The Lesson Of Cuba – Facing Reality – Monday 26, January-2004 by David Comissiong By the time you read this column, I will be in Havana, Cuba, participating in the 3rd Hemispheric Congress at the "Struggle Against The Free Trade Area of The Americas".

Do everyone a favor and stay there.

Response:

        1969: Prague riots over student martyr       Police wielding truncheons and firing tear gas from pressure canisters break up a march by hundreds of demonstrators in central Prague. 1969: Prague riots over student martyr — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). begin 666 darkgraypixel.gif ` end

Response:

Miguel O’Pastel’s identity has been STOLEN to post this. Typical communist tactics! Aren’t all of you cumi

Hi, everyone!  Back from a long trip overseas, and still an advocate for visiting Burma. Can we just abandon the argument right now that we backpack

for the altruistic benefit that our presence confers on the citizens of developing countries in the way of "$ and conversation". Many indigenous peoples pray for a bit more "isolation" than they are currently receiving. Tracy, I haven’t found this to be the case in Burma.  One of the problems is the majority of visitors there are on tours and benefit the little guy very little . . . as they hire buses, not horsecarts, eat at big official places, not little local ones.  I have found the local, small business are thrilled with foreign contact and an opportunity to explore the world outside their environs and ask the questions they’ve been anxious to ask. Unless one speaks Burmese, the thrill of conversing with Westerners

is restricted to the elite of the country. Nope, sorry, but this sounds like someone who hasn’t been there.  Besides, when we buy street meals for the street kids (at 30 kyat pp, about 2 cents each), it doesn’t take a lot of conversing . . . and we’re still able to joke around and relate.  One time we bought a popped seed bunch at the market assuming it was for eating and several people mimed to us that it was for hair decoration! Amazing, among the people who don’t speak English, how much you can still communicate. And the $ don’t "trickle down" particularly far when buses, trains,

roads, guesthouses, currency-change, tourist sites and guides are licensed and controlled by the regime in their entirety. Also, not true.  They may wish they could control all, but . . . And, currency exchange!  That’s funny.  Guys come up to you in the street and you meet in tea shops and exchange under the table!  The roads don’t charge. If you hire independent guide, they’re total renegades.  And I find most drivers I independently hire are taking the trip because they can visit their family on the way. Oh well ….Maybe a few folks will reconsider their actions, anyway.

To the rest of you, enjoy the show put on by SLORC for your entertainment  ….. This ignores the inter-relatedness of the world.  The main investors in Burma are Japan, China and Singapore who create their own entities in the country. And as long as the US grants MFN status to China, they’re giving a green light to Burma.   Besides, it’s silly to think that the government can put on a show entirely. The people are going about their daily lives.  Visitors, for instance, in Yangon are free to walk anywhere, talk to anyone and observe anything (outside of military installations . . . such as they do in the  US).

Response:

I don’t really want this to go on and on and on, but the last few comments should be addressed:

Translation — you want to have the last word. Can we just abandon the argument right now that we backpack for the altruistic benefit that our presence confers on the citizens of developing countries in the way of "$ and conversation".

I don’t recall anyone saying that.  As I recall, it’s a benefit that occurs because of our own selfish tourism desires. And the $ don’t "trickle down" particularly far when buses, trains, roads, guesthouses, currency-change, tourist sites and guides are licensed and controlled by the regime in their entirety.

The two days (yes, only two) I spent daytripping along the border in Burma we bought food along the street, bought gems along the street, and rented pedicabs along the street.  The only $$$ that went to the junta was $10 American to be allowed over the bridge. As with Mandela, I expect many who opposed the tactics used by the resistance while the godawful regime was in power, (i.e. disinvestment) will join in the adulation after it falls. Missing the point that their cheap vacation and personal cultural enrichment may have helped delay that moment just a little bit longer.

So, in other words, if we don’t agree with you we are selfish and cannot be glad that the regieme is out of power when that day comes? Oh well ….Maybe a few folks will reconsider their actions, anyway. To the rest of you, enjoy the show put on by SLORC for your entertainment  …..

May we assume this is your last word on the topic.  Probably not.

