Loudon Book Teaser: Mark Ritchie, the Secret “Communist Party Friend” Who Gave Al Franken His Senate Seat

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Trevor Loudon’s upcoming book “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress,” looks at the radical infiltration of the the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.

One of the Senate’s most radical members, Minnesota’s Al Franken, won his seat after a highly controversial re-count, supervised by Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.


Mark Ritchie

It turns out that the Communist Party wanted to get Franken into office, to give the Democrats enough votes to pass “pro worker” legislation.

In an article in the Party’s People’s World, November 22, 2008, Barb Kucera wrote of the controversial Minnesota Senate election, quoting Mark Ritchie:

Whether Minnesota labor’s massive effort to mobilize members in the 2008 elections was a success will ultimately turn on the results of a recount in the U.S. Senate race, Labor 2008 coordinators say.

After all the results were turned in, Coleman led Franken by only 215 votes out of just under 3 million cast. An official recount began Nov. 18 and could take a month, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie said.

Franken’s race against GOP incumbent Norman Coleman is important nationally. To get pro-worker bills through the Senate, workers and their allies need 60 votes, out of 100 senators, to cut off GOP filibusters. That includes a presumed GOP talkathon against the Employee Free Choice Act, which is designed to help level the playing field between workers and bosses in union organizing and bargaining first contracts…

Coincidentally, Mark Ritchie, the man charged with deciding an election of national significance was a secret Communist Party “friend.”

In December 1999, a Communist Party meeting was held at the MayDay Bookstore in Minneapolis, for the purpose of re-establishing the Communist Party Farm Commission.

Party members present were Erwin Marquit, Helvi savola, Jack Brown, Peter Wheeler, Morgan Soderburg, Bill Gudex, Mark Froemke, Scott Marshall, Gary Severson, Mike Madden, Becky Pera, Charlie Smith and Tim Wheeler.

Mark Ritchie also attended and addressed the meeting. In a written report on the meeting by Tim Wheeler (incidentally, the son of Soviet spy Don Wheeler), Ritchie is referred to as a “non-party friend” of the Communist Party. The report was marked “not for publication.”


“The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress” will be officially released on August 20, 2013.


If you’re a U.S. resident and would like to be one of the very first people on the planet to own a copy of my new book, you may pre-order through the button below.

New Zealander, Trevor Loudon, Editor of Trevorloudon.com and the author of Barack Obama and the Enemies Within, will tour his new book, The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress, across America this Fall.


ChiCom President Wants Obama to Relax Hi-Tech Restrictions on China, “New Type of Military Relations,” Says Obama “Responded Actively”

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Just who was calling the shots at the June 7-8 summit between ChiCom President Xi Jinping and his “U.S. counterpart” Barack Obama at the Sunnylands estate in Rancho Mirage, California?


According to the Communist Party of China website, Xi made several proposals, to which Obama “responded actively,” and that the U.S. is willing to “construct a new state-to-state cooperation modal with China.”

The Chinese shopping list included:

The two sides need to elevate the level of dialogue and mutual trust and institutionalize the meetings between leaders of the two nations at multilateral venues such as the Group of 20 and the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, while making good use of the existing over 90 dialogue and communication mechanisms between the two governments.

To open a new horizon for pragmatic cooperation, Washington should take active steps to relax restrictions on hi-tech exports to China and promote the bilateral trade and investment structures toward a more balanced future.

Thirdly, to create a new mode of interaction between major countries, the two sides need to maintain close coordination and collaboration on the Korean Peninsula, Afghanistan and other global hotspot issues, and work more closely on issues such as crackdown on piracy and transnational crimes, peacekeeping tasks, disaster relief, cyber security, climate change and space security.

The two sides need to find a new way to manage their difference and actively foster a new type of military relations in accordance with the new type of inter-power ties.

Clearly China finds it onerous having to steal U.S. technology and now wants it handed to them on a plate.

Scary too is the “institutionalizing” of leadership dialog, at international fora. Ideally U.S. leaders should be keeping the ChiCom gangsters at arm’s length. This is a bit like the FBI holding “institutionalized” meetings with the mob.

What can a “new type of military relations” mean? This can only be to the gain of the Chinese. The Western Alliance has little to gain by military co-operation with a its most likely adversary in the next major war. Such cooperation won’t make war less likely, only give the Chinese and their Russian allies a better chance of winning it.

