For a better understanding of Agenda 21 and ICLEI we suggest: The American Policy Center offers a one-page primer on Agenda 21.
Hat Tip: Nancy Jacques
From: The Right Scoop
By: Trevor Loudon
In 1983, then Congressman, Leon Panetta, placed a tribute in the Congressional Record to two of his Santa Cruz, California constituents.
The couple, Hugh DeLacy and his wife Dorothy Baskin DeLacy, both had long histories with the Communist Party USA, and were very active in the Santa Cruz “progressive” movement that had helped nurture Congressman Panetta’s career.
Phrases like “social justice” and “dark forces of McCarthyism” rolled from Rep. Panetta’s pen, in a piece that would not have been out of place in the Communist Party’s Peoples Daily World.
Panetta makes it very clear he sympathizes with his constituents’ world view in the last paragraph.
The DeLacy’s were not merely Panetta’ s constituents – they were close personal friends. Hugh DeLacy was also a longtime correspondent with whom Panetta regularly discussed defense and foreign policy issues.
The DeLacys were also not mere Communist Party hacks, or low level time servers.
Dorothy Baskin, served as a Party organizer in Missouri, Colorado and allegedly California. In Missouri she was sentenced, in 1952, to three years in jail under the Smith Act, for conspiring to overthrow the US government by force.
Dorothy DeLacy’s first husband, Jim Forest, was a high level Party functionary in several states. He too was jailed in Missouri and spent some time behind bars, before all the Smith Act convictions were eventually overturned. from 1969 to 1974, Forest toured the world on the Kremlins’ rouble as a Secretary of the Soviet front World Peace Council, before settling back into Communist Party work in San Francisco.
Hugh DeLacy, 1940s
Hugh DeLacy was a covert Communist Party member from at least the early 1940s, including through his 1944-46 term as a Democratic Congressman from Washington State. He went on to work for the Party in Ohio and California, well into the late 1960s.
It is not known when, or if, Hugh DeLacy ever left the Communist Party. In the 1970s, he was close to a network of former Party members who went on to form the neo-Marxist and pro-Chinese New American Movement. In the 1970s and 1980s, Hugh DeLacy traveled to Communist China, Sandinista controlled Nicaragua and to Lisbon, to meet with senior officials of the Portuguese Communist Party.
Hugh Delacy also maintained contact with several “former” Soviet spies, two of whom who had gone on to work for the Communist Chinese government. He certainly remained a committed Marxist-Leninist up until his death in 1986.
If a Republican appointee had even a whiff of ties to the Ku Klux Klan, or a white power group, he would be quite rightly hauled over the coals by the US media and the Senate.
Yet Leon Panetta is in line for one of the most important jobs in the United States government, and has yet to face one single question over his extensive communist and socialist connections.
What are the consequences if Leon Panetta has in some way been compromised by past associations, or indiscretions?
Should the guardians of the Republic, in the US Senate and the media, allow such questions to go unasked and unanswered?
By: Trevor Loudon
From Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival:
We are planning to release more sensational details about CIA director Leon Panetta’s relationship with Communist Hugh DeLacy, himself linked to a communist spy ring. The Panetta story could be just as big as Alger Hiss. But we need conservative Senators to raise a ruckus. Otherwise, his nomination as Defense Secretary could sail through on Tuesday.
In a column about how the media — liberal and conservative — are mostly ignoring our revelations, Wes Vernon writes:
If Panetta’s nomination for Secretary of Defense makes it through the Senate Armed Services Committee — and barring indications to the contrary, it would appear “the skids are greased”— then what? Is there not one conservative senator prepared to raise this issue on the floor when the confirmation is up for debate? Not one? Why?
Don’t let this happen. Please contact your members of the Senate at 202-224-3121 and demand that Panetta be thoroughly investigated before he is confirmed for another sensitive national security post with access to classified information.