Response:

I don’t really want this to go on and on and on, but the last few comments should be addressed: Can we just abandon the argument right now that we backpack for the altruistic benefit that our presence confers on the citizens of developing countries in the way of "$ and conversation". Many indigenous peoples pray for a bit more "isolation" than they are currently receiving. Unless one speaks Burmese, the thrill of conversing with Westerners is restricted to the elite of the country. And the $ don’t "trickle down" particularly far when buses, trains, roads, guesthouses, currency-change, tourist sites and guides are licensed and controlled by the regime in their entirety. As with Mandela, I expect many who opposed the tactics used by the resistance while the godawful regime was in power, (i.e. disinvestment) will join in the adulation after it falls. Missing the point that their cheap vacation and personal cultural enrichment may have helped delay that moment just a little bit longer. Oh well ….Maybe a few folks will reconsider their actions, anyway. To the rest of you, enjoy the show put on by SLORC for your entertainment  ….. Tracy

Response:

I don’t really want this to go on and on and on, but the last few comments should be addressed: Can we just abandon the argument right now that we backpack for the altruistic benefit that our presence confers on the citizens of developing countries in the way of "$ and conversation". Many indigenous peoples pray for a bit more "isolation" than they are currently receiving.

Nobody backpacks because of altruistic reasons.How can we ever know how many of the locals want our presence,our "$ and conversation" and how many pray for isolation?. Unless one speaks Burmese, the thrill of conversing with Westerners is restricted to the elite of the country.

Conversing is NOT limited to the elite.It is limited to those who speak English.Many of those who speak English oppose the junta.Their opinion is highly relevant in our case.As i said before most of the people i talked to oppose the junta’s regime,but they also oppose the boycott. And the $ don’t "trickle down" particularly far when buses, trains, roads, guesthouses, currency-change, tourist sites and guides are licensed and controlled by the regime in their entirety.

This might be true.Though on my treks out of Kalaw the $ certainly trickled down the the right people.The same it true in most of the basic restaurants and  hotels,street food stalls,souvenire stalls etc.etc. As with Mandela, I expect many who opposed the tactics used by the resistance while the godawful regime was in power, (i.e. disinvestment) will join in the adulation after it falls. Missing the point that their cheap vacation and personal cultural enrichment may have helped delay that moment just a little bit longer.

There is the important question what is the dominant parameter.The junta’s survival certainly does not depend on the tourist’s $.They survived and flourished for many years without these $ and will survive in the future if this will be the ONLY way to bring them down. But it is highly probable that the tourist’s influence is shortening the junta’s days .The more tourist the shorter the fewer the days of the junta’s rule.We,the tourists have a cardinal role in shaping the public opinion. Oh well ….Maybe a few folks will reconsider their actions, anyway. To the rest of you, enjoy the show put on by SLORC for your entertainment  …..

Our goal is identical.We "just" diverge on the means to reach it.But i think,yes, am almost sure,that if you go and visit Burma for a month.Experience the country and talk to the peole,you will change your mind. As to the Lonely Planet guide books and other means of publication.They get too much involved in politics to lose their objectivity in many cases.And this is true for many other regions of the world,not just for Burma.How this affects the quality of their guides is an open question. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Tracy

Response:

JUST SAY NO TO TOXICS: THE GREAT BOYCOTT    DOW SHALT NOT KILL, reads a poster published by United Silicone Victims to explain a boycott of Dow products. Other long-standing boycotts include those against Monsanto by Family Farm Defenders, Betty Martini, and the Pure Dairy Commission. Now a Great Boycott has been launched against these and other giant multinational producers of pesticides and other toxic chemicals and wastes.        Why would a group of healers, as well as health, environmental, and political activists, put time and energy into a boycott of multinational corporations? Perhaps Jon Rappoport explained it best in a 1994 lecture at the Whole Life Expo. Then a Congressional candidate, he emphasized that individuals who would heal or build health cannot ignore the health of local and global ecosystems, nor the political and economic health of the region, nation, and planet.    Whatever individuals learn about health and healing, they lack power to protect their health entirely. How can individuals avoid what abounds in local and global ecosystems? Murderous and indiscriminant, toxic pollution robs all people of choice.    Since the 1980s, Rappoport has warned of toxic pollution as an author, journalist, radio host, and lecturer at book stores, rallies, the Expo, and other gatherings of health-minded people. Underscoring the limitations of national regulations in controlling toxic hazards, he often described the circle of poison that results when American companies ship pesticides and chemicals banned in the United States to foreign countries, and Americans buy them back with imported food and other goods.      On February 16, Rappoport addressed Great Boycott activists gathered in the lecture hall of Deep River Books in Santa Monica. Crammed into aisles, spilling out the door, and overflowing into an adjacent patio, the audience listened as he explained how each year, globalization of business and trade concentrates more money and power into the hands of a few multinational corporations. This power impacts politics at all levels; contaminants in food, air, land, and water; and the quality of food and other goods available. The Great Boycott will discourage use of toxic substances and weaken the grip of multinational corporations on international politics.      The targets of the boycott are Dow, Du Pont, Monsanto, Imperial Chemical Industries (England), Rhone Poulenc (France), Ciba-Geigy (Switzerland), Bayer, and Hoechst (Germany), and subsidaries. The publication REVOLT AGAINST THE EMPIRE: WELCOME TO THE GREAT BOYCOTT, explains, in riveting, horrifying detail, the histories, products, and global health impact of the targeted companies. The strategies:     (1) Boycott their products; (2) Boycott their stock; (3) Tell others, including institutions, to sell their stock in these companies; (4) Don’t work for these corporations; (5) Pass the word.    The complexity of the corporations, the nature of their products, and the daunting scope of the boycott generates scores of "yes buts." Here are Rappoport’s answers to some common "yes buts."      Yes but: Shouldn’t we be boycotting corporation X?    R: By all means, add them to the list of corporations you or your group boycott. These eight key corporations were chosen as leading manufacturers of pesticides, as well as major sources of toxic chemicals, chlorine based products, and billions of pounds of industrial wastes. Poisons, you might say, are their life. They are all forwarding genetic projects to engineer food seeds so that our food supply in the fields will accept much higher doses of herbicides without curling up and dying.  You will ingest these higher levels of herbicide.    Yes but: Shouldn’t you be working with and through Organization X?  Shouldn’t you do X…?    R: No! YOU should. The Great Boycott is not run as an organization with a single leader and a cadre of assistants. This boycott if it succeeds will be run by small groups and individuals world-wide. The organizations that have endorsed the boycott will support it as they choose: a mention in the newsletter, a world wide letterwriting and faxing campaign, or a demonstration. You can make a phenomenal impact even on your own.      