What’s the bet Obama gives the ChiComs most of what they want?


Zimmerman Trial Exposes Government Vindictiveness

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

If you’ve been paying attention to the news of late; the IRS targeting political opponents, EPA targeting the oil and coal industries, NSA grabbing enormous amounts of information on every day Americans not suspected of any particular crime and so on. Something is very wrong with our government, or hadn’t you noticed; wasn’t that the point V was trying to make in the movie V for Vendetta?

Then there’s the Zimmerman trial for murder which acts as microcosm of our current government’s use of power in a vindictive manner.

The Obama administration and major news outlets got together from the get go and did everything they could to make Zimmerman out to be a racist gun waving vigilante/murderer while at the same time painting the victim as a clean cut black kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time; the victim of a hate crime who looked just like the son Obama would have had. Let’s just string Zimmerman up from the nearest tree and be done with it, or something like that filled the news each day.

Never mind the facts, let’s make an example out of this white guy; never mind that he’s a minority himself, Hispanic with lighter skin than the victim will do. He killed an unarmed black kid who only had a pack of Skittles in his pocket; murderer!

Never mind pictures posted by the media happen to be several years old when Martin really was an innocent black kid. Never mind that Martin, from all accounts was probably a drug pusher/user who had been recently suspended from school for theft of property; but that’s unimportant, a white guy murdered a defenseless kid.

Never mind that the poor defenseless black kid was at least as big as Zimmerman or that evidence from the scene seemed to back Zimmerman’s account that Martin attacked him, seriously enough to require medical attention and certainly enough to place Zimmerman in fear of his life.

Never mind that the judge in charge of the case has refused to permit text and photos from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone, including images of Martin smoking and a pistol released by George Zimmerman’s defense team which might give jurors a better idea of the kind of character Martin was in contrast to the sweet little angle pictures which the press has been releasing. Is it possible that a judge was shopped for and found, a judge who would use the courts to nail the coffin shut on Zimmerman?

The media claims it doesn’t want America to go through an emotional trial wherein low information type folks might burn down half the country if Zimmerman is found not guilty or the case is thrown out due to lack of evidence. Isn’t this exactly what the media would love to have happen in order to generate interest for the five o’clock news.

But what about the rest of America, those who are being targeted by the government simply because they voice an opinion which runs contrary to that of the Obama administration?

What about folks who keep bringing up Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate or worse, the actual birth certificate from Kenya? Why is it masked government strongmen raided the offices of The National Report, “Within hours of publishing a scathing story on President Obama”, and had stacks of records removed including the records of all their employees?

“At about 2:08 pm employees at the National Report were shocked when dozens of black clad machine gun toting DOJ agents wearing black masks entered the National Report office forcing everyone to the ground while demanding they put their hands on top their heads. After securing all employees FBI agents entered and began questioning employees and seizing files and other documents.”

These folks were targeted by the Obama administration because they said something they didn’t like; but “the raid was lawful under the USA Patriot Act but (government officials were) refusing to say why the government was taking the action”.

We’re already living in a police state, a totalitarian police state where citizens are subjects of government rather than masters over it.

What about Republican Illinois Senatorial Candidate Al Salvi being targeted by Lois Lerner with the SEC for a bogus investigation regarding a million dollar loan? Lois Lerner (does that name sound familiar?) told Salvi the case would be dropped, an ultimatum, “if he promised never to run for office again”. The case had no merit and was used to destroy Salvi’s political career. (Oh, that’s right; Lois Lerner is the IRS figure who pleaded the Fifth Amendment for her actions in targeting Tea Party conservatives).

As I mentioned in a previous article, we have a retired U.S. Army Colonel Kevin Benson teaching our troops to prepare for military exercises under the presumption they will be facing home grown terrorists, extremists who are Tea Party insurrectionists willing to go to war on our own soil. Homeland Security has already sent warnings to police departments around the country advising them that Tea Party conservatives fall into the category of domestic terrorists.

May justice prevail and all pertinent facts regarding the Zimmerman case finally be brought out in a court of law, as opposed to the trial by media which we’ve become accustomed to, a lynch mob mentality brought about by government and the media targeting those who stand up to tyranny.

