…The bloody incident at Waco’s Twin Peaks restaurant was not a “biker shootout.” At present there is no evidence that any of the nine victims were killed by fellow bikers, rather than being “taken out” by the scores of police — including snipers — who had effectively turned the parking lot into a kill zone…
Then from over the transom:
“First they came for the bikers, but I wasn’t a biker. I hated bikers.”
► ADDRESSING WACO ◄
It was a well known fact by all bikers, citizens and yes, WACO police (which includes FEDS) that the COC [Confederation of CLubs] meeting would be held on Sunday. All of the above groups, 1%’s, MC’s and Biker Orgs attend these meetings…..
Is it a coincidence that under Bill Clinton, there was the Waco: Massacre at Mount Carmel and under Barack Obama, the Waco Police Massacre aka the Twin Peaks Massacre, the events of which continue to unfurl? That and the need to show America that police shoot Caucasians too?
Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Benghazi Islamic terrorist attacks, Caliphate, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, Department of State, gun running, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, Islamic State, Syria
Levant Report, by Brad Hoff
On Monday, May 18, the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch published a selection of formerly classified documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Defense and State Department through a federal lawsuit.
While initial mainstream media reporting is focused on the White House’s handling of the Benghazi consulate attack, a much “bigger picture” admission and confirmation is contained in one of the Defense Intelligence Agency documents circulated in 2012: that an ‘Islamic State’ is desired in Eastern Syria to effect the West’s policies in the region.
Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for “THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION…
Warning: It is no just the title of this post but the view from my window sill that will inflame useful idiots. So be it.
Front Page magazine reported a few days ago that Black Lives Matter protesters hired by Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), formerly ACORN, have not been paid by the community organization for civil unrest and chaos they were hired to unleash (and did) on the town of Ferguson, St. Louis, Missouri among other places.
Black activists staged a sit-in last week in front of the offices of MORE to protest not receiving their $5000 per month salary and started the hashtag #CutTheCheck. There was also that agreement that MORE would cover the bail of anyone detained.
MORE has been active in the Ferguson protests and in efforts to free jailed demonstrators so they can continue vandalizing businesses, intimidating perceived adversaries, setting fires, throwing projectiles and human waste at cops, and engaging in the Left’s usual modes of so-called nonviolent protest. MORE believes that protesters should be given a blank check to inflict whatever harm they wish on the community in pursuit of social justice….
That’s the sound of violins tugging at my heart strings. NOT!
Note that some protesters were paid, I suspect incumbent upon their value to fellow Communist ideologues pulling the purse strings.
Some folks had apparently been paid like Deray McKesson, and others hadn’t, causing further discord.
…This protester indicates those who protested for more money were paid $2700 to stop making a fuss, but it would then impact the ability to protest over the summer in #Ferguson:
Continue Reading – Weasel Zippers’ article –#Ferguson Protesters Protest Not Getting Their Checks For Protesting… AND part two entitled, More Proof Of Paid Protesters: Ad Asking For Protesters To Travel To Protest, List Of Payouts To #Ferguson Protest Organizers.
ABOUT WHO GOT PAID AND WHY
Those closest to the community organizers pulling the strings get paid, not really because they walked into the ACORN offices and screamed the loudest as many assume. They were paid to shut up, and like Al Sharpton keep the insanity going, as proven by their Twitter and Facebook feeds.
It is also their job to distract and/or shut down dissenters as Communists do and to move useful idiots by any means necessary.
As for the others, they will fall in lockstep or leave. Their community organizing slave masters could care less. After all, useful idiots come a dime a dozen….money talks.
Case in point, Brittany Ferrell and Ashley Yates both of whom receive thousands on behalf of MAU, Millenial Activists United. As pointed out by Weasel Zippers, “Ferrell, tries to justify her position in this Facebook post where she blames Ordower for screwing everything up.”
Yeah, MORE doing what community organizers do, distributed amongst the protesters a list naming those who were paid and the amount. That tactic, of course, did not go over well. I rest my case.
Elitist Black activists drunk on their Communist master’s kool-aid and the promise of $$$$ are under the common misconception that they are in control.
Community organizations, descendants of Saul Alinsky honed the skills of getting sock puppets to roll over more than a half century ago.
