CDZ Outline for disruption of Government

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Dan Stubbs, Sep 7, 2018.

  1. Dan Stubbs

    Dan Stubbs FORGET ---- HELL

    May 4, 2017
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Some where in the South.
    I was cleaning out my Harddrive and found this old outline that was mailed many years ago.
    From the Stalinist Communist International to the
    George Soros-funded Criminals Lobby: Disrupting the
    Courts and Frustrating Justice Under the Cover ofAdvancing Human RightsReport prepared for America’s Survival, Inc. October 27, 2011,

    “Soros Files” Confe
    Angela Davis was acquitted on all charges of aiding murder and
    kidnapping in a notorious 1972 case that illustrated a glaring weakness in
    the American judicial system: justice can be subverted by the activities of
    communists committed to making the defendant into a “political prisoner”
    who deserved to be free. Davis has since co-founded the Soros-funded
    “Critical Resistance” organization to establish a “world without prisons.”



    In 1932, at Stalin’s behest, the International Labor Defense (ILD), legal
    arm of the Comintern-backed American Communist Party, hijacked the
    defense of the Scottsboro Trials in the hope of sparking race-and-class
    riots that would lead to the overthrow of the U.S. government “from
    below.” The Comintern was the Communist International.
    During World War II and the Cold War, the Soviet-front National
    Lawyers Guild, itself a spin-off from the ILD, defended Communist spies
    and would-be revolutionaries from censure and investigation while
    claiming to be motivated only by the prerogatives of free speech and

    free association.

    In the 1960s, at William Kunstler’s behest, attorneys at the Center for
    Constitutional Rights lurched leftward, shifting from defending
    principled civil rights protestors to representing murderous political
    revolutionaries, Communist terrorists, Islamic radicals, and violent
    street criminals, all in the name of “fighting injustice.”
    And in 2011, a new level of sophistication in efforts to interference in
    American legal sovereignty came to light when a group of radical law
    professors, Soros-funded advocacy groups, United Nations officials, and
    even President Obama and the U.S. State Department campaigned to
    impose international human rights law on the Texas-jurisdiction death
    penalty case of rapist-murderer Humberto Leal.i
    In each of these instances, activists attempted to use U.S. courts to

    advance anti-capitalist and Anti-American causes that would likely fail if
    brought before the American public for legislative consideration. While
    the names and allegiances of these revolutionary movements have
    changed over time, their strategies remain surprisingly consistent:

    • Declare human rights as one’s motive
    • Deny the legitimacy of U.S. jurisprudence while demanding access to the courts
    • Disrupt the orderly functioning of the courts, through protest orcourtroom exploits


    • Defund the justice system by placing excessive demands on it orexploiting its rules and procedures

    For a period during the Cold War, the American Bar Association (ABA)
    took the lead in exposing the infiltration of anti-American groups in the
    legal profession and detailed the tactics these groups used. But the
    ABA’s efforts, and reasonable, early inquiries by the House Un-American
    Activities Commission during this era have largely been forgotten or
    discredited in the generalized backlash against Senator Joseph


    Meanwhile, by the late-1960s, both crime and civil disorder soared out
    of control, just as the justice system grappled with demands for civil
    rights. Activists viewed the human tragedy of unsafe city life as an
    opportunity. Coinciding with unprecedented crime rates was the
    invention of the “root causes” theory of crime, which posits that social
    and income inequality, not individual free will, is to be blamed for
    people’s decisions to commit criminal acts. Soon root causes thinking
    predominated in courtrooms and academia and throughout the
    institutions created by the War on Poverty, where it was used to justify
    lenience for “underprivileged” criminals. The implications of rising
    violent crime and lowered resistance to it were devastating to poor
    Americans. The threat of communist infiltration from outside, it might
    be said, was supplanted in this era by a far more effective form of
    collectivism: inaction on crime due to the “collective guilt” of society for

    the actions of criminals.

    Consequently, many millions of families, not just whites, fled cities for
    suburbs where they could lead safer lives. By 1971, the head of the
    National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Milton
    S. Eisenhower, observed that, of the 10 million serious crimes
    committed in the United States in 1970, only 11⁄2% resulted in even
    temporary incarceration for anyone. “It would be hard to argue that
    crime does not pay,” observed Lloyd Cutler, another Commission
    member: “[t]he sad fact is that our criminal justice system . . . does not
    deter, does not detect, does not convict, and does not correct.”ii It would
    seem that the mandate to “deny, disrupt, and defund” the justice system
    in the name of human rights for criminals had succeeded even before
    the revolutions of the Sixties subsided, a success that still failed to deter
    the appetite of radicals demanding more lenience and less crime control.
    And in important ways, lenience towards criminals has remained the
    status quo for the last forty years. Despite the professionalization of
    police forces and demonstrations of success in fighting crime in parts of
    New York City and elsewhere, other neighborhoods and cities that were
    blighted by crime in 1970 have, in the final analysis, failed to recover
    much semblance of security and normal life. Cities such as Detroit are
    permanently destroyed. Dozens of others remain viable only because of
    periodic, massive transfers of federal taxpayer funding for rescue and
    rebuilding, money that often falls into the hands of groups such as