Please also specifically contact Senators David Vitter (202) 224-4623 and James Inhofe (202) 224-4721. Ask that they put a hold on the Panetta nomination so the information about his communist connections can be reviewed by the FBI.
Vernon writes that:
“…DeLacy was not only a prominent member of the Communist Party USA, but also a personal contact of identified Soviet spies Solomon Adler and Frank Coe and accused spy John Stewart Service, and one has to wonder: What was there about DeLacy’s background and record that attracted the friendship of the man who is now CIA Director and has been nominated to assume an even higher national security post — Secretary of Defense?”
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Hat Tip: Brian B.
Leon Panetta is a leftist radical who should never have headed the CIA, period, much less be confirmed as Secretary of Defense. He poses a massive security risk and he has never been vetted – at all. For background on Panetta’s radical communist ties, visit the following research by Trevor Loudon and Cliff Kincaid:
- Panetta Hearing for SecDef on Thursday: Obama’s CIA Director Linked to Spies Through Communist Party Figure
- Why Panetta? Is Slashing Defense the Real End Game Here?
- Panetta Nomination Can Be, Must Be Stopped
- Will the Senate Pick Anti-Defense CIA Chief with Red Ties as SecDef?; More Damaging Disclosures about Leon Panetta
- Panetta Report 1: Leon Panetta Paid Tribute to Two Longtime Communists
Panetta stands to be confirmed as Secretary of Defense soon if nothing is done. Just another brick in the Cloward and Piven strategy. Almost certainly Panetta will have two overriding objectives after being confirmed and both spell very bad news for the US, the Western world at large and our way of life.
First on his chopping block will be billions in defense budget cuts. In essence, emasculating our military and weakening our forces to the point of no return. Baring our throats to our enemies across the planet who are at this moment savoring the blood and death to come of the last superpower and freest country ever to grace the planet.
Second, Panetta is laying the foundation for further implementation of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine. And he has powerful friends indeed on both sides of the progressive aisle (at the forefront is John McCain) backing his move to grant President Obama powers that not only render Congress totally toothless and irrelevant, but also bestowing the powers of a dictator upon our Commander in Chief. Panetta stated that the president can unilaterally use military force, without congressional authorization to “protect our national interests.” Listen to his language concerning the War Powers Act and the right of the President to wage war:
John McCain: “Does it worry you if the Congress begins to tell the commander in chief as to exactly … what the president can or cannot do in any conflict?” asked McCain.
Leon Panetta: “Senator, I believe very strongly that the president has the constitutional power as commander in chief to take steps that he believes are necessary to protect this country and protect our national interests,” said Panetta. “And obviously, I think it’s important for presidents to consult, to have the advice of Congress. But in the end, I believe he has the constitutional power to do what he has to do to protect this country.”
Notice the careful language here. Let me translate… Panetta and Obama ‘hope’ that the Congress will back his military dictates. They ‘hope’ that our leaders will see things their way. But if not, tough cookies folks. If the President decrees, so shall it be. From Wikipedia, we see the definition of a dictator:
A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator. It has three possible meanings:
- A Roman dictator was the incumbent of a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
- A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples’ freedom.
- In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
I would say our government, with Panetta at the helm and Obama ruling over all, fits the bill quite nicely indeed.
From CNS News:
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says Congress “shall have Power … to declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” At the constitutional convention in 1787, James Madison of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed that the word “declare” war be inserted in place of “make” war in this passage so that it would leave the president the limited power to “repel sudden attacks.” Madison’s proposal was adopted.
Madison notes from the Constitutional Convention clearly indicate that the drafters of the Constitution meant to deny the president the power to initiate military action by the United States except when necessary for self-defense. “The Executive should be able to repel and not to commence war.”