Long before the 60’s movement, white Marxists have used Blacks (dead and alive) as props to further their ideology. In so doing, many of these
foot soldiers useful idiots were stiffed and betrayed.
Moreover, it takes a hell of a lot of nerve for one to assume that one deserves compensation for peddling the phony Black Lives Matter meme while demanding that others drink from the same pitcher of kool-aid.
MORE and other groups supporting the Black Lives Matter movement have received millions of dollars from radical America-hating financier George Soros (net worth: $24 billion). In the fall MORE even created an Amazon wedding registry so supporters could donate rioting supplies. And yesterday it was reported that hip hop performer Jay-Z and his wife Beyoncé (combined net worth: over $1 billion) wired tens of thousands of dollars to help bail out protesters jailed in the Black Lives Matter riots in Ferguson and Baltimore. Perhaps that money went to MORE.
These activists protesting on the blood and bodies of dead Black people, destroying the livelihoods of middle class America and the poor at the behest of their Communist slave masters whose agenda has nothing to do with dead Black men exposes this so-called grassroots movement as anything but. One has only to step back from the smoke and mirrors to see it.
Myth: Trade agreements implemented under fast-track will not supersede existing U.S. law.
Truth: Every trade agreement negotiated by the President and foreign governments is accompanied by implementing legislation which necessarily supersedes existing law. Proponents of fast-track are relying on semantics: the trade agreement itself will not supersede existing law, but the “fast-tracked” legislation implementing the trade agreement will. What’s more, the Trans-Pacific Partnership—which would be fast-tracked by TPA—will give jurisdiction to international tribunals to settle disputes between parties to the agreement.
Myth: Congress will have more control over the trade process under fast-track.
Truth: If Congress gives the Executive six-year fast-track authority, the Senate will cede its ability to amend any future legislation implementing any yet-unseen global trade and regulatory pact; cede its ability to control debate over that pact; and cede its ability to subject that pact to the 67-vote threshold required for treaties, as well as the 60-vote threshold required for important legislation. Proponents of fast-track suggest the negotiating objectives somehow bind the Administration; this is false. The negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership are nearly complete and have been ongoing for years, long before any negotiating objectives will have been suggested. Moreover, the negotiating objectives are vague and lack any meaningful enforcement mechanisms—particularly enforcement from Senators and Representatives not on the revenue committees. Congress will be giving up the only leverage it has: the ability to amend legislation or to refuse to cut-off debate. No fast-tracked deal has ever been defeated, regardless of whether fast-track “objectives” have been ignored, overlooked, or violated by the Executive.
Myth: Congress is ceding no institutional powers under fast-track.
Truth: By eliminating its own powers of review and amendment, Congress would dramatically shift the carefully calibrated balance of power between Congress and the President. Fast-track would ensure that the President has complete discretion over the drafting of international agreements Congress has never even seen.
Myth: If the President ignores the negotiating objectives, Congress can simply block the deal.
Truth: A fast-tracked trade deal has never been blocked. By denying members any opportunity to slow debate, mobilize the public by seeking extra time, amend the deal, or seek a better deal, fast-tracked legislation is always ratified no matter how flawed. The train will have left the station once fast-track is adopted. Without any possibility of a 60-vote, let alone 67-vote, threshold in the Senate, this final check will have been removed. Additionally, the revenues and rules committees have exclusive control over enforcement, eliminating the ability of rank-and-file members to hold the Administration accountable for violations. Those saying Congress can just vote down a bad trade deal ignore the unbroken cycle of history.
Myth: If, for the first time ever, Congress somehow did manage to block a fast-tracked deal, there is no further threat to U.S sovereignty.
Truth: Even if Congress declines to implement a trade agreement, the President’s signature will already be on it, opening the U.S. up to judgments before an international arbitration body known as the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), or perhaps even before the WTO. An offshoot of the World Bank, ICSID exists to hear disputes between international companies and foreign governments, at all levels. Congress ratified a 1965 treaty which stipulated that any ICSID awards will be binding as if awarded by a U.S. court, and the Vienna Convention—which the State Department generally considers “customary international law”—states that the President’s signature on the agreement obligates the U.S. not to “frustrate the purpose” of a trade agreement. As such, the President’s signature alone could put many U.S. industries and localities at risk, not to mention binding Congress’ ability to pass future laws without significant international consequences.
