Kill your communists early

Kill your communists early

‘Chile is regarded as having one of the best-run economies in Latin America.

Led by its substantial copper production – which was relatively unaffected by the quake – economists predict the country’s economy will still grow by 5% this year.

The country also has one of the lowest government debt to economic output ratios in Latin America.

Chile’s inflation rate is currently at 1.5% and its interest rate is 0.5%, where it has been since August of last year.’

8.8 richter scale earthquake, and yet their economy is going to grow 5%…

What does this teach us children?

I would say, kill your communists early. If you look around at the dismal basket cases which litter Latin and South America, the poorest ones, the ones that haven’t had a decent economy ever, or not since the sixties anyway, are all socialist or communist.

Look what the socialists managed to do to Venezuela and Argentina, two countries that virtually had first world levels of infrastructure and economy as recently as the seventies. Argentina used to be as rich as Italy. Now it ranks down there with the Balkans and unluckier eastern Europeans.

Chile was lucky enough that Salvador Allende was cut down before he could really start to destroy the country.

Where would you want to live in South America?

Communist Wants To Burn America To The Ground

Communist Wants To Burn America To The Ground
David Horowitz’s NewsReal Blog ^ | Matthew Vadum

Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:08:58 PM by Michael van der Galien

Communist writer Jed Brandt thinks trouble is brewing in America and hopes to use this turmoil to overthrow the American system, Glenn Beck said on his TV program.

He played video of this dangerous kook urging the destruction of the United States:

We have to help bring this government down, we have to help destroy this system and that requires increasing the alienation that working class and oppressed people feel. The way change is going to happen in this country is through the destruction of what we call the United States of America.

I’m opposed to white supremacy not because it’s white people involved. I am opposed to the system we traditionally call imperialism and the idea that some people have rights and privileges that are not granted to all human beings. And the solution to that problem is called communism and socialism and we should put it in our mouths. We should say it when we say what is your politics? I am a socialist. I demand that we have health care for people and it’s not a demand that’s negotiable with health insurance companies.

We will take your insurance companies; we will take the farms in this country; we will shut down the military apparatus in this country and I am tired of being told to stuff my anger back in my pants.

Brandt bears more than a passing similarity to other hardcore, ends-justify-the-means leftists such as Joe Conason, Adam Serwer, and the Fake Journalist Max Blumenthal, if not in substance, at least in tone.

(Excerpt)

To: Michael van der Galien

The Communists have another thing coming and we are going to burn them to the ground. Every single one of them. The domestic enemies of the Consitution will no longer be able to hide under its protections.

2 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:11:16 PM by DarthVader (Liberalism is the politics of EVIL whose time of judgment has come.)

To: Michael van der Galien

I would have said: “Brandt bears more than a passing similarity to other hardcore, ends-justify-the-means leftists such as Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, if not in substance, at least in tone and in his goals.”

3 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:11:21 PM by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)

To: Michael van der Galien

Allow me…
4 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:16:58 PM by Berlin_Freeper

To: Michael van der Galien

So does Obama have a “Czarship” for him? He’d fit right in.

5 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:21:29 PM by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:

To: Michael van der Galien
VAN JONES (Obama’s former ‘Green Jobs Czar’):

Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama, speaks [lovingly] about Green Job Czar, Van Jones, at the Netroots Convention on August 12, 2009. Then Van Jones speaks about [a COMMUNIST] transforming [of] the whole society.”

“Jones was the leader and founder of a radical group, the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. That group, together with Jones’ Elle Baker Center for Human Rights, led a vigil Sept. 12, 2001, at Snow Park in Oakland, Calif.

STORM’s official manifesto, titled, “Reclaiming Revolution,” surfaced on the Internet.”–via TheObamaFile

VAN JONES SHOCK ADMISSION [in his own words]: “Goal is Complete Revolution”

Here is the transcript of the above YouTube video:

“Right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said OK now we want reparations for Slavery, we want redistribution of all the wealth, and we want to legalize mixed marriages. If we’d come out with a maximum program the very next day, they’d been laughed at. Instead they came out with a very minimum. “We just want to integrate these busses…”

But, inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country.

And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages.

Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we’re not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression all together. But, that’s a process and I think that’s what’s great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the CRISIS is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary.

So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.

SOURCE for this transcript (it matches the video):

Here’s the original source for the Van Jones quote about the time he spent in jail following the Rodney King/LA riots (Jones was arrested in “peaceful” protests in San Fran). It was in a 2005 interview he did with East Bay Express. They of course (what else?) claim he “renounced his rowdy Black Nationalist ways” since then (yet he’s calling for “complete revolution” in Aug 2009! …see above):

But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.'” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

The 1992 LA/Rodney King riots were instigated by the Revolutionary Communist Party…

From David Horowitz’s /

“Throughout its history, one of RCP’s [Revolutionary Communist Party] principal objectives has been to foment civil unrest in the United States. The most notable example of such efforts occurred on April 29, 1992, when RCP members looted and trashed the downtown and government districts of Los Angeles, triggering the infamous Rodney King riots. During the days immediately preceding the violence, RCP — which maintained close ties to the L.A. gangs known as the Crips and the Bloods — had circulated throughout South Central Los Angeles a leaflet featuring a statement by RCP National Spokesman Carl Dix, titled ‘It’s Right To Rebel’ — a quote popularized by Mao Zedong.

Encouraged by Dix, RCP activists helped lead the riots that would leave 58 people dead, more than 2,300 people injured, some 5,300 buildings burned, and $1 billion in property damaged or destroyed. On the ten-year anniversary of the rioting, RCP member Joseph Veale fondly recalled the violence as ‘the most beautiful, the most heroic civil action in the history of the United States.’

