Mediaboss Marketing

California assemblyman Rob Bonta authored AB 22, which repeals part of a law allowing state employees to be fired for being members of the Communist Party. The Bay Area Democrat has withdrawn the bill, but his gambit provides a tutorial on the currently raging subject of foreign intervention in American elections.

The Communist Party USA was not just another American political party, like the Democratic, Green, Libertarian and Republican parties. The Communist Party was the creation of the Soviet Union, which established the Communist International, the Comintern, to manage its parties in other lands.

Ben Gitlow, twice the Communist Party candidate for vice-president, described the party as a militarized colonial service in the land they were colonizing for the USSR, the United States.

Millennials and such might wonder which Americans joined a Party like that and still managed to get a job in California government. Rob Bonta failed to name any, including the most prominent.

Few African Americans joined a party that represented an all-white foreign dictatorship, but that proved no impediment to Angela Davis. Long after prominent blacks like Richard Wright abandoned the CPUSA, as he explained in The God That Failed, Davis duly joined the Party. She then gained her first teaching job at UCLA, which she retained despite attempts to fire her.

Davis involvement in a courthouse gun battle made her a national figure, and in 1979 the Soviet Union awarded Davis the International Lenin Peace Prize. In 1980 and 1984, Angela Davis was the vice-presidential candidate of the Communist Party USA, on the bottom of the ticket under white Stalinist Gus Hall.

Serving as the candidate of communist Russia, a hostile totalitarian foreign power, did not prevent Angela Davis from becoming professor of the history of consciousness and feminist studies at the University of California at Santa Cruz. In that post she was a state employee, but was never fired for her CPUSA membership and candidacy.

Another American, Bert Corona, joined the Communist Party in the 1930s and dropped out of USC to become a professional Party agitatorwhat would now be called an organizer. Corona had no college degree and was completely unqualified for a job at Cal State LA, which took affirmative action to hire him.

Corona left that job, but the violence-prone Stalinist was not fired for Communist Party membership. He went on to bilk state government out of millions of dollars.

As the record shows, even the most high-profile and violent Communist Party members can easily secure and retain high-paying jobs with the state of California. That has also been true of the federal government.

The curiosity is not that there were undoubtedly many Reds that made government their vocation, but that the entire Communist Party was not on the federal payroll. That is not some right-wing McCarthyite, but the late liberal Democrat Robert Vaughn, star of The Man From U.N.C.L.E., who at USC wrote his PhD thesis about Communists blacklisted by the movie industry.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bontas legislation was an attempt to rehabilitate Communists by portraying them as just like members of other political parties. They werent and arent.

Communists are prodigious haters who never accepted the U.S. Constitution nor any democratic institutions. They are members of a Party founded, directed and funded by a hostile foreign power. Communists are the sycophants of dictators like Fidel Castro and apologists of their totalitarian regimes.

Just so millennials know, communism still prevails in Cuba, China, Vietnam, and North Korea. That regimes Sado-Stalinist dictator Kim Jong-un hopes to strike the United States with a nuclear missile. So one might say that communism remains a threat to the peace, freedom and security of the United States.

Lloyd Billingsley is a Policy Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is the author of Barack em Up: A Literary Investigation, and Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield.

Read this article:
California's Communist Tutorial - The Daily Caller

Gerald Holland, Op-ed contributor 5:50 a.m. CT June 6, 2017

President Donald Trump has announced the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. USA TODAY

Letters to the editor(Photo: Gannett)

Hail President Donald Trump for pulling out of the Paris climate change agreement.

In the first place, this "agreement" is a usurpation of the power of the presidency. The Constitution gives the president power to make treaties "provided two-thirds of the Senators concur." The Paris plan is a treaty or there ain't a cow in Texas. President Barrack Obama bypassed the Constitution's treaty mandate because he knew the Senate would reject the deal.

The same applies to Obama's undercover scheme that funds Iran's development of nuclear bombs.In both cases he ignored the Senate's constitutional authority.

Gerald Holland(Photo: Henrietta Wildsmith/The Times)

Unfortunately, Senate Republicans refused to exercise their responsibility and declare the flawed agreements to be treaties and vote on them as such.

The Paris climate deal (allegedly voluntarily) obligates the developed world, America, Canada, Europe, Australia, etc., to impoverish ourselves and send our prosperity to Third World countries. It would be the greatest income transfer in history.

