What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ Outline for disruption of Government

Dan Stubbs

FORGET ---- HELL
Joined
May 4, 2017
Messages
7,068
Reaction score
1,013
Points
290
Location
Some where in the Deep 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.”

2

Summary

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

3

• 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

McCarthy.

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

ACORN.

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

5

“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

Outline

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.
 
OP
Dan Stubbs

Dan Stubbs

FORGET ---- HELL
Joined
May 4, 2017
Messages
7,068
Reaction score
1,013
Points
290
Location
Some where in the Deep 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.”

2

Summary

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

3

• 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

McCarthy.

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

ACORN.

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

5

“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

Outline

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.
This was Email from a FBI agent who is long dead and was only partly received but it contain stuff that is still current.
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
30,149
Reaction score
16,736
Points
1,915
The stuff I clean out of my hard drive periodically isn't fit to be posted here.
 

Toronado3800

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
7,608
Reaction score
559
Points
140
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.”

2

Summary

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

3

• 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

McCarthy.

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

ACORN.

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

5

“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

Outline

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.

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?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top