Myth: Fast-track has protections for U.S. sovereignty.
Truth: Fast-track offers no protection against delegations of power or authority to international tribunals should Congress adopt the implementing legislation of any future fast-tracked deal. This is particularly relevant when considering the TPP, which has promised to set up an international commission to make changes to the TPP in the future. The “Living Agreement” section of TPP calls for the creation of this new body, known as the “Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission,” and TPP’s implementing legislation could well cede important congressional power to this new international body as it did with the WTO. The overview of the TPP provided to members of Congress when they view the TPP’s text states that the amendment and accession processes will be similar to those of the WTO, suggesting that Congress will indeed be removed from the process after the agreement’s initial implementation. The Ministerial Conference of the WTO, for instance, has the power to amend the agreement or to add new countries to the agreement simply with a two-thirds vote (not a unanimous one), and the WTO’s implementing legislation makes these changes binding on the U.S. without any additional congressional approval. At the very least, Congress will not know the truth until it has seen the TPP’s implementing legislation—which will not happen until Congress has already promised to fast-track TPP.
Myth: Trade agreements negotiated under TPA cannot be used to bypass U.S. immigration laws.
Truth: Fast-track includes negotiating objectives to remove barriers to services that could easily be used by the Administration to justify the expansion of foreign worker programs. There is also an entire chapter on “Temporary Entry” in TPP, which could be used to facilitate the admission of more temporary foreign workers into the United States. Even if immigration or temporary entry prohibitions were included in fast-track, the negotiating objectives laid out by fast-track are not binding on the Administration. If any future trade deal, TPP or otherwise, contains language that paves the way for more foreign workers, members will be powerless to strike the offending provision. Additionally, the “living agreement” provision allows for subsequent amendments to the trade agreement after its initial implementation, creating an altogether new avenue for changes to foreign worker programs. Finally, the President has refused to foreclose the possibility of using executive actions or side agreements to facilitate foreign worker expansions, as he did with South Korea as part of the recent South Korean trade deal. In short, fast-track creates broad new avenues for the White House to bring in more foreign workers—whether in the light of day, or behind closed doors no one can open—while giving up for six years the meaningful ability of Congress to do anything about it.
Myth: Congress must pass fast-track in order to pass TPP or any other trade agreements.
Truth: Fast-track is a mechanism to effectively pre-approve the speedy movement of global trade pacts through Congress. Congress is more than capable of passing trade agreements without a fast-track and has done so in the past.
Myth: TPP’s “living agreement” provision is not cause for concern.
Truth: The Congressional Research Service has said TPP’s “living agreement” provision is “unprecedented.” In essence, the provision allows the agreement to be subsequently amended after initial implementation by its member states, and also allows new member countries to join. TPP could well cede vast swathes of regulatory authority to a foreign body and expose Americans to the rulings of a new unelected and unaccountable global Commission.
Myth: Any changes in U.S. law or policy negotiated after Congress approves TPP or other fast-tracked global pacts would also have to be approved by Congress.
Truth: TPP legislation fast-tracked through Congress will likely contain a provision pursuant to the “living agreement” clause which would delegate vast regulatory authority to the new TPP Commission. The TPP Commission will be established under TPP with broad powers to oversee the implementation and amendment of the trade agreement. Further, TPP’s implementing legislation would likely mirror the implementing legislation of the World Trade Organization in 1994. Under that legislation, amendments to the WTO or domestic adoption of WTO interpretations or rules only requires the bare minimum of reporting requirements by the Administration—no additional vote from Congress is required. Indeed, as the history of the WTO reflects, countries have been able to join the WTO as a matter of course without any additional input from Congress; more than that, countries have even been able to join WTO without the approval of Executive Branch representatives of the United States, as WTO only requires the consent of two-thirds of member nations to add new countries to the agreement.
If Rand Paul’s 10 1/2 hour filibuster against the Patriot Act proved nothing else, it confirmed that Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell is no different than his fascist predecessor, Harry Reid.
McConnell who supports both the Patriot Act and Obamatrade had planned to bring the latter to the Senate floor last night (Wednesday) for a vote but due to Paul’s filibuster, McConnell moved the vote back until 10 a.m. this morning in addition to closed debates on Obamatrade and not permitting any amendments to the legislation.