As such, the Paris accord fulfills the ambition of Marxism-Leninism from its conception. Communism failed to make all humans equal, even as they murdered 100,000,000 trying to do so and collapsed as a viable political system.World-government climate change mandates are just the thing to achieve the goals of communism.

For all the hysteria based on the fact that climate always fluctuates, the real threat to humanity, Islamic terrorism, is ignored by the worshippers in the Climate Change Church.

The Copenhagen climate conference of 2009 collapsed after exposure of climate data fraud at East Anglia University. Nevertheless, Herman van Rompuy, the European Union head, said that with climate change agreements "2009 is the first year of global governance" and is "another step to global management."

"Voluntary" may apply to other nations, but for us it will be mandatory, in effect. Climate-change religionists are already circling like buzzards looking for opportunities to sue somebody, anybody, to force compliance with global government's wishes. Laurent Fabius, presiding at the conference, said the standards are "voluntary but legally binding." Voluntary?

Under the Paris agreement Obama foisted on America, China will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions before 2030, if then. It will continue to drastically expand its use of demonized coal to produce electricity for their people. India demands a bribe before they do anything and they plan to double their use of coal anyway.

According to National Public Radio, no climate-change denier, we are required to send at least $100 billion per year to underdeveloped countries.

NPR says this is a floor, not a maximum. It will ramp up over the years. According to standard operating procedure, this largesse will not get to the needy people. Instead It will fund their kleptocrat rulers' lavish lifestyles and their offshore bank accounts. Example: China, ruled by "all animals are equal" communists, proves Animal Farm'sadage, "but some are more equal than others." Some of the richest billionaires on earth are high echelon members of the Chinese communist party.

NPR says further: Even the target date for reduction of greenhouse gases is a big guess. It's somewhere around "mid-century." In the near future CO2 will rise. Eventually, but not soon, emissions will decline. Nations aren't expected to reduce emissions immediately. Zero emissions is the goal, but we would have to completely shut down every beneficial greenhouse gas technology, to (possibly) achieve that objective.

For all the lost jobs, lost prosperity, strangling regulations (including on cow belches and farts,etc.)the illusive improvement in global temperature is only about 1.5 degrees centigrade in 85 years. The politicians negotiating the deal decided that at 2-degree rise "plucked out of air" would be unrealistic, but they moved to 1.5 degrees, even more unrealistic.

For all the hysteria based on the fact that climate always fluctuates, the real threat to humanity, Islamic terrorism, is ignored by the worshippers in the Climate Change Church. Non-believer and heretics are to be figuratively gagged, tortured and burned at the stake to save our souls.

Gerald Holland lives in Springhill.

Read or Share this story: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/opinion/2017/06/06/paris-climate-agreement-rooted-communism-letter/371555001/

Here is the original post:
Paris climate agreement rooted in communism: letter - Shreveport Times

Communism is one of our top all-time lookups, and user comments suggest thats because it is often used in opaque ways. In some sources, communism is equated with socialism; in others, it is contrasted with democracy and capitalism. Part of this confusion stems from the fact that the word communism has been applied to varying political systems over time. When it was first used in English prose, communism referred to an economic and political theory that advocated the abolition of private property and the common sharing of all resources among a group of people, and it was often used interchangeably with the word socialism by 19th-century writers. The differences between communism and socialism are still debated, but generally English speakers used communism to refer to the political and economic ideologies that find their origin in Karl Marxs theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocates a proletariat overthrow of capitalist structures within a society, societal and communal ownership and governance of the means of production, and the eventual establishment of a classless society. The most well-known expression of Marxs theories is the 20th-century Bolshevism of the U.S.S.R., in which the state, through a single authoritarian party, controls a societys economy and social activities with the goal of realizing Marxs theories.

Communism is often contrasted with capitalism and democracy, though these can be false equivalencies depending on the usage. Capitalism refers to an economic theory in which a societys means of production are held by private individuals or organizations, not the government, and where prices, distribution of goods, and products are determined by a free market. It can be contrasted with the economic theories of communism, though the word communism is used of both political and economic theories. Democracy refers to a system of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised through a system of direct or indirect representation which is decided through periodic free elections. Democracy is contrasted with communism primarily because the 20th-century communism of the U.S.S.R. was characterized by an authoritarian government, whereas the democracy of the 20th-century U.S. was characterized by a representative government.

