moore led the 7th Air Calvary and fought one of the most violent battles in the history of warfare. Moore, with 400 men, engaged a superior force of North Vietnamese regulars in the Ia Drang Valley (which became known as the Valley of Death). When the battle ended Moore lost 128 men--and the North Vietnamese lost over 4,000. Had Saddam watched WE WERE SOLDIERS he would have had a premonition of the lopsided victory that would be achieved by Gen. Tommy Franks when American, British, and Australian forces invaded Iraq. There is no army in the world superior to the American military. It has been that way since a handful of farmers took on the British Army around Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts in 1775.


     Many of the lieutenants of the Cold War era “peace” movement (i.e., those attempting to brainwash the youth of America into accepting as a benign form of democracy the tenets of communism) are now the leaders of the new pro-Castro, pro-Saddam, pro-Palestinian antiwar movement. Americans who have taken the time to dig into the political affiliations these extremists have forged to finance their peacenik protests have cause to wonder who is using whom and what is the core purpose of these groups and their covert backers. It is not peace. It is revolution. The new communists strive to gain back the political edge it lost during the era of the Ronald Reagan when the Great Communicator crushed communism and brought down the Iron Curtain.
     The titans of business and industry and the money barons pushed America’s unique brand of republican democracy towards a parliamentary form of communism in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s as a means of protecting their incalculable wealth. But America wasn’t buying. The American people watched every communist regime in the world collapse into totalitarian states controlled by dictators and oligarchs. While the American people were willing to accept moderate socialism none of them--not even the liberals who leaned towards communism--were willing to surrender their unique Bill of Rights even though they were willing, if not eager, to abrogate the constitutional rights of their political foes in order to create superior rights for themselves and those of their political ilk.
     The new communists who lead the protests against the World Trade Organization outside JP Morgan & Company at 120 Wall Street, the World Bank and the global oil giants, or who are demonstrating against the War in Iraq are utopian ideologues like the Bolesheviks of 1917 rather than the Stalinists of the 1950s. At the core of the movement are the invisible Stalinists, Maoists and anti-Jewish and anti-capitalist backers of globalist terrorism who are fighting hard to reconfigure the invisible upper tier of the leadership structure of the emerging world government to increase the role of their ideological group: whether communist, Muslim, New Age or atheist. World government is now a certainty. As the world’s wealthiest and most influential bankers prepare to merge the national currencies of the trade zones as they regionalize the economies of the world in preparation of the final merger into a global government controlled jointly the communists and the capitalists, the final shuffle for power and position in the global pecking order is now taking place.
     One of the highest profile advocacy groups today is Noam Chomsky’s NOT IN MY NAME (which was formed to pretend it was an Israeli peace group) and NOT IN OUR NAME (which is an offshoot of the former group). NOT IN MY NAME is a pro-Palestinian group that has spent the last few years protesting Israel’s defense of itself against suicide bombers. The antiwar protest in the United States is funded by a odd assortment of activists. But they all have one of two things in common. They are either communist ideologues or they are communist sympathizers or they are anti-Jewish and/or anti-capitalist Muslim groups.
     All of the core anti-World Trade Organization, anti-World Bank, antiwar, anti-Jewish organizers are paid protectors who are used to incite anti-government, anti-capitalist, anti-Jewish and antiwar grassroots activists and enlist them (free-of-charge) to participate in demonstrations organized by the communist or Muslim front groups that are attempting to disrupt the New Worlders from regionalizing the economies of the world into trade zones.