Breitbart by Matthew Boyle
McConnell and his pro-Obamatrade allies have blocked allowing votes on two separate amendments to Obamatrade from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) —ones that would block a “living agreement” contained within the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) would fast-track and would stop President Obama from being able to turn trade deals into a dream immigration package for the Wall Street donor class. What’s more, there’s now talk that McConnell might not even allow a vote on a messaging amendment from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)—one that wouldn’t even fix the immigration and guest worker problems in trade deals—even though it’d probably, because it has no teeth, pass the Senate nearly unanimously….
Reason.com by Judge Andrew Napolitano
And personal liberty is the birthright of all persons.
What if we didn’t have a Constitution? What if the government were elected by custom and tradition, but not by law? What if election procedures and official titles and government responsibilities merely followed those that preceded them, and not because any of this was compelled by law, but because that’s what folks came to expect?
What if those elected to office, and those appointed to it, as well, took oaths to uphold the Constitution? What if those who took the oaths promised fidelity to the Constitution?
Senator Rand Paul began a filibuster against the Patriot Act on the Senate floor about 30 minutes ago.
Politico is running it live stream and C-Span. You can also follow @RandPaul on Twitter.
— FreedomWorks (@FreedomWorks) May 20, 2015
ALL three cable news networks going with Goodell presser over Rand Paul filibuster of the Patriot Act.. Obama must have given Goodell a call — el Sooper ن (@SooperMexican) May 20, 2015
— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) May 20, 2015
PASS THE WORD.
‘Long Island school districts plan to add more than 500 new teachers and other staff for the 2015-16 academic year, mostly to boost instruction for Spanish-speaking students…’ Newsday wrote. The Spanish-speaking kids are the illegal alien children we are no longer allowed to call illegal alien children.
The article was written to praise Gov. Cuomo and Democrats for an astounding economic recovery after the greatest depression since the Great Depression according to their hyperbolic rhetoric, but in the article, they also mentioned instruction for ‘Spanish-speaking students. Those are our illegal alien children.
Seventy-one of the Island’s 124 districts indicated plans for more hiring…
First about that mass influx of illegals from Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc. which now that the weather is warm and people are out and about, is noticeable in my neighborhood as well, the only thing their presence will bring about is more crime, violent crimes committed by gangs.
Second, I believe Long Islanders pay the highest property tax rates in the nation. Where am I going here? Those so-called “tax caps” that were put into place are about to be over-ridden.
Third, decades ago, we had these so-called ESL classes in public schools and like all things social engineering, it failed because most people from other countries won’t speak a word of English (or feel that they have to).
Better yet, who would have thought that Sidney Blumenthal who served in the Clinton White House among other connections lobbied Clinton while she was Secretary of State for his own self-enrichment on matters related to Libya before and after Benghazi.
Yeah, I know. We are talking about the Clintons.
TheBlaze by Oliver Darcy
Emails published by the New York Times Monday indicate that Hillary Clinton used more than one private email address during her time as secretary of state, contradicting previous claims from the Democratic presidential contender’s office. Multiple emails show Clinton used account “firstname.lastname@example.org” while serving in the Obama administration as secretary of state.
(Above image sources: Screen grabs)
Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, had previously told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) that that particular address had not “existed during Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.” Another statement from Clinton’s office said she only used […]
As reported by GOP.com:
In A Letter To Rep. Trey Gowdy, Clinton’s Attorney, David Kendall, Stated That “ email@example.com ” Was “Not An Address That Existed During Secretary Clinton’s Tenure As Secretary Of State.” (David E. Kendall, Letter To Rep. Trey Gowdy , 3/27/15)
NOTE: In A Footnote To His Letter To Rep. Gowdy, Kendall States “Secretary Clinton Used One Email Account When Corresponding With Anyone, From Department Officials To Friends To Family.” (David E. Kendall, Letter To Rep. Trey Gowdy , 3/27/15)
According to the New York Times, Sidney Blumenthal once served the Clinton White House well by casting himself as “speechwriter, in-house intellectual and press corps” .
Blumenthal was accused by Republicans of spreading gossip about them “to discredit Republican investigators, and forced him to testify during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.”
With Clinton making her second bid for the White House, Blumenthal a willing servant to all things Clinton finds himself under Trey Gowdy’s flashlight. Subpoena time.