How much longer will the lid stay on the pot as it begins to boil over? How many more Americans will become targets of an out of control government, a government which no longer is held in check by constitutional restraints?

Our founders are rolling in their graves at what has been done under cover of darkness, in shadows and behind closed doors all in the name of securing the safety of America. May those with courage and resolve stand up to this government which no longer respects the constitution or rule of law.


The Mouse That Roared

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

A long time ago there was a famous airline called Pan Am. They blazed new routes around the world and even built some of the airports to land in. I was very proud to have worked for them for 30-years before they folded. Back in the 1970’s Pan Am needed domestic routes within the USA to compete with the national airlines of foreign countries. Our own government refused to help us so the employees of Pan Am took on the Federal government to force them to give us a few domestic routes. We had our AWARE Committee and we had an icon. A little mouse drawn by some long forgotten employee. I think it is fitting to put that little mouse back to work today to symbolize the continuing battle between We The People and Big Government. Here is a picture we used that I have updated.

Click here for a larger image.


Voice of the Copts urges Al-Azhar leader to publicly denounce Muslim violence against Christians

Voice of the Copts
By: Dr. Ashraf Ramelah

Ahmed al-Tayyeb

Minority Copts in Egypt continue to live with discrimination, oppression and persecution from the Islamic majority. Muslim attacks on Christians, random and unprovoked, are based on jihad and often sanctioned by the state — Coptic victims often hauled off to jail for the crimes committed against them. In 1,400 years, not one Egyptian Muslim authority – civic, social, or religious – has apologized, denounced, or condemned these actions, including an entire succession of Al-Azhar grand imams, leaders of Sunni Muslims.

Recent request from the grand imam of Al-Azhar

Recently, the grand imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed al-Tayyeb, and his diplomatic envoy, Mahmoud Abdel Gawad, have requested that the newly installed Catholic head, Pope Francis, issue a public statement declaring that “Islam is a peaceful religion.” We wonder why the Pope would choose to use prescribed words or succumb to urgings for commentary. Will Pope Francis be influenced by the fact that Al-Azhar made their request (last week in Al-Arabia news) their necessary condition to resume relations, interrupted since the time of Pope Benedict XVI, with the Vatican.

This, in part, explains why the grand imam’s approval for Islam is sought from the head of the Roman Catholic Church and not from the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Pope Tawadros II, with whom Al-Azhar could never hope to form a partnership of pretense.

Al-Azhar alone has the power to reform religious followers and change the misnomer, “religion of peace,” into the truth

However, Al-Azhar alone has the power to restore matters with the Vatican but not by coercing the Catholic Pope. Voice of the Copts believes that the Al-Azhar grand imam instead should issue a formal, public statement directed to his followers in the Arabic language conveying an unequivocal message that Muslims attacking Christians in Egypt do not conform to a tenet of Islam and will no longer be tolerated. A clear denunciation of Muslim sectarian violence against Christians in Egypt by Sunni religious leaders would be welcomed as Al-Azhar seeks the Pope’s endorsement of Muslim non-violence.

The head of Sunni Islam’s highest seat of learning, the Muslim community in Egypt and Muslims around the world should demonstrate to the whole world action through his own words uniquely beneficial toward curtailing violence (holy war) by its members and, in the process, reverse the stain upon the name of Islam – a religion that many around the world see as warmongering and violent.

A real peace comes from within where the only real progress can be made

Favorable appraisals of Islam from leaders around the world, whether formulated out of pressure, denial or appeasement, will never repair Islam’s disreputable image — one earned through a long history of aggression based upon a supremacy doctrine. Islamic authorities of Al-Azhar must first be willing to acknowledge that progress for Islam begins with their own steps toward equality and peaceful co-existence. If so, Egypt might become a hopeful example for human rights in the Middle East instead of what the world sees there today.

A forced statement elicited from Pope Francis could never change the reality of Islam, but only, at best, cause recognition of Islam as something that in practice it is not – the latter exasperating the patience of all who decipher the truth. Al-Azhar is the pre-eminent institution of one of the world’s monotheistic religions yet its agents stoop to efforts both demoralizing and worthless.