    If this was a bloody revolution for the public, it was an oddly bloodlessone for the revolutionaries themselves, which may help explain their
    ever-escalating demands. The very “deniers, disrupters, and de- funders” of law enforcement now run universities, law schools, and
    bureaucracies, or they are valorized in the echo chambers of these
    institutions. They hold elected office and even positions of authority
    within the law enforcement agencies and courts they once picketed – or
    bombed. Protest itself now frequently comes with a pay scale and a
    pension, usually paid by the taxpayers who also must pay for things like
    higher insurance rates and home security systems because of the “sad
    facts” created by the radical activists of the Sixties.
    Unsurprisingly, given this reward-loop, from positions of power within
    the legal profession – including dominance in the increasingly liberal
    ABA – activists continue chip away at the justice system’s legitimacy and
    the public’s demand for safety. They oppose every effort to incarcerate
    repeat and violent offenders for substantial periods of time, achieving
    both economic and legislative victories against hard-won “three-strikes”
    laws and recidivism sentencing. They’re winning the fight to enforce
    death sentences for criminal cop killers and even to enforce sentences of
    life without parole for the most violent offenders. They oppose national
    security measures to prevent terrorism, and they advocate for
    increasingly extreme open borders policies and privileges for illegal
    immigrants, including voting rights for people in the United States
    illegally. These were issues the Communists of the thirties saw as


    “tools” to advance the ultimate cause of revolution and radicals of the
    sixties (the ones who weren’t also Communists) saw as means to the
    end that they defined as “justice.”

    Whereas, eighty years ago, a Communist organizer spent his evenings in
    endless meetings in grim walk-ups with “fellow travelers,” and forty
    years ago, a William Kunstler worked the jury box of the courtroom,
    playing the role of legal gadfly to the hilt, today’s revolutionaries are
    likely to be situated in posh legal institutions, academia, government
    agencies, NGOs, or “the new media.” But despite everything that has
    changed, and despite their essentially bureaucratic roles, the unified
    message these activist broadcast is as radical as anything Kunstler ever
    uttered into a reporter’s microphone on the steps of a Manhattan
    Courthouse. The message itself has not changed in eighty years, no
    matter how much everything else has changed:
    America is a police state with fascist law enforcement and a racist
    criminal justice system. America persecutes immigrants and denies theirrights. Capitalism victimizes everybody.

    The price of repeating this mantra is evident in the running homicide
    reportsiii recorded in newspapers like the Los Angeles Times: violent
    crime is more intra-racial and concentrated among young black and
    Hispanic males – as victims and offenders -- than it was in 1970, when
    responsible leaders such as Milton S. Eisenhower and Patrick Moynihan
    sounded alarms about the high rates of black-on-black violence.
    However, those in charge today have reacted merely by perfecting their
    denials of the toll of four decades of accommodating extreme lawlessness.
    The new radicals have a stranglehold on the message, and none
    more so than George Soros, who, despite his billions, fits the model
    of the 1930’s communist infiltrators who tried to exploit America’s
    racial failings, not to achieve justice, but to destabilize the
    government and foment revolutionary change. Soros claims to not
    be a communist, but he talks like one and acts like one and
    strategizes like one in his focused effort to exploit opposition to
    crime control and subsume the authority of the American legal
    system to international human rights treaties, at any cost to
    ordinary Americans.

    The purpose of this report is to offer a very brief tour of eighty years of
    communist’s and radical’s use of crime and the courts for political ends
    in America, in order to offer some perspective on where George Soros is
    coming from, and where he might be going, through the disparate legal
    activism he is currently funding. Soros claims that his master plan is to
    advance the cause of what he call “Open Society” and what critics David
    Horowitz and Richard Poe have more accurately named “The Shadow
    Party”: bureaucratic and political institutions that parasitically sap
    public resources and democratic power.