6 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:23:17 PM by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:

To: Michael van der Galien

Bring it on….

7 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:23:59 PM by Gator113 (Obama is America’s First FAILED “light skinned African American [Pres-ent] with no Negro dialect..”)

To: Michael van der Galien

Professional agitators like Jed Brandt are the FIRST to be eliminated in a people’s paradise because there is no use for this type profession in an Utopian environment.

Once all the historical ‘social injustices’ are resolved what would someone like Jed contribute to the People??

8 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:24:30 PM by Le Chien Rouge

To: Michael van der Galien
We will take your insurance companies; we will take the farms in this country; we will shut down the military apparatus in this country and I am tired of being told to stuff my anger back in my pants. Yeah? You and who else?

Oh, and stuff your anger back in your pants, wanker.

9 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:24:59 PM by Southside_Chicago_Republican (“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” –Orwell)

To: Michael van der Galien
Obama Espoused Radical Views in College [advocated communist revolution]
Steve Malzberg – WOR News Talk Radio 710 ^ | February 12, 2010 | Ronald Kessler Dr. John C. Drew, a grant writing consultant in Laguna Niguel, Calif., tells Newsmax he met Obama in 1980 when Obama was a sophomore at Occidental College in Los Angeles. Drew had just graduated from Occidental and was attending graduate school at Cornell University.

During Christmas break, Drew says he was at Grauman-Boss’ home in Palo Alto when Obama came over with Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, his roommate from Pakistan.

“Barack [Obama] and Hasan showed up at the house in a BMW, and then we went to a restaurant together,” Drew says. “We had a nice meal, and then we came back to the house and smoked cigarettes and drank and argued politics.”

For the next several hours, they discussed Marxism.

He [Obama] was arguing a straightforward Marxist-Leninist class-struggle point of view, which anticipated that there would be a revolution of the working class, led by revolutionaries, who would overthrow the capitalist system and institute a new socialist government that would redistribute the wealth,” says Drew, who says he himself was then a Marxist.

The idea was basically that wealthy people were exploiting others,” Drew says. “That this was the secret of their wealth, that they weren’t paying others enough for their work, and they were using and taking advantage of other people. He was convinced that a revolution would take place, and it would be a good thing.”

Drew concluded that Obama thought of himself as “part of an intelligent, radical vanguard that was leading the way towards this revolution and towards this new society.” …”

Referring to Obama’s quote from “Dreams of My Father” that he associated with Marxist professors, Drew says, “What he’s not saying is that he was in 100 percent total agreement with those Marxist professors. When you understand that, Obama’s later associations and policies make more sense, including why he was taken in by Rev. Wright’s ideology.”

10 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:25:10 PM by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:

To: Michael van der Galien
Nazis, Communists, Socialists, and Democrats are cut from the same cloth. Any Democrat who doesn’t realize that his party is anti-American is nothing but a usefull idiot. I have refrained from actually stating this before, but it’s time to publicly state the truth. Republicans may be mostly a collection of corrupt timeservers, but at least most of them aren’t actually trying to destroy the country.
11 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:25:32 PM by ozzymandus

To: Michael van der Galien
Why would the Communists want to burn America down, when they can let Obama destroy America. You can rebuild after a fire, but you cannot rebuild America after Obama get through with it.
12 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:26:02 PM by Nosterrex

To: Michael van der Galien

Commies on the march?


Whittaker Chambers
Richard Nixon
Joseph Mc Carthy
Ronald Reagan
Pope John Paul
Lech Welesa

13 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:26:14 PM by EyeGuy

To: DarthVader

Public hangings and heads on pikes should prove instructional to the surviviors. Because that’s what it’s going to take.

14 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:26:47 PM by Noumenon (“Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he has grown so great?” – Julius Caesar)

To: DarthVader

oh yeah? they are openly flaunting their agenda as we speak.

15 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:27:51 PM by indylindy

To: Michael van der Galien
They can try to burn it to the ground, but the Koreans in Los Angeles showed how to keep your own place from going up in flames. Let the idiots who support Obama burn their own house to the ground. The followers of “John Galt” will watch and prepare.
16 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:27:52 PM by wbarmy (Hard core, extremist, and right-wing is a little too mild for my tastes.)

To: Noumenon

Can we make the rope out of hemp?

I go get some pikes ready……

17 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:28:28 PM by norraad (“What light!”>Blues Brothers)

To: Michael van der Galien

“Communist Wants To Burn America To The Ground…”

But enough about Nancy Pelosi!

18 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:29:46 PM by Grunthor (Does The Name “Obama” Appear In any Hawaii Birth Database?)

To: Le Chien Rouge
Professional agitators like Jed Brandt are the FIRST to be eliminated in a people’s paradise because there is no use for this type profession in an Utopian environment.Yuri Bezhmenov made it pretty clear what happens to people like Jed Brandt when his side ‘wins’.

19 posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:30:14 PM by Noumenon (“Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he has grown so great?” – Julius Caesar)

To: Michael van der Galien

We will take your insurance companies; we will take the farms in this country; we will shut down the military apparatus in this country and I am tired of being told to stuff my anger back in my pants.

He is not going to talk our farm, part of it has been in my family for 100+ years. And I had ancestors who were born here during the Republic of Texas. If you think that is going to happen here, you had best think again.

All that the Governor of Texas would have to say is “help” and we can field an army of millions, who already have the weapons. The troops at Ft. Hood and Dyess would join us in a twinkle, and the boys at the bomb factory would gladly open the doors. This would be a stupid thing for them to attempt. The most stupid thing I have ever heard.