Yes but: How does an individual consumer boycott these, or retail junk we would not buy in the first place?    R: All the more reason to spread the word. Obtain the flyer and the press release about the Great Boycott. If you do nothing else, send it to store managers, leave it in restaurants, post it on bulletin boards, put it between the pages of a library book about environmental poisons. Put it on the Internet. Fax it to as many numbers as you can, including those of publications and groups.      Yes but: Many of their products are sold to wholesalers, large industries, and farmers.    R: Emphasize the disinvestment element. A corporation cannot survive if people don’t buy its stock, A company’s stock rises and falls, not only on its performance, but on people’s expectations. A little loss of confidence can initiate a drop that accelerates to a plunge.    Yes but: I don’t buy stocks.      R: You might contact stock brokers, portfolio managers, and investment consultants. Your IRA or your pension plan at work may be invested in stock. One of our supporters talks to the stock brokers and money managers who call to solicit her business.    Yes but: Isn’t this awfully negative?    R: Negative? Try global poisoning of air, water, soil, food and all life forms by powerful multinationals. Or the murderous litany of side effects listed for their drugs in the PDR. Besides poisons on a colossal scale, we are up against monopolies of monstrous power. By all means, take positive steps: buy and raise organic produce, meditate, seek alternative products, but you break a monopoly by boycotting its stock and products, then laying down real alternatives to the needs it pretends to fill.    Yes but: How can a few hundred Davids affect the behavior or survival of eight multinational Goliaths?    R: It depends on how well these so-called "Davids," overcome the initial inertia. They can easily become millions of "Davids" and starve the "Goliaths." Always remember: people support these corporations with their purchase of product and stock, and their labor. These corporation need us. We don’t need them.    Far from languishing in inertia, a group of Davids has charged ahead, Faxing press releases, writing letters, and sending out Faxes. Millions more are needed. William Dailey and Don Kidson have offered the use of the Hardware Humanitarian House at 1427 12th St., Santa Monica, 395-6337, for interested groups to meet. Rappoport will conduct meetings there the first Sunday of each month, –March 3, April 7, and May 5– from 6:00–8:00 P.M.  A $1 donation to the House would be appreciated. A partial list of boycotted products:    Dow: Ziploc bags, Fantastik, Handi-Wrap, Saran Wrap, Spray ‘n Wash, Dow Bathroom Cleaner, Glass Plus Multisurface Cleaner, Smart Scrub, Ultra Yes Laundry Detergent, Vivid Bleach, Style and Permasoft hair products, Nicorette, Norhistamine, Cepacol, Gly- oxide, Gaviscon, Cepastat, Citrucel, Delbrox, Os-Cal, Styrofoam plastic products, Starane, Spike, Verdict, Trefflan, and Dursban    Du Pont Du Pont brand paints, cement, and lacquers; Lucite paints; Benlate, Benomyl, and Carbendazim; Conoco, Jet and Seca petroleum products; Teflon; High Impact, Magnathin, Magnum, Prime Plus, and Stren fishing lines.    Monsanto NutraSweet, Equal; Simplesse; Simple Pleasures Frozen Dairy Desserts, Salad Dressing, and Mayonnaise; Roundup, Dimension; the Flavr Savr tomato, products containing BGH.    Bayer All Bayer aspirins, Alkaseltzer, One-A-Day Vitamins, Flintstone Chewable Vitamins, SOS Scouring Pads, Bugs Bunny Vitamins, and Cutter insect repellent.  Ciba-Geigy: Funk Seeds Products, SoftColor and Vision Care contact lenses, Nupercaine Ointment, Privine Nasal Spray, Doan’s Pills, Fiberall Laxative, Sunkist Vitamins, Accutrim, and Ten-K.           For flyers, information about The Great Boycott and specific products, call 213/243-9005. For in depth information about the boycott and the companies, obtain a copy of REVOLT AGAINST THE EMPIRE: WELCOME TO THE GREAT BOYCOTT, with full reproduction and distribution rights, from Deep River Books, or send a check to Jon Rappoport, 2633 Lincoln Boulevard, #256, Santa Monica, Calif. Price: $8. Or photocopy a friend’s. AN ABRIDGED VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN WHOLE LIFE TIMES.