Samantha Power: The Hand That Rocks A Nation

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

I have written on Samantha Power before and you can see our research on her here at KeyWiki.org. Power, who is married to Barack Obama’s long-time friend and ex-Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, is an intense enemy to Israel as is her husband. She seeks constantly to apologize for America’s imagined transgressions and shares with Obama a desire to see America cut down to size. I want to start off by giving you a bit of insight into Power’s viewpoints.

In 2002, Harry Kreisler, Director of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley conducted an interview with Samantha Power, asking her the following question:

“Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine – Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?”

Power responded:

“What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called “Sharafat.” I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.”

Tom Hayden wrote an article for The Rag Blog on March 30, 2011 on Samantha Power, “Obama’s ‘humanitarian hawk’: Samantha Power goes to war”:

Power has made a remarkable career recovery since calling Hillary Clinton a “monster” during the 2008 presidential primaries. She resigned from the Obama campaign after that comment, but has returned to become a special assistant to the president and member of his National Security Council.

Over a long conversation with Power in December 2003, I was struck by the generational factor in her thinking. If she had experienced Vietnam in her early twenties, I felt, she would have joined the radical left, suspicious always of American power. But as an Irish internationalist witnessing death and destruction in the former Yugoslavia, she wondered how the United States could be neutral. She strongly favored the American intervention and air war that followed.

I asked whether she would have favored the Clinton administration sending combat troops to battle the Serbs, a scenario which was in the works when Russia pulled its support from Belgrade, effectively ending that war. I didn’t get an answer, only the promise of “a long conversation” in the future.

Power generalized from her Balkans experience to become an advocate of American and NATO military intervention in humanitarian crises, a position which became known as being a “humanitarian hawk.” She began to see war as an instrument for achieving her liberal, even radical, values.

“The United States must also be prepared to risk the lives of its soldiers” to stop the threat of genocide, she wrote. She condemned Western “appeasement” of dictators. She believed that “the battle to stop genocide has been repeatedly lost in the realm of domestic politics.” In her mind, domestic concerns like discrimination and unemployment are secondary to foreign policy crises, a common attitude in the national security circles she was entering.

Samantha Power is a staunch advocate of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and she is directly responsible for what happened in Libya. She is closely tied to George Soros and his worldviews. Obama has just named Power as the new Ambassador to the United Nations, where she will be at the helm of doing monstrous damage on a global scale.

From Bloomberg:

She played a role, along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and other NSC advisers, in convincing Obama to push for a UN Security Council resolution to authorize a coalition military force to protect Libyan civilians. Other administration figures were concerned about the effectiveness of a no-fly zone and differences within NATO over what Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned would be a “big operation.” […]

Power, who sought the limelight as a writer and public intellectual, has learned to be a behind-the-scenes policymaker over the past two years, associates say.

Melanie Phillips says we should all be frightened of Samantha Power and she is right. Using the mantle of a human rights activist, Power is exactly the opposite. Claiming the moral highroad of protecting all, she will issue in breathtaking tyranny. She would happily oversee the destruction of Israel, while furthering the Caliphate and a Progressive (Marxist) planetary rule. She will institute “justice” with warfare and death. Samantha Power rides a pale horse indeed. She grovels to our enemies, promotes the slaughter of our allies and places America’s neck on the Islamic chopping block.

Rush Limbaugh said that the appointment of Samantha Power was a big “F. You” to the American people. He’s right. Obama’s mask is coming off and his totalitarian face is bearing down on us. Where is the outrage at her appointment? Has no one in America’s leadership the integrity and fortitude to speak out against this travesty? So far, just one… Ted Cruz — who might just be President one day. He’d have my vote:

Never shy about his views, Cruz bluntly questioned a series of statements Power has made, including a 2003 essay in which she called for the U.S. to institute a “doctrine of the mea culpa” to enhance credibility.

“No nation has spilled more blood or sacrificed more for the freedom of others than ours, and yet Ms. Power has publicly embraces the need for America to continue apologizing to the world for perceived transgressions, going so far as to explicitly urge ‘instituting a doctrine of the mea culpa’,” Cruz said in a written statement.

Samantha Power wields the hand that rocks a nation and the geopolitical landscape across the planet. In the name of peace, she will usher in Armageddon if allowed to. Welcome to Obama’s Coup D’etat, Gramsci style.

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Administration Is Leading a ‘Coup d’Etat’ to ‘Take Over This Country’