And when we are finished he will have to find another place to stuff his anger, because we will not only burn of his pants, but his Commie A$$ with it.

History OF The Socialist Party Of America (i.e. Dems,Required Reading)

History OF The Socialist Party Of America (i.e. Dems,Required Reading)

Socialist Party of America

by manfromlamancha

The Socialist Party of the United States of America was formally organized at a unity convention in Indianapolis in 1901. The two merging groups were the Social Democratic Party of Eugene Victor Debs and the “Kangaroo” wing of the older Socialist Labor Party. The SDP had been organized in 1898 by veterans of the Pullman strike of the American Railway Union, led by Debs, and was largely composed of American-born workers. The SLP had its roots in the American circles of Marx’s First International and the Workingmen’s Party of America, and was primarily composed of immigrants in big cities. By the 1880’s, under the rule of Daniel De Leon, it had become increasingly intolerant of internal dissent and had suffered several splits.

From the beginning the Socialist Party was the ecumenical organization for American radicals. Its membership included Marxists of various kinds, Christian socialists, Zionist and anti-Zionist Jewish socialists, foreign-language speaking sections, single-taxers and virtually every variety of American radical. On the divisive issue of “reform vs. revolution” the Socialist Party from the beginning adopted a compromise formula, producing platforms calling for revolutionary change but also making “immediate demands” of a reformist nature. A perennially unresolved issue was whether revolutionary change could come about without violence; there were always pacifists and evolutionists in the Party as well as those opposed to both those views. The Socialist Party historically stressed cooperatives as much as labor unions, and included the concepts of revolution by education and of “building the new society within the shell of the old.”

The Socialist Party aimed to become a major party; in the years prior to World War I it elected two Members of Congress, over 70 mayors, innumerable state legislators and city councilors. Its membership topped 100,000, and its Presidential candidate, Eugene Debs, received close to a million votes in 1912 and again in 1920. But as with any ideologically mixed organization, it was forever in internal disputes. An early disagreement was over the Industrial Workers of the World, which Debs and De Leon had helped create as a competitor to the American Federation of Labor. Some Socialists supported the IWW, while others considered “dual unionism” to be fatal to the solidarity of the labor movement and supported the Socialist faction in the AFL led by Max Hayes.

During the First World War the American Socialist Party was one of the very few parties in the international socialist movement to maintain its opposition to the war, and many Socialists were imprisoned, including Debs himself. In 1919 there was a major split in the Party, when those who accepted Lenin’s demand for unconditional allegiance to the Third (Communist) International left, to form the Communist Party (composed mostly of the foreign-language federations) and the Communist Labor Party (led by John Reed). Under pressure from the International, the two parties later merged.

Weakened by the loss of the Bolsheviks, the Socialist Party did not run a Presidential candidate in 1924, but joined the AFL and the railroad brotherhoods in support of the independent campaign of the progressive Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, hoping to build a permanent Farmer-Labor Party. In 1928 the Socialist Party revived as an independent electoral entity under the leadership of Norman Thomas, an opponent of World War I and a founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In 1932 the impact of the Great Depression resulted in revived support for the Socialist Party, and 896,000 votes were cast for the Party’s Presidential candidate, Norman Thomas. But by 1936 the left-liberal policies of the New Deal took a severe toll. In that year David Dubinsky and other socialist union leaders in New York called on their membership to vote for Roosevelt, and formed the Social Democratic Federation to promote socialism within the ranks of the liberal/labor wing of the Democratic Party. The Socialist Party’s vote in 1936 dropped to 185,000, little more than 20% of that of 1932. The outbreak of the war against Fascism and the wartime prosperity further weakened all parties on the left.

While the Communist Party suffered the most from the McCarthy period, all the left was seriously impaired, and by the mid-fifties little remained of organized radical politics. The Socialist Party was down to about 2,000 members, and had more or less withdrawn from electoral action in the face of the increasingly restrictive ballot-access laws passed by state legislatures around the country. In 1956 the Socialist Party and the Social Democratic Federation reunited, under pressure from the Socialist International (with which both groups were affiliated). A right-wing group in the SDF opposed the merger, and established the Democratic Socialist Federation.

As of 1957 the SP-SDF was pervaded by a strong sense that the time had arrived to start over and rebuild a major radical party in America. Internally it was the same kind of party it had always been – ecumenical and democratic – and it still commanded a significant reservoir of public sympathy. Many in the Party felt that now, with the McCarthy era over and gone, it would be possible to recruit members to a revitalized revolutionary democratic Socialist Party. By this time, the Communist Party had lost a number of members over its uncritical allegiance to the Soviet government, and these were among those the Party actively attempted to recruit. In addition, unity discussions were launched with two groups believed to be friendly, the Jewish Labor Bund and the Independent Socialist League.

The Bund is an international organization of anti-Zionist, non-religious, democratic socialist Jews. The ISL was a Trotskyite splinter group founded and led by Max Shachtman, with about 400 members.

In 1958 the ISL dissolved, and its members joined the SP-SDF. This ended any hope of further mergers, since Shachtman’s intention was to attain control of the Socialist Party. Almost at once a faction fight erupted over the concept of “realignment.” Shachtman and his lieutenant, Michael Harrington, argued that what America needed wasn’t a third party, but a meaningful second party. The realignment supporters said that in sixty years the Socialist Party had failed to bring labor into the Party, and in fact kept losing their labor sympathizers (such as the Reuther brothers) because they saw they could do more within the Democratic Party. It was also argued that in view of restricted ballot access the Democratic primaries were a better forum for electoral activity than Socialist candidacies. But the basic argument was an appeal to traditional Marxism: Labor is the motor for social change, labor will not come to the Socialist Party, therefore the Socialist Party must go to labor – which means going into the Democratic Party.