President Barack Obama expressed this same interpretation when he was a presidential candidate. On Dec. 20, 2008, he told the Boston Globe: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
When it suited Obama, he was against unilateral authorization of military attack. Not so any more. Now it suits his one world Marxist agenda and he is greedily digging in for a big helping of R2P. Witness the actions in Libya and now Yemen. On the chopping block: Syria and then for the coup de grâce – Israel. It’s barreling towards all of us with murderous, evil intent and Israel’s fate is not hard to discern in the military tea leaves. Obama just rendered a 30 day ultimatum to Israel demanding they return to the suicidal 1967 borders where they would be virtual lambs to the slaughter for the Islamists. If they don’t comply, well then, America will be forced to withdraw her support from her staunchest ally. UN sanctions will ensue and if financial extortion is not fruitful, well, military intervention will have its day.
Obama justifies the Libyan conflict by saying it threatens our interests in the region. But the Constitution is being flaunted and totally ignored here. Libya posed no military threat to us and did not wage war against us. Yemen – Obama is not even bothering to give an excuse on this incursion. It was a ‘covert’ operation until a few days ago. And if Americans don’t like it – too freaking bad.
Panetta sees it this way:
Panetta said it was “very important” for the president to consult with Congress after he takes military action, saying that “hopefully” Congress will agree that military action is necessary.
“[O]nce those [military] decisions are made, in order for those decisions to be sustained, that it’s very important to work with the Congress and seek the best advice and counsel of the Congress and hopefully get the Congress’ support for those actions,” said Panetta.
Panetta is a leftist radical who is very, very dangerous. If he becomes Secretary of Defense, Panetta and Obama will finish what Obama began – the dismantling of the strongest military the world has ever seen and the bankrupting of America to boot. Libya and Yeman, along with Afghanistan and Iraq have already broke the American bank. But wait, there’s more to come with Syria and the treacherous Judas treatment of Israel to come.
With Obama the anointed Manchurian President (whose Marxist strings are being pulled masterfully) and Panetta as his chief henchman, national defense will take on a whole new meaning to Americans. A very personal meaning.
By: Fern Sidman
The hallowed halls of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut were rocked with controversy last week when it was announced that a well respected scholarly program called the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) was scheduled to be terminated. In a statement issued by the iconic ivy league institution, Donald Green, a political science professor at Yale and Director of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, said that the decision was predicated upon YIISA “generating little scholarly work that earned publication in highly regarded journals and its courses attracted few students.” Citing the Center for the Study of Race, Inequality and Politics as another example of an “underachieving program,” Dr. Green said that “YIISA suffered the same fate because it failed to meet high standards for research and instruction.”
These allegations have been zealously disputed by a veritable repertioire of top-tier academics, Jewish leaders and political commentators who have suggested that the university acquiesced to the strongly worded critiques of YIISA programs by leading Muslim personalities and organizations. Referencing the seminal and highly enlightening 2010 YIISA sponsored conference entitled, “Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity,” Abby Wisse Schachter writes in a New York Post op-ed piece of June 7th that studying “Christian anti-Semitism is fine; political Jew-hatred, like communist or fascist anti-Semitism, no problem. But get anywhere near Muslim or Middle Eastern anti-Semitism, as presenters at YIISA’s conference did last year, and you’ve crossed the line.”
Schachter also imputes a conspiratorial tone to the decision to shut YIISA’s doors by reporting that subsequent to the conference, “the PLO representative in America scolded the school’s president, Richard Levin, complaining of the attention paid to anti-Semitism among Palestinians and Muslims.” The PLO “ambassador” in question, Maen Rashid Areikat expressed his umbrage to Levin in a letter saying, “It’s shocking that a respected institution like Yale would give a platform to these right-wing extremists and their odious views. I urge you to publicly dissociate yourself and Yale University from the anti-Arab extremism and hate-mongering that were on display during this conference.”
The conference addressed the virulent nature of Islamic anti-Semitism, considered by experts in the field to be the most pernicious manifestation of modern-day global antipathy. Anti-Semitism in the Western academy was also meticulously examined and hundreds of pages of research materials were produced.