New York Times By Nicholas Confessore and Michael S. Schmidt
Mr. Gowdy’s chief interest, according to people briefed on the inquiry, is a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal — who was not an employee of the State Department — wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal’s advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal’s assessments were often unreliable.
But an examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years…..
Trey Gowdy is looking to find out what Blumenthal knows about Libya and how much does he know about the September 11, 2012 Islamic terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead, U. S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department employee Sean Smith and Navy SEALS Glen A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods.
Besides any conflicts of interest that both Blumenthal and the Clinton’s may have had on the operation in Libya, “Gowdy’s committee on the attacks in Benghazi hopes to ask Mr. Blumenthal who, if anyone, was paying him to prepare the memos for Mrs. Clinton and whether they were among his responsibilities at the Clinton Foundation.”
Once again, where there is smoke there is fire.
Go for it, Congressman Gowdy.
What Sidney Blumenthal’s Memos to Hillary Clinton Said, and How They Were Handled – NYTimes, by Michael S. Schmidt
In 2011 and 2012, Hillary Rodham Clinton received at least 25 memos about Libya from Sidney Blumenthal, a friend and confidant who at the time was employed by the Clinton Foundation. The memos, written in the style of intelligence cables, make up about a third of the almost 900 pages of emails related to Libya that Mrs. Clinton said she kept on the personal email account she used exclusively as secretary of state. …
In April 2011, Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a memo about the rebel forces fighting the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. The rebels, Mr. Blumenthal wrote, were considering hiring security contractors to train their forces. Mrs. Clinton forwarded the memo to her aide, Jake Sullivan, and said that the idea should be considered. (Pages 1-3)…
Selected Libya-Related Messages From Hillary Clinton’s Personal Email Account (pdf format)
Finally, it must be getting pretty hot in the kitchen because for the first time since announcing her 2016 candidacy for president, Clinton took questions from the press. Her answers to the questions pretty much amounted to nothing as she provided no answers to the questions posed.
National Review by Michelle Malkin
The University of Colorado-Boulder has launched an online system where students can report people who make ‘hurtful statements’ — and it’s so intense that it even asks for offenders’ Social Security numbers..
This ‘Bias Incident Reporting’ system is intended to ‘address the impact of demeaning and hurtful statements as well as acts of intolerance directed towards protected classes,’ according to the school’s website..
The purpose of the Bias Incident Reporting Protocol is to provide information on how our university responds to acts of bias involving students. CU Boulder values freedom of expression as guaranteed to all individuals in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; encouraging and supporting debate and open discussion and disagreement on our campus remains important to us….
The objectives of this protocol are to:
1. Support the safety and well-being of our students.
2. Provide a reporting system that is easy to access and understandable.
3. Track, document and assess bias incidents in order to identify trends and issues and utilize this data to improve responsiveness.
4. Assess the effectiveness of the University bias reporting protocol and make needed changes. …
…CU Boulder values freedom of expression as guaranteed to all individuals in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States… NOT! CU Boulder, no different than any other liberal university is all about shutting down freedom of thought, expression and speech that does not conform with Communist or Islamic ideology thereby designating all else non-PC aka “unofficially illegal” for now.
What they are selectively advocating is a violation of one’s liberties.
Cupcakes students, faculty or staff who feels that their feelings have been hurt or the feelings of someone else are nudged urged to rat out the so-called offender (yes snitch) to the Geheime Staatspolizei aka Gestapo, i.e., CU Boulder’s Student of Concern Team. Screenshot below.
CU Boulder like all Progressive universities across America frown upon free speech. While proclaiming that “The University is dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge through a free exchange of ideas,” exercising one’s free speech is only permitted at the designated free speech zone, i.e., Dalton Trumbo Fountain Court Free Speech Area and under explicit guidelines.
In recognition of the role of the Dalton Trumbo Fountain Court in the expression of ideas on the campus, the area of the Fountain Court (“Fountain Court Speech Area”) found add at https://colorado.edu/node/478605/attachment may be used by the public for discussion or public expression without scheduling between the hours of 9:00 am and 5:00 pm except unscheduled uses may not take place during the period between the last day of classes and the last day of final exams of each term. If the entire Fountain Court Speech Area has been reserved or otherwise unavailable, unscheduled use as provided herein may take place on the UMC Plaza. (see https://www.colorado.edu/node/2982101/attachment)
Map of campus highlighting free speech zone, Dalton Trumbo Fountain Court Free Speech Area below.