     One of the highest profile individuals contributing to the antiwar movement should actually not surprise anyone. Ted Turner has dumped over $1.5 million into the antiwar movement. Several liberal foundations have done the same. Other organizations that are funding the antiwar movement are the Al-Awda Palestine Right to Return Coalition • All Peoples’ Congress • American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee • Arab Cause Solidarity Committee • American Muslims for Jerusalem • Bayan-USA International • Black Voices for Peace • Campaign Against Racism and War • Committee for a Free Palestine • European Peace Forum • Free Palestine Alliance • Green Party USA • IFCO Pastors For Peace • International ANSWER • Jewish Vote for Peace • Korean Truth Commission • Left Turn • Mexico Solidarity Network • Middle East Children’s Alliance • Muslim Students & Faculty Association • Muslim Student Union • New Communist Party/Netherlands • Nicaragua Network • Partnership for Civil Justice • Queers For Peace • RANT (Root Activists Network of Trainers) • Socialist Party USA • Struggle Against War Coalition • SPAN (Students Peace Action Network) • US Campaign To End Israeli Occupation • US Labor Against the War • Veterans Against the Iraq War • Veterans for Peace • War Resistors League • Women Against War • World Workers Party • 9-11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrow.
     Throwing their celebrity status--and their money--into the communist-front organizations behind the antiwar movement are people like Harry Belafonte • Danny Glover • Phyllis Bennis • Julian Bond • Susan Sarandon • Tim Robbins • Pete Seeger • Rosie Perez • Dennis Rivera • Angelia Y. Davis • Barbra Streisand• Jane Fonda • Ted Turner and even US congressmen like Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]. While it is likely that many others have contributed to communist-front and blatantly open communist organizations, their names not have appeared in any of the supporter or donor lists these groups have published. The private donors, probably by request, remain covertly concealed from public scrutiny.
     The highest profile leaders of the new communists are people like Noam Chomsky, Miles Solay, Leslie Cagan, Michael Meyerson, Brian Becker, Andy Stapp, Deirdre Griswold Stapp, Carol Spooner, and communists like Monica Moorehead and Gloria LaRiva. Leslie Cagan, Andy Stapp, Michael Meyerson, and Brian Becker are probably the most high profile communists in the peace movement today. Cagan, one of the original peaceniks in the Vietnam era, received her post-Vietnam training in Cuba. Stapp received his “post-graduate training” from Kim Il-sung’s North Korean communist regime. In a speech delivered to the 6th Congress of the League of Socialist Working Youth of Korea, Stapp praised Kim IL-sung as the “...outstanding leader of the international communist and working class movement.” Stapp told the audience of young communist radicals that :The number one target of all of the revolutionary people in the world is United States imperialism. In order to avenge the many oppressed people who have died a bloody death, and in order to build a new society in America in which everyone enjoys happiness as in Korea [the United States must be overthrown].”
     Meyerson, who was a Cagan disciple, was made an honorary nephew of North Vietnam dictator Ho Chi Minh in 1965 after the United States fought the battle of the Valley of Death in the IA Drang Valley.
     Monica Moorehead, Deirdre Griswold Stapp and her husband Andy, and Gloria LaRiva, who head the operations of the Workers’ World Party draw their paycheck from North Korea since the Workers’ World Party is totally subservient to the North Korean regime.
     The Workers’ World Party claims to be a benign, socially benevolent organization that eschews violence yet when Deirdre Griswold Stapp attended the 90th Anniversary of the birth of Kim IL-sung last year, Stapp signed a statement denouncing the Bush Administration and demanding the reunification of the two Koreas under the banner of Kim Jong-IL.
     Brian Becker, who is a WWP board member as well as directors of ANSWER and the International Action Committee, went to Pyongyang, North Korea in March, 2002 and denounced the United States, demanding that his government pull all troops out of South Korea.
When interviewed by either moderate or conservative media people, the hypocritical Tinseltown crowd and the academicians who are most vocal about Mr. Bush’s War in Iraq claim that war can never be justified under any circumstance since wars claim innocent lives. Yet, when Bill Clinton decided to join the European Union’s war against Serbia, Hollywood was unanimous in its support of Mr. Clinton’s War. Why? Because Clinton and our NATO allies in Europe were aiding the Muslims in Albania steal the Islamic province of Kosovo from the Eastern Orthodox Serbs.

 

 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.