Many of those who later would form the Debs Caucus initially bought this reasoning, but they understood it as meaning that when becoming active in the Democratic Party one should do so openly as a Socialist. The suppression of Socialist identity was no part of the thinking of the bulk of the membership. From its inception, the Socialist Party had opposed anything that smacked of manipulative politics, seeing it as directly contradictory to the goal of raising the consciousness and self-confidence of the working class.

There is no doubt that the realignment strategy was successful within its own terms. Former SP labor people like A. Philip Randolph rejoined the Party, and many new people of this type were recruited during this period. But to many Socialists, realignment in practice turned out to be something they could not stomach. The realignment strategy focused on getting hold of power, and Socialist politics is concerned not only with winning power within the status quo but also with redistributing it to build a new society. Furthermore, the result of the strategy was often to tone down everything that distinguished Socialists from liberals, and “where labor is” turned out to be not at the left of the Democratic Party but at the center, in alliance with the big city machines.

There were several other significant developments in the early 60’s. First, the merger with the Jewish Labor Bund failed to take place, partly because of the growing conservatism of the SP, and partly over the issue of Israel. The Bund wanted veto rights over SP policy on Israel, particularly in view of the unqualified support given by that nation by the Shachtmanites, and the SP tradition was against granting any such right.

Second, and perhaps crucial, was the defection of most of the youth section. The Young People’s Socialist League had always been to the left of the Party as a whole; after the ISL merger, which also brought in the ISL’s youth section, the YSL, the same conflicts developed in YPSL as in the Party. In the early 60’s, a group of left YPSL’s obtained control of the Students for a Democratic Society, the youth section of the League for Industrial Democracy, and then disaffiliated it from the LID. At the 1963 YPSL Convention the left held an overwhelming majority. They held views that were intolerable to the SP leadership, in particular the perspective that the CP had broken up into competing sects and was no longer a monolithic enemy, and that Leninist groups could be worked with. That convention formally dissolved the YPSL. SDS, now deprived of contact with sympathetic older comrades in the SP, made a series of errors and later disintegrated.

Third, the ISL merger brought in a number of members who did not agree with the original Shachtmanite-Harrington realignment theology, who found allies among the old SP membership. Starting in Berkeley under the leadership of Hal Draper, a number of “Independent Socialist Clubs” came into existence, in many places replacing the Socialist Party locals. For several years the ISC leadership included SP members, but as time passed more and more of them left the SP.

Fourth, there was constant attrition as left Socialists found they could not tolerate the rightward drift of the SP leadership. This accelerated when the first Vietnam war protests failed to receive any official SP support, even though many members, including Norman Thomas, participated in them.

At the 1968 Socialist Party Convention the Shachtman-Harrington Caucus held a clear majority, though a slim one, and voted down resolutions demanding American withdrawal from Vietnam and urging independent political action. They passed a resolution endorsing Hubert Humphrey – a resolution which Norman Thomas, who had less than six months to live, opposed as best he could from his hospital bed, pleading in vain with the membership to reject it. They elected a clear majority of the Party’s National Committee, and installed their own supporters as National Secretary and Editor of the Party paper.

During the Convention itself, knowing themselves defeated, the left wing organized itself as a caucus and proceeded to hire a secretary, start a newspaper, and make plans to hold conferences. At its first conference, it took the name Debs Caucus, and continued to function under that name for nearly five years. The Debs Caucus had a valid claim to recognition as a voice of Socialism, for it included the former National Chairman Darlington Hoopes, the Socialist ex-Mayor of Milwaukee Frank Zeidler, and many of the state and local SP organizations, including Wisconsin, Illinois, California, and locals in Philadelphia, Washington DC, and New York City.

At the riotous Democratic Party Convention in Chicago in 1968, Realignment Socialists were present as delegates, and Bayard Rustin, having lost his old pacifist and radical orientation, served in effect as a black floor manager for Humphrey. At the same time, many Debs Caucus members were in the streets with the demonstrators.

By 1970, with Michael Harrington as National Chairman under Max Shachtman’s leadership, the Socialist Party was showing a growing tendency toward democratic centralism in practice. The Party newspaper was effectively closed to all but official views, and the members of the Debs Caucus were treated as non-persons. While Harrington was known to personally disapprove of the war in Vietnam, he could not bring himself to support the demand – now virtually unanimous on the American left -for unconditional immediate withdrawal of US forces. Since this meant the Socialist Party was completely isolated from the anti-war movement, as well as from the so-called “new left,” it was virtually the only left party in the country that did not experience a major upsurge in membership during this period.

Nevertheless, Harrington maintained contacts with the liberal wing of the peace movement (such as SANE), and he and his personal followers formed yet a third caucus, the Coalition Caucus, to pursue the realignment strategy within the more liberal sectors of the Democratic Party and the labor leadership. In March of 1972 a Unity Convention was held, to finalize the merger of the Socialist Party with the Democratic Socialist Federation. The tightly disciplined Unity Caucus, as the Shachtmanite wing now styled themselves, were by now suspicious of Harrington, and succeeded in pushing through the Convention a constitutional amendment providing for a “troika” in the Chairmanship. The “troika” was made up of Harrington, Charles Zimmerman of the DSF, and the aging former civil rights leader Bayard Rustin. A resolution opposing the Vietnam war, which was supported by six Party Locals and by both the Debs Caucus and the Coalition Caucus, failed.