How much longer before the students attending have had enough of this violation of their liberties?
As posed by The Camp of the Saints:
How long before this Informant System moves from campus to campus?
How long before it then moves into other institutions? Let us not forget the hard lesson we have learned since 20 January 2009: anything is possible when and where the Left is in Power And Control.
How long before those reported on are deemed illegitimate — beyond the pale, not fit to be members of the Brave New World being manufactured by the Left In America?
Bias incident reporting is one step up from outlawing free speech, zero tolerance and jailing the offenders.
If not nipped in the bud (once and for all), that day will come sooner rather than later.
At the same time, why would students’ parents allow these Communists institutions of indoctrination to fleece their pockets down to the last speck of lint while fundamentally transforming their children into mindless drones willing to be stomped into the ground by their Communist and Muslim masters.
Last week NYC mayor Bill de Blasio, who apparent has higher aspirations traveled to Washington DC to release his 13-point national “Progressive Agenda” referred to by Progressives as their “Contract with America.”
The propaganda behind De Blasio’s talking points is that his “Progressive Agenda” is quite similar to the Republican Party’s “Contract with America” back in 1994. The very thought of which is more than enough to make the skin of any non-Progressive crawl. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that Progressives who despise Republicans are buying such a fabrication.
In fact, Progressives from Barack Obama down are making it known that what de Blasio is selling they’re not buying….at least publicly.
As stated by Obama who found a moment to meet with Commie Bill last week but remained unimpressed: “…I noticed that there was sort of a progressive statement of principles about what it means to be a progressive by some of these friends of mine. I noted that it was basically my agenda, except for trade….”
Stepping on toes, Bill?
Democrats who asked for anonymity to freely discuss the issue aren’t convinced. Several said de Blasio’s rhetoric may impress liberals in New York and San Francisco, where he visited Friday, but won’t sway swing voters where the party hopes to regain seats.
‘That stuff is not going to help us win back the House,’ said one Democrat.
Members also argued the mayor lacks ideas for moving the proposals past congressional Republicans.
‘Finding common ground with Republicans is hard work. I don’t see that work getting done,’ said a senior congressional aide.
‘I don’t get who the audience is,’ the aide added…..
‘I don’t get who the audience is,’ Not buying that either.
Aaron Klein of WND ( research by Brenda J. Elliott) has documented de Blasio’s 13-point national “Progressive Agenda” aka “The Progressive Agenda to Combat Inequality” also found in the “manifestos and literature of the Communist Party USA and the Socialist Party USA.”
Here is a comparison of the Agenda’s plan with literature from the manifestos and writings of the Community Party USA, or CPUSA, and the Socialist Party USA, or SPUSA.
• Progressive Agenda: ‘Raise the federal minimum wage, so that it reaches $15/hour, while indexing it to inflation.’
SPUSA: ‘We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.’
CPUSA: Calls for ‘struggles for peace, equality for the racially and nationally oppressed, equality for women job creation programs, increased minimum wage. … Even with ultra-right control of the Federal government, peoples legislative victories, such as increasing the minimum wage, can be won on an issue-by-issue basis locally, statewide, and even nationally.’
• Progressive Agenda: ‘Reform the National Labor Relations Act, to enhance workers’ right to organize and rebuild the middle class.’
SPUSA: ‘The Socialist Party stands for the right of all workers to organize, for worker control of industry through the democratic organization of the workplace.’
Check out Sarah Noble, Independent Sentinel’s article entitled, “NYC’s Bill de Blasio Tours the USA with a 13-Point Communist Agenda”
De Blasio and his comrades like to call the movement,the “new” Progressive movement…It’s really the old communist progressive movement of the early part of the last century rehashed.
Joseph Stigliz, the left-wing economist at the left-wing Roosevelt Institute helped author the 13-point plan. No word on whether the Sandinistas had any role in it. Stiglitz is a revolutionary socialist who advises George Soros who seems to be everywhere these days….
Continue Reading >>>> NYC’s Bill de Blasio Tours the USA with a 13-Point Communist Agenda – It’s a must read through and through.