Led by the renowned sociologist Charles Small, YIISA was established in 2006 as the largest research unit in North America devoted to a nuanced exploration of anti-Semitism in its various incarnations with a focus on its urgent contemporary significance. Its clearly defined stated mission was “to explore this subject matter in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary framework from an array of approaches and perspectives as well as regional contexts.”
Each year, respected scholars who have published monographic studies on anti-Semitism have gathered for YIISA sponsored colloquiums. Among those scholars attached to YIISA programs include Irwin Cotler, the former Canadian Attorney General and Minister of Justice, David Hirsh of Goldsmiths College in London, Phyllis Chesler, emerita professor of psychology and women’s studies at the City University of New York and Bassam Tibi, emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Goettingen.
The Jerusalem Post’s deputy managing editor Caroline Glick states in a June 9th article entitled, “Yale, Jews and Double Standards” that, “politics were in all likelihood the decisive factor in the decision” to close YIISA and adds that, “like nearly all university campuses in the US, Yale is dominated by the political Left.” Pointing to a possible causal relationship between YIISA’s programs and a boycott imposed upon Yale, Ms. Glick writes, “In January 2010, Iran announced that it was instituting a boycott of 60 institutions. Yale was among them. Although the regime did not explain the reason for the boycott, university officials attributed Tehran’s decision to YIISA’s activities in spotlighting the regime’s role in promoting genocidal anti-Semitism. Due to the boycott, Yale professors involved in research in Iran were forced to end their activities. These professors reportedly blamed YIISA rather than Iran for the cancellation of their research projects.”
Ms. Schachter of the New York Post corroborates Yale’s affinity with the Iranian regime by saying that in 2009 “a lecturer at Yale’s new Jackson Center for Global Affairs (Hillary Mann Leverett) took her graduate students to New York to visit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad explained to the students that there is no hard scientific proof that the Holocaust happened.”
As a participant at various YIISA conferences, Dr. Phyllis Chesler calls the closing “a tragedy” and remarks in a June 13th article entitled, “Islam and Anti-Semitism at Yale” that appeared on the FrontPage Mag web site, “Yale has rendered racism respectable, has contributed to the academic isolation of scholars of contemporary anti-Semitism, and snuffed out truth-telling, genuine dissent, free speech, and academic freedom. This will be a permanent stain on Yale and on American academia.” Also offering realistic explanations for motivations behind Yale’s decision, Dr. Chesler said, “There is one other reason that Yale felt it could get away with shutting YIISA down. For nearly 50 years, Arab, Saudi, and Palestinian money men have patiently, carefully, silently, funded the American professoriate and media.”
Elaborating on this notion was Alex Joffe, who, in an June 13th article titled, “Anti-Semitism and Man at Yale”, said, “Yale has long been seeking support from wealthy Arab donors..In particular, it has wooed Saudi Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, who in 2005 gave $20 million apiece to Harvard and Georgetown for Islamic-studies programs. (Yale, which competed vigorously for the prize, made it to the final round.) Spotlighting the authentic “educational” agenda of Muslim nations and rulers, Mr. Joffe adds, “true to their donors’ intent, such academic programs are faithful disseminators of the “narrative” of Muslim victimization. In the same connection, it should likewise be borne in mind that in 2009, alerted to the imminent publication by its own press of a scholarly book on the Danish-cartoons controversy, the Yale administration summarily intervened to yank images of the cartoons from the final product—on the grounds that their appearance might elicit “violence.”
Jewish organizations also weighed in on the decision to close YIISA. David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee said, “We hope Yale will review this unfortunate decision so that YIISA’s critical work can continue. In our experience working with YIISA, AJC has been impressed by the level of scholarly discourse, the involvement of key faculty, and the initiative’s ability, through conferences and other programs, to bring a wide range of voices to the Yale campus.”
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith offered a rueful observation of Yale’s decision by saying, “Especially at a time when anti-Semitism continues to be virulent and anti-Israel parties treat any effort to address issues relating to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism as illegitimate, Yale’s decision is particularly unfortunate and dismaying.”