In the 1972 Presidential election the division in the Socialist Party came to a head. In the Democratic primaries the Shachtmanites supported Henry Jackson, a hawk and a strong supporter of Israel (the latter having become a litmus test for the Shachtmanites). During the campaign itself they took a neutral position between McGovern and Nixon, following the lead of the AFL-CIO. Harrington and his Coalition Caucus supported McGovern throughout. Most of the Debs Caucus members supported Benjamin Spock, candidate of the People’s Party (Frank Zeidler was Spock’s “shadow cabinet” Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare).

At the end of 1972 the Socialist Party, now completely under control of the right wing, changed its name to Social Democrats USA. This lit the fuse for the disaffiliation of many of the states and locals within the Debs Caucus, and for many resignations. Early in 1973 the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, with the support of the California and Illinois Parties, called a “National Convention of the Socialist Party,” to be held Memorial Day weekend in Milwaukee The Debs Caucus had recently organized a Union for Democratic Socialism, as an “umbrella” organization of both members and non-members of the Socialist Party, and the UDS now made plans for a major conference on “The Future of Democratic Socialism in America” to be held at the same time. The resulting body voted to reconstitute the Socialist Party USA.

Michael Harrington resigned from SDUSA at this time, but he took no part in the reconstituted SPUSA. In October he and his followers founded the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, now (since merger with the New American Movement in 1982) the Democratic Socialists of America. They have generally functioned as a socialist faction within the liberal wings of the Democratic Party and of the leadership of the AFL-CIO;some of their members have won office running as Democrats.

Since 1973 the Socialist Party USA has focused its attention more on grassroots and local politics, and has dealt with the controversial issue of Presidential politics on a case by case basis. Due to America’s restrictive and often undemocratic ballot access laws (which have made it almost impossible to break the two-party monopoly on national politics), the party views the races primarily as opportunities for educating the public about socialism and the need for electoral democracy in the US.

In 1976 the Socialist Party USA ran a Presidential campaign for the first time in twenty years; the candidates were Frank P. Zeidler, former Mayor of Milwaukee, for President and Quinn Brisben, a Chicago school teacher, for Vice President. In 1980 the Socialist ticket was David McReynolds, a pacifist on the staff of the War Resisters League, and Sister Diane Drufenbrock of the Order of St. Francis. One outcome of that campaign was the Party’s recognition by the FEC as a political party nationwide in scope. In 1984 there was an ill-fated attempt to form a coalition with the Citizen’s Party; when it failed the time was too late to mount a Socialist Party campaign. In 1988 the party chose again to nominate a Presidential slate. Willa Kenoyer, a journalist, and Ron Ehrenreich, a credit union officer and university lecturer, were chosen as the candidates for President and Vice-President. In 1992, the SP nominated Quinn Brisben for President and union organizer Bill Edwards for Vice-President. Sadly, Edwards died suddenly during the race, whereupon the party chose author and playwright Barbara Garson as the new Vice-Presidential candidate.

In 1996 the SP nominated activist and special education teacher Mary Cal Hollis for President and author and economics professor Eric Chester for Vice-President. Due in part to frustration with the free-trade and anti-labor success of the Democratic President Bill Clinton, the end of the Cold War and the advent of the Internet, this election saw an influx of newer, younger members. This wave of new activists brought the party to a size and level of activity not seen since before “Realignment.”

As the Socialist Party celebrates its centennial this year, new members and activists are coming on board to help build a new vision of democratic socialism for the 21st century. Our recent electoral efforts have involved running our own candidates at the Congressional as well as community level (Karen Kubby, Socialist councilwoman in Iowa councilwoman her re-election bid in 1992 with the highest vote total in Iowa City history), running SP members as coalition candidates with other independent left and progressive groups, and supporting socialist as well as progressive candidates in a variety of races nationwide. The SP is slowly but surely regaining “party” status in states across the country. We know it’s not easy, but it never has been. And just think, without us, things would only be worse. The struggle continues, and if you see yourself as part of that struggle, for socialism and democracy in our time, we invite you to join us.



Here is an excellent article on the decline of America into Marxism by none other than a Russian –who better to recognize Marxism pure and simple?…

“It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama’s command that GM’s (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of “pure” free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a “bold” move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our “wise” Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper…but a “freeman” whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set “fair” maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

Political Correctness Must Die

by James Hudnall

In the early 20th century Marxism seemed like a good idea to many of the poor and downtrodden the world over. It hadn’t yet resulted in the untimely deaths of more people than all the wars of the 20th century combined.

Even so, radicals then were as annoying and crazed as radicals now. So the people weren’t universally jumping on their bandwagon. The Marxists couldn’t flip governments without the masses. So they worked on a system to undermine unity in society. The old adage “United we stand, divided we fall” was on their mind. They had to divide the people in order to tear society apart and remake it their way. Thus, political correctness was born.

This documentary does an excellent job of telling its story. PC is designed by German Marxists of the Frankfurt School to destroy Western culture.

It should come as no surprise the the destruction of the family is one of its goals. And as it gained in prominence, its goals have been realized. The polarization of racial groups, and even of
the sexes is another.

That’s plenty of reason to see it die a horrible death. Marxists have murdered many times more people than the Nazis. They have destroyed the livelihoods of people the world over and imprisoned many millions in gulags and work camps. The last thing we want to do is let them win here or anywhere else.