View post:
Socialism | Definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster

On Friday the United Kingdom could have Marxist leaders for the first time in our history. It is an unlikely prospect, but inherent to our democracy is the uncertainty that choice represents. Some may think this remarkable after the great partnership of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and winning the Cold War.

Polling shows strong support for Jeremy Corbyns Labour Party among young voters. Corbyn (pictured) would choose as his finance minister John McDonnell, who has made his Marxist sympathies clear. Of course the Berlin Wall came down 27 years ago. For those born after it, or who were too young to remember it, the solidarity that Corbyn expressed for a totalitarian Communist regime might seem an obscure historical point.

Instead, some voters are attracted to all the free stuff being promised in Labours manifesto fee child care, free college tuition, more welfare money, more NHS spending and so on. All the state controls to magically provide lower rents, lower prices and higher pay.

There has been a surreal discussion about the level of costings that Labour has offered. For instance, they have proposed increased Corporation Tax. Yet all the evidence is that increasing the Corporation Tax rate would result in reduced Corporation Tax revenue.

That is the reality of the modern, global economy. Unfortunately, it is not a reality that the media or the Conservatives have pushed the electorate to confront. The claim that tax hikes can automatically raise more money has not been greatly scrutinised.

There is an even more fundamental point about Labours entire economic programme. Corbynomics would impoverish the nation. We have seen around the world how hardline socialist measures have been followed by economic collapse. Corbyns election chief Andrew Murray has praised North Korea. That is a country where forced labour and starvation of political weapons of the regime.

There is Venezuela, the model that Corbyn wishes to follow, where socialism has led to food shortages and civil unrest. Zimbabwe shows what happens under widespread nationalisation and hyperinflation. Fidel Castro impoverished and enslaved Cuba. Yet Corbyn called Castro a champion of social justice.

How long would it take for Britain to be ruined under Corbyn? It is not as if the British public finances are in a terribly strong state as it is. The annual deficit has been falling, but more slowly than scheduled. Meanwhile, the National Debt escalates ever more dangerously. Remember this has happened under a Conservative Government which has aimed for prudence, despite the noisy demands for a more indulgent approach.

Imagine if the next government took its feet off the brakes. A binge of state spending and borrowing would threaten bankruptcy. We could face the Greek scenario of cash machines refusing to pay out money and public sector staff being delayed in being paid their salaries.

Still, at least Corbyn has won the praise of Senator Bernie Sanders. I have been very impressed by the campaign that he has been running and I wish him the very best, said Sanders recently. This is hardly surprising but is certainly not reassuring. The two men are alike. Both spout rhetoric about helping the poor. Yet across the globe we can see the appalling poverty caused by the socialist policies they demand.

Originally posted here:
Socialism Always Results in Economic Collapse and the UK Could be Next - Heat Street

In Berlin, the great Galerie Berinson presents a representative cross-section of Lithuanian photography from the 60s and 70s by showing 71 masterpieces in black and white from twelve Lithuanian photographers. The works are photographic reports from a social, political and artistic epoch everyday life under and beyond socialism.

Amongst the selection of works are shown photographs by three of the most influential photographers from Eastern Europe:Vitas Luckus(1943-1987),Aleksandras Macijauskas(*1938), andAntanas Sutkus(*1939) who is honored with the Dr. Erich-Salomon-Award from the German society for Photography (DGPh). Lithuanias history of photography is shaped by both, the influences from Western Europe and the Soviet cultural context. Between 1945 and 1991 a narrative- descriptive reporting photography developed known as the Lithuanian photography school in the history of photography.

Here, the photographers concentrate on a personal and realistic depiction of everyday life.The fundamental loci of life are central ones homeland, the market place, the countryside. Their works withdrew from the largely anonymous and ideologically influenced photography scene of the Soviet Union and became a kind of subtle social criticism that focused on profane and simple subjects.

The Lithuanian school of photography May 19 July 29, 2017 Galerie Berinson Schlterstrae 28 10629 Berlin Germany

http://www.berinson.de/

View post:
The Lithuanian school of photography, everyday life under and ... - The Eye of Photography