    Some of George Soros’ activism apes the old Comintern/National
    Lawyers Guild strategy of trying to undermine national sovereignty
    with international laws in the name of human rights. Some activists
    replay the nihilistic courtroom and jailhouse performance art perfected
    by William Kunstler in the Sixties; others do the same under faceless
    bureaucratic cover. In all, thousands of lawyers, bureaucrats,
    academicians, and “activists” promote dozens of law-related causes
    through hundreds of networked and coalitioning organizations, all of
    them connected by one thing: George Soros’ money. It is time to pay
    more attention to where he is taking our justice system.7


    1. Communist Infiltration in the Legal Profession in the 1930s: The
    Scottsboro Example

    2. Communist Infiltration in the Legal Profession During the Cold
    War: Investigating the National Lawyers Guild’s Split Loyalties
    3. William Kunstler and the Racial Radicalization of the Center for
    Constitutional Rights

    4. The Bureaucratization of Soros’ “Criminals Lobby”
    • Communist Infiltration in the Legal Profession in the 1930’s:

    The Scottsboro Example

    In 1931, nine black youths were charged with raping two white women
    on a train outside Scottsboro, Alabama. The plight of several young
    black men being threatened with lynching or unjust trials drew
    international attention. Clarence Darrow and the National Association
    for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sought to represent
    the youths, but the Communist Party’s International Labor Defense(ILD) attorneys convinced the defendants to choose their counsel instead.

    For most of the 1920’s, the Community Party in Moscow had viewed the
    American “race problem” as fertile ground for fomenting revolutionary
    action to overthrow the American capitalist government. In 1928,
    American Communists were informed by the Soviet Comintern that they
    were to seek a separate “republic” for blacks in the American South and
    that rights-seeking black groups such as the NAACP were to be viewed
    as anathematic to the Party’s revolutionary goals.iv
    It was against this backdrop that the ILD took on the Scottsboro defense.
    They organized train-tours and mass protests and made inflammatory
    speeches against Alabama officials to heighten “revolutionary” fervor,
    further risking the defendants’ lives. The ILD accused the NAACP and
    other black leaders of being in cahoots with the Ku Klux Klan, and they
    used the case for fundraising.

    The ILD only abandoned their dangerous exploitation of the Scottsboro
    defendants in 1935 when instructed to do so by Moscow, which was
    growing anxious about the rise of Hitler and feeling the need to join
    forces with socialists and progressives they had previously denounced.
    Overnight, the ILD handed the reins of the Scottsboro defense to the
    NAACP and other parties.v

    The Communist ILD was hardly the only group to exploit the Scottsboro
    defendants. But the spectacle of the ILD pursuing death penalty cases
    with black defendants in the Jim Crow South in order to advance its
    revolutionary politics resonates in the anti-death penalty activism of today.

    • Communist Infiltration in the Legal Profession During the Cold
    War: Investigating the National Lawyers Guilds Split Loyalties
    Today it is difficult to even talk about the fact that in the years preceding
    and following World War II, there actually were groups of Communist- Party affiliated American lawyers plotting the end of democratic
    American government and taking marching orders from Stalin’s
    Comintern to “overthrow . . . the international bourgeoisie . . . for the
    creation of an international Soviet republic.”vi Such historical realities
    are dismissed out of hand as fictional products of the “Red Scare.”
    Generations of students have now been carefully schooled to believe
    that, throughout the first decade of the Cold War, a sort of collective
    madness struck Washington officials, causing them to persecute ever- widening groups of people for political beliefs that could only – must only – be benign.
    Playwrights and movie stars, the story goes, and nuclear scientists, and
    college professors, were subjected to “witch-hunts” no more fact-based
    than the original Salem Witch Trials. Arthur Miller enshrined this
    conceit in his play, The Crucible, which frequently stands in as
    schoolchildren’s main or sole exposure to the subject of Cold War America.
    But in 1953, the view was different. Herbert Brownell Jr., Attorney
    General of the United States under President Eisenhower, who issued
    alarms about Communist infiltration in the ranks of the American legal
    profession, was also a highly credible defender of social progress and
    civil rights. Brownell argued against racial segregation in Brown v.
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Dan Stubbs

    Dan Stubbs FORGET ---- HELL

    May 4, 2017
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Some where in the South.
    This was Email from a FBI agent who is long dead and was only partly received but it contain stuff that is still current.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. fncceo

    fncceo Gold Member

    Nov 29, 2016
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    The stuff I clean out of my hard drive periodically isn't fit to be posted here.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  4. C_Clayton_Jones

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Apr 28, 2011
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    In a Republic, actually
    The ridiculous right is becoming more ridiculous and deranged.
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Toronado3800

    Toronado3800 Gold Member

    Nov 15, 2009
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    How about we meet here. Stalin was a terrible human being.

    We fought in their revolutionary war against the commies.

    We flew over their country and got shot down.

    We spied on them.

    They spied on us.

    We tried to kill Castro and launched an invasion of Cuba.

    They murdered A LOT of ppl they did not like.

    We murdered a couple we didn't like.

    They tried to spread communism. We fought it.

    Our republic and mixed capitalistic system is better.

    Do we agree?

Share This Page