While it may seem communism is dead, communism, socialism, fascism are all part of a many headed hydra called statism. These are political systems which are all about empowering the state as much as possible. They name they go under now is “progressive.”

Many progressives on the ground think they are fighting for equal rights and social justice. The progressive elites know better. They want power and control over people’s lives. Political correctness is a tool to accomplish these goals.

It should come as no surprise that the oldest Marxist states threw off Marxism because it doesn’t work, and went with their own version of capitalism. Almost every single former Soviet state went gleefully to capitalism. Russia even has a flat tax. That’s a pretty sad comment on where we are right now when their tax system is simple and ours is a bureaucratic nightmare.

Political Correctness is hated by just about anyone you meet. The only people driving it are leftists and government bureaucrats, who earn a living from it. Pardon my redundancy.

Here are five good reasons Political Correctness must die.

1. It’s censorship: Point blank, that’s what it is. It’s used mainly by people on the left to attack people on the right, but not the other way around. When Miss California, Carrie Prejean, politely said she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, the PC thugs proceeded to try to destroy her life. But when Obama said it he was elected president. It’s used to accuse people of racism even when there is no racism involved, It’s not only a scare tactic, but also a career-destroying move. And it’s a thuggish weapon of intimidation.

2. It’s bigotry disguised as manners: You may think all those touchy-feely names they come up with for various special interest groups are more sensitive and empowering than the “mean” names of the past, but most of them are patronizing and they segregating. When you separate people into classes, it’s creating a kind of caste system. History has shown us that caste systems are used to suppress and marginalize people by putting them in special groups. The insidious thing about PC is it claims to treat people better when it really does the opposite. It implies that people in these groups are somehow lesser and weaker and must be “protected”, presumably by the government, and then implies that they are not being treated well by other groups (namely white males) which is an inherently racist argument.

3. It’s an attempt at mind control: The goal of PC always has been to segregate people into classes, destroy the family by marginalizing and polarizing people from traditional values and culture. It also tries to rebrand things to force people to think along a different path. You might think that’s a good thing if it makes people more tolerant. While our culture is more tolerant than it was in the past there is no proof or evidence PC had anything to do with it. The fact is, lying to people (which PC does) and trying to destroy a culture by effectively brainwashing people is downright…

4. Evil: The textbook definition of evil is that which is willfully and maliciously harmful to others. What else do you call something that is used to commit so much harm against people and a society as a whole. It has become a rampant monster that destroys lives, careers, and society. It’s used by creepy, selfish people to hurt others. Race-baiters we all know and despise have been using PC for years to try to extort money from business and government by making up racist claims. That’s nothing but a form of extortion.

5. Why should we do what some faceless creeps tell us?: Most of the time we were told what the new term for something is. In the ’60s we were told Negro is not acceptable anymore. We should say black even though Negro is merely the Spanish word for black. Then in the ’70s we were told to use “Afro-American” then later “African-American” even though that term is not only a mouthful it makes no sense. A lot of black Americans are simply Americans, many others are from the Caribbean. Or they are mixed race like our president. Who makes up these lame terms and why should we start saying them? Because “we’re supposed to” isn’t a reason, that’s more of a threat. Who says we have to? Why shouldn’t we say steward or stewardess instead of flight attendant? Because “they” say so? Why should we take directions from faceless entities who tell us what we can say? Why can’t we say whatever we want? Most of the terms these people come up with are retarded mentally challenged. See, they hyphenate you to separate you from the rest of us, We’re all part of the same country, but they want to make you feel aggrieved. Angry and unhappy people are easier to sway with propaganda.

So I’ve listed a few reasons why PC must die. I could go on, but the real question is, how do we kill the hydra? It’s not an easy monster to beat.

Lindsey Graham: Tea Party Will ‘Die Out’

In the past year, many Republican lawmakers have sought the support of the conservative Tea Party movement. But Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, bucking his party once again, is predicting the movement will “die out.”

“The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out,” Graham said in an interview with the New York Times magazine. “We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.”

Graham added, in a comment sure to rile some in the GOP: “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”

In the current hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington, Graham is one of the few Republicans willing to work with Democrats on hot-button issues like comprehensive energy legislation and immigration reform. In April, he called the controversial Arizona immigration law — which has galvanized both liberals and conservatives — unconstitutional. He has signaled he could vote to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and even chided his Republican colleagues for labeling liberal icon Thurgood Marshall a “judicial activist.”

Graham’s willingness to cross partisan lines has won the ire of Tea Partiers and other hardline conservatives. Republicans in South Carolina have even officially censured Graham for his work with Democrats on issues like immigration.

“Everything I’m doing now in terms of talking about climate, talking about immigration, talking about Gitmo is completely opposite of where the Tea Party movement’s at,” Graham told the New York Times.

What is (the Pseudo-religion) of Marxism?

What is (the Pseudo-religion) of Marxism?

Material below by Steven Plaut

Marxists claim that Marxism is a science. It is not. It is a sort of pagan religious cult. It is a theology. It is a form of superstition.

Marxists claim that Karl Marx understood capitalism and economics. He did not. They also claim that the entire validity of Marx’s set of theories on all subjects rests ultimately on how valid Marxist economic thought is. Marxist economic thought was completely wrong.

Marx claimed that all products contain value that is directly proportional to the amount of labor embodied within them. He was wrong. All the rest of Marxism is based entirely on this mistaken and falsifiable premise.

Marxists claim that the operations of markets have a natural tendency to spawn monopolies. They call this “monopoly capitalism.” In reality, markets have a natural tendency to break up and undermine monopolies. Almost all monopolies under capitalism are those set up by governments stifling and interfering in the operations of markets.

The most harmful monopolies in modern economies are the labor unions.

Marxists claim that corporate monopolies are growing in importance and in power. In fact, monopolies have been losing power and strength under capitalism for well over a century.

Marxists think that large corporations collaborate and operate power-sharing arrangements among themselves. They do not and cannot. Large corporations compete, undercut, and threaten one another’s market shares every day. As one of many proofs, just look at the number of inter-corporate law suits.

Marxism is based on conflict between “social classes.” But social classes do not exist at all. This is not to say that there are not richer folk and poorer folk all about. It only means that all the richer folk share no collective common interests, and the same is true for all the poorer folk.

Marxists claim that people’s ideas and ideals are dictated by property relations. They are wrong.

Marxists and socialists in general care a lot about the distribution of material wealth. But they have no idea how to bring about the creation of the material wealth that they wish to redistribute. They just assume it all gets produced all by itself. That is why people in communist regimes starve.

Marxists claim that workers are oppressed in capitalist societies. Workers in communist societies always try to sneak out into capitalist societies. No one in South Korea is trying to sneak into North Korea. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep West Germans from sneaking into East Germany’s collective farms. Cubans in Florida do not steal boats to seek asylum in Cuban collective farms.

Marxists claim that lower-income people support the Left and that higher-income people support the Right. Generally the opposite is the case. Let’s not forget the Hollywood Left.

Marxists claim that capitalism creates “crises of surplus,” where materials build up that cannot be sold. They are wrong. Surpluses just cause prices to drop.

Marxists claim that capitalists do not work and that workers do not own capital. That is why they comprise “social classes.” But nearly all capitalists work, often in work days with very long hours. Meanwhile, a huge portion of capital is held by workers themselves through their pension funds and other institutional investment intermediaries.

Marxists claim that businesses are owned by a small closed clique of capitalists. Actually, most businesses are “public,” meaning they are owned by shareholders and anyone at all can be a shareholder in them.

Marxists claim that capitalism cannot be democratic. But every single democratic society on earth is predominantly capitalist. Not a single communist regime was ever democratic. Communists take power via military coups and military conquest, not via elections.

Marxists claim that capitalists use violence to protect their prerequisites and privileges. In truth, Marxists in power use violence to protect their prerequisites and privileges. They use violence to suppress opposition wherever they manage to seize power, including violence against opposition groups of workers. It is conservatively estimated that 100 million people were killed by Marxism and by Marxists in the twentieth century.

Marxists claim that people are prisoners of their material circumstances and of their classes of birth. Tell that to the limousine Marxists, the endowment-fund Trotskyists, and the tenured socialists.

Marxists claim that all workers share common interests and shared goals, making them into a “class.” In reality, they share nothing in common and have no common interests.

Marxists think that all capitalists share common interests and get together in large stadiums every few weeks to plan out a program to achieve those. In reality, if capitalists were ever to congregate in such a stadium, they could agree on absolutely nothing, not even on the price of the beer. There is no single issue in economic policy over which all capitalists have the same position or share the same interest.

Marxists claim that workers in capitalist societies feel “alienated.” In reality, pampered children in capitalist society feel alienated because capitalism produces wealth, makes material comfort possible, and so creates the opportunities for idleness and leisure that lead to recreational feelings of alienation.

Marxists think that if you earn more money than me, it means you are exploiting me. In reality, it means you are more talented, harder working, better skilled, and luckier than me.

Marxists think that if one person has more wealth than a second person, it can only be because the first one stole the wealth of the second. Ditto for richer and poorer countries.

Marxists think that only things matter in economics, meaning tangible products, and so services do not. They believe that big products are more important than small products, big industries being more important than small industries. They also believe that consumer goods are superfluous and should not be produced much. All those ideas are why the quality of life and the standard of living are so miserable under communist regimes. In wealthy countries, small- and medium-size enterprises are the main engines for producing wealth.

Marxists do not see why workers should need to be allowed to vote. The interest of workers is always defined as whatever those claiming to speak in the name of the working class happen to support and desire.

Marxists think that socialism works. It does not. The only form of “socialism” that has not produced mass impoverishment and starvation is Scandinavian capitalism merged with a bloated “socialist” welfare state.

Marxists claim that most Marxists come from the working class. In reality almost all Marxists are the pampered children of middle class and wealthy parents. There are more Marxists today on the campuses of some American universities than in all of eastern Europe.

Marxists claim that under Marxism everyone receives according to his needs and contributes according to his capabilities. In reality, under Marxism everyone receives according to whatever the entrenched party apparatchiks decide their needs are, usually sub-sustenance levels of consumption, and the same people decide what are your abilities, generally assumed to be your ability to work endlessly at whatever you are told to do without getting paid much. To put this differently, in the absence of positive incentives, no one is capable of doing anything and everyone’s needs are infinite.

Marxists think that “experts” can tell what needs to be produced. They cannot. That is why Marxist experts produce starvation. In some cases Marxist starvation has produced cannibalism. There is not a single Marxist scholar or expert on earth who could produce a pencil by himself.

Marxists think that efficiency in production can be achieved by terrorizing factory workers and communal farm members. While terrorizing them, it has never successfully achieved efficiency that way. People are always smarter than the terrorizing officials and manage to thwart them.

Marxists believe that economic incentives do not matter. That is why they think there is no need to pay people more for working hard or exerting effort. It is enough to appeal to their “class interests.” That is why people starve under communism.

When a Marxist speaks of “dictatorship of the proletariat,” he means he thinks he has the right to use violence to impose his own arbitrary dictatorship upon members of the working class and upon everyone else, without asking for their approval or votes.

Marxists claim that Marxism is fundamentally democratic. In reality it is always fundamentally anti-democratic.

Marxists pretend to be in favor of the working class collectively owning all property. In reality Marxists always steal the property of members of the working class and turn it over to well-paid party apparatchiks.

Marxists think that Marx understood economics. In fact, virtually all Marxist “theories” were completly debunked 160 years ago. Marx was wrong about virtually everything he wrote on economics. It is more difficult to say whether he was correct about anything in sociology, but that is more a commentary on the nebulous and muddled nature of sociological thinking.

Marxists see no need at all for “finance capital.” That is why they always steal everyone’s savings in communist societies. It is also why workers in communist societies hide their savings in banks in capitalist societies.

Marx did not have the slightest inkling about what determines wages of workers in markets. He had even less understanding of what determines prices.

Marxists use the term “concrete” whenever they do not know how to finish a sentence, or whenever they have no idea of what is being discussed.

Marxists think that women live better lives under Marxism. That is because they never speak with any women who grew up under communism.

There is not a Marxist on earth who has actually read and understood Karl Marx’s tedious book “Das Kapital.” You can read a summary of the book on Wikipedia, written by people who did not read it either. In reality, Marx had no idea at all even what capital is.

Marxists often want to abolish the family, but that is because they became Marxists in the first place as a way to antagonize and irritate mommy and daddy.

Marxists believe that people living under Marxism lose interest in religion. They do not.

Marxists believe that in every voluntary transaction, one side wins and the other loses, and so it is impossible for two sides to profit from it. That is why they think you should be told what to buy and how much you should pay for it.

Marxists claim that capitalist countries engage in imperialism. But since World War II the largest empires of imperialist conquest were those headed by Marxist regimes.

Marxists believe that there are no real conflicts of interest between the workers living in different countries and speaking different languages or coming from different cultures. That is without a doubt the very stupidest idea of all coming from Marxism. In any case, that is why Marxism is generally spread only via military conquest.

Marxists think that capitalism makes people greedy. Actually people living under communism become much greedier because they are poor and desperate.

Marxists claim that Marxism is a science. It is not. It is today little more than a form of mental illness.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of “The Scout.” He frequently comments, both seriously and satirically, on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community.

An Introduction to Mohammidian-Marxist Islamo-Communism


An Introduction to Mohammidian-Marxist Islamo-Communism

The story begins with the Prophet Mohammad, who first rose to prominence after vanquishing his nemesis Jesus of Nazareth (a white-European and vociferous proponent of free-market capitalism) and nailing his sorry ass to a cross.  Mohammad then went on to invent Terrorism (blowing shit up and killing civillians) which would prove to be decisive weapon in the war against infidels and capitalists.  Being such a genius, Mohammad had the foresight to take out a patent on Terrorism in the name of Allah, so that even today Muslims have a monopoly on this form of violence.

Mohammad is perhaps best known as author of The Qur’an, which is the founding document of our movement.  In a nutshell it sets out our aims:

1. Kill all the Jews
2. Establish Global Communist Government
3. ???
4. Profit

Using his mad skills at terrorism, Big Mo was able to kill literally millions of Jews and still found time to bang his fine ass wife, who was as history has proven, just 6 months old when their marriage was consumated.  Unfortunately though he was unable to finish step 2, as Communism wouldn’t be invented for another 1000 years.  History would have to wait for this guy to come along:

Karl Marx was also a genius like his predecessor Mohammad.  His greatest contribution was The Communist Manifesto, which in a nutshell set out our aims as such:

1. Kill all the Jews
2. Establish Global Communist Government
3. ???
4. Profit

Unfortunately Marx was unable to commit to these plans when he discovered he was himself, a Jew.  Despondent, he retired from public life and went back to his original career, selling Che Guevara T-Shirts to students.

Our next legend in the history of Socialism didn’t have any trouble killing Jews.  Adolf Hitler not only killed more Jews than anyone ever (at least 600 billion by conservative estimates), he also started a massive war to finally establish a global communist government just as Mohammad had intended.  Like his predecessors he also outlined his aims in a book of his own, Mein Kampf which in a nutshell read like this:

1. Kill all the Jews
2. Establish Global Communist Government
3. ???
4. Profit

Unfortunately for Adolf the Jews were firmly in control of America by this point and with the immense monetary resources of Jew-gold, the USA was able to defeat the Nazis single handedly.

The baton was then passsed to Saddam Hussein.  After tricking American Jews into giving him tonnes of Jew-gold and guns, Saddam set about ridding the world of capitalists.  His first step was to invade Kuwait.  When he got there though he discovered, to his dismay, that there were no Jews in Kuwait.  The US responded mostly with laughter and smart bombs.  Saddam went back to his sand-pit in a huff.

Not to be outdone though, he then enacted Plan B.  This involved getting his right-hand man Osama Bin Laden to organise the infamous 9/11 attacks, which would have been a huge success had someone not tipped off the Jews yet again.  In the end no Jews died and the revolution the attacks were intended to instigate, never materialised.

But there was still Plan C.  Using a forged birth certificate Osama and Saddam were able to enter their cousin, Barack Hussein Obama into the 2008 presidential race.  The plan was a huge success.  Within months of taking office, Obama extended the Patriot Act making it illegal to be Christian or White and established the US as a Socialist Republic.  It is is only a matter of time now before the world falls under our dominion and the Caliphate or Dictatorship of the Islamic Proletariat envelops the entire globe.