Response:

Once again the political culture and corporate press triumph over common sense in the recurring No Peace Divident chorus which informs us that the economic conversion proposals of Larry Agran and others are impossible, impractical — if not indeed harmful! — and that we should follow the Reagan/Bush/Congress course of the last 12 years which has brought us to the sparkling bright economic state of affairs we find ourselves in today. Note first the sequence of events and circle of logic followed: over the past 12 years, there has been massive state intervention in the economy by means of a vastly increased taxpayer subsidy of the military-industrial complex; namely, VAST cuts in spending on the pillars of a strong economy and society — education, job training, housing, repairing and improving infrastructure, etc — have been made while at the same time vastly increasing military spending. Another noteworthy feature was a transfer, also massive, of wealth from the poor, and interestingly, the middle-class, according to the same studies and analyses, to the very wealthy, who have gotten wealthier still while the poor have become more desperate and the middle class has gotten the same pleasant treatment. The "government off your back" policies, in short, meant not only taking government services "off our backs" (in essence, theft of our tax-dollars, which instead of providing the services, infrastructure, etc, referred to above, go to military contractors, U.S.-taxpayer subsidies to multinational corporations by means of government "loans" to other countries forcing them to buy from U.S. corporations while most their population starves, unable to but these), but that 90% of Americans are paying MORE taxes now than they did in 1977 — but the *richest* are paying less. The studies, articles, and references to all of these I have posted in the past in the 40-part _Decline of America_ series, which also documented the consequences of these policies: unfant mortality and general health care below nearly all the other Western industrial countries; less extreme but similar symptoms in low-birthweight babies, child poverty, students per teacher; twice the cost per unit of GNP as Germany or Japan (following disinvestment in mass-transit, renewable energy, conservation, etc); the world’s highest per-capita imprisonment rate, as federal disinestment in cities, education, etc causes deepending decay, crime, and drug use (with wholesale rejection of drug-treatment seekers due to limitations on funding miniscule next to near-useless lock-em-up, crop-burning, and border-patrol budgets) escalate. In short, as it matters little to the elite in power if the "lower" masses (us) live in misery and decay, the "deficit" was run up as a tool to deny spending *our* tax-dollars on services for Americans — instead fueling the military industrial complex, giving the super-rich tax-breaks, and generally allowing them to have a "party" the tab for which we, the ordinary tax-paying Americans are natually called upon to pay(*) — now, when the deficit is starting to worry these elites, we are called upon to enjoy higher taxes and lower-still benefits to pay for the cost of the deficit ran up by these policies which themselves included massive social cuts. (*)In part, with the S&L scandal including a mere TRILLION dollars in unnecessary interest over the next 40 years (OMB) since it is necessary to pay for the mess "quietly", hence over a long period of time, since it is not the rascals but the American public which is being handed the bill. An expanded _Decline of America_ will be programmed, probably for this summer, although references are available at any time. [Chart Enclosed below, which comprised 3/40th of the _Decline of America_ series; in part two of this article, following this background, I address more directly the arguments of the No-Peace-Divident crowd -- I say "directly," not "seriously," because the arguments do not withstand the merest scrutiny.]  - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –         [Send the 1-line message GET FED-BDGT PRIORITY ACTIV-L to]         [Send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to above address for a ]         [listing with brief descriptions of other files available]                 W i n n e r s   &   L o s e r s          | Fact Sheet |                   Federal Spending From 1980 – 1990                        (adjusted for inflation) Percentage Increase/decrease      |      |                            Military      |      |                               +46% +50% |      |                             XXXXXX +40% |                             XXXXXX      |                             XXXXXX +30% |                             XXXXXX      |                             XXXXXX +20% |                             XXXXXX      |                             XXXXXX +10% |                             XXXXXX      |                             XXXXXX      | XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX            XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX -10% | XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX            XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX    xxxx      | XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX            XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX     -20% | XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX            XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX     -7%      | XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX            XXXXXX   XXXXXX             -30% | XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX            XXXXXX             -19%     Educa-      | XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX             XXXX     -25%              cation -40% | XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX                               Child      | XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX             -33%    Farmers  Nutrition -50% | XXXXXX   XXXXXX    XXXX                      Home      | XXXXXX                               Mass    Admin. -60% | XXXXXX    -49%     -48%            Transit      | XXXXXX                   -70% | XXXXXX   Health   Employment      | XXXXXX    Care    & Training -80% |  xxxx   Services      |      |  -77%      | Housing              This chart measures how much spending has changed as a              result of federal budget policies from 1980 to 1990. Source: OMB (Office of Management and Budget) Watch 1731 Connecticut         Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009               J O B S   W I T H   P E A C E   C A M P A I G N             National Office: 76 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110 Email:

Response:

For further information see: Author:        King, Dennis. Title:         Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism / Dennis King. 1st                  ed. New York : Doubleday, 1989. Description:   xv, 415 p., [8] p. of plates : ill. ; 25 cm. Notes:         Includes index.                Bibliography: p. [379]-397. Subjects:      LaRouche, Lyndon H. — Political and social views.                Politicians — United States — Biography.                Fascism — United States.                United States — Politics and government — 1981-

Response:

For further information see: Author:        King, Dennis. Title:         Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism / Dennis King. 1st

What does this have to do  with the subject?  Its a slander by someone from the drug lobby — not too useful.                  ed. New York : Doubleday, 1989. —- Please respond by e-mail as I get very far behind in reading this newsgroup.          John Covici

Response:

For further information see: Author:        King, Dennis. Title:         Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism / Dennis King. 1st                  ed. New York : Doubleday, 1989. Description:   xv, 415 p., [8] p. of plates : ill. ; 25 cm. Notes:         Includes index.                Bibliography: p. [379]-397.

        This is an excellent and scarry book. If you want a copy of it, cheap, try writing to:         Edward R. Hamilton         Bookseller         Falls Village, CT 06031-5000         Catalogue # 973262  cost $3.95 (originally $19.95)         I’m a very satisfied ERH customer, ask to be on the list for their catalogue, they deal in everything from politics to fiction ALL REAL CHEAP. Dave D. Cawley             |    Where a social revolution is pending and, University Of Scranton     |    for whatever reason, is not accomplished,

Response:

Jerry Brown and his agenda for the destruction of America by Brian Lantz Over recent weeks, Jerry Brown, the former governor of California, has taken a place on the national political stage. Receiving major mass media attention, Brown is now talking of waging an independent presidential campaign. A political lightweight, he has taken no responsibility for the nation. Instead, he was holed up in a Japanese Zen Buddhist monastery, and then chaired one of the most corrupt Democratic Party organizations in the country.    Consider the proposed economic policies of Jerry Brown. Over the last six years, Mexico has undergone a 50% reduction in standards of living under the banner of cleaning out corruption and pursuing free market economic methods. The program carried forward by Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari is tagged “social liberalism.” Jerry Brown proposes it for the United States.    Consider who likes Jerry Brown’s economics. In a commentary in the March 17 {Washington Times,} supply-side economist Art Laffer, adviser to the Reagan administration, is quoted stating, “Jerry Brown has a very rational, well-thought-out economic program. In terms of competitiveness, I think his proposals right now would take America soaring into the 21st century.” Cato Institute fiscal policy director Stephen Moore said, “It’s probably the soundest economic strategy of any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat…. The ’90s would be a decade of explosive economic growth and the U.S. tax code would become a model for the world.”    Laffer and Moore are speaking of Brown’s proposal for a flat 13% income tax on individuals and businesses, a value-added tax on business activity, and “enterprise zones” in high unemployment areas. Brown’s proposed value-added tax would penalize capital investment and amount to a 10-20% tax passed on to the ultimate consumer of all products–in short, a tax increase. Brown, who advocates a return to convict labor, would also have welfare recipients use their checks as vouchers that companies could supplement with jobs and salaries. In Mexico, Brown’s free enterprise zones are called {maquiladoras,} part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), an Auschwitz south of the border. Under conditions of desperate unemployment levels, these zones would mean the reintroduction of slave labor into the United States.                  - Record as governor –    Is this a new Jerry Brown? Absolutely not. In eight years as governor of California between 1974 to 1982, Brown carried forward and amplified the devastating economic policies begun under the Ronald Reagan governorship of 1968-74. As governor, Brown endorsed California’s Proposition 13 populist tax revolt, which wrecked local and county government and school board budgets. Today, California school districts are declaring bankruptcy. As governor, Brown also continued the emptying of state mental health institutions, also begun under Reagan. The mentally ill, many of them former wards of the state, are now among the hardened core of that state’s homeless, the largest number in the nation.    Jerry Brown’s environmental policies are better known, such as his protection of the Mediterranean Fruitfly. The “Medfly” is now endemic, and costs California agriculture millions of dollars a year. Brown’s “Small is Beautiful” philosophy was used to sell a package of policies to Californians which wrecked the infrastructure of the state. Brown personally killed the construction of the Sundesert nuclear power plant and sabotaged completion of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for years. In the decade encompassing Brown’s governorship, industry energy costs skyrocketed by as much as 900%. As a result, industrial jobs shrank and energy consumption, even with a growing state population, grew at less than 2% a year, compared to projections of 6-8%.    The same insane policies were applied by Governor Brown to other areas of California’s basic infrastucture. Under Brown and President Jimmy Carter, dam projects came to a standstill, contributing to today’s much-publicized water crisis. Highway and road construction and maintenance ground to a halt. California under Governor Brown built only a quarter as many miles of highways and freeways as it did under Reagan–2,110 miles versus 8,788 miles. (For the record, Governor Reagan had already begun disinvesting through neglected road maintenance and non-existent investment on mass transit–$508,000 in eight years.) For example, in 1978-79, California ranked {last} per capita among all states in expenditures on streets, roads, and freeways. In short, there was a total net disinvestment in vital “hard” and “soft” infrastructure during the Reagan-Brown years.    Today, on the presidential campaign trail, Jerry Brown advocates the same policies, proposing, for example, that he will save $300 billion a year by cutting national energy consumption. This, he slyly states, will create 7 million jobs. Where? Brown proposes minimum wage jobs in a civilian conservation corps, complementing his convict labor and “enterprise zone” schemes.    In the Feb. 19, 1981 {San Francisco Chronicle,} Jerry Brown argued that then-President Reagan’s economic program–bank deregulation, usury, and speculation–was “a comprehensive attack on the problem and, as governor … I plan to join with him in working to achieve a more more vigorous economy at a low rate of inflation…. The era of excess is over…. There will be cutbacks. We’ve been doing that at the state level, the local level, and now it’s going to the federal level.”           – Jerry Brown and David Duke agree –    In 1980, Brown’s ghoulish agenda came out in the open in a scandal involving his secretary of resources director Huey Johnson. In remarks before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Johnson launched into an attack on “overpopulation.” As California was quickly destroying its productive economic base, suddenly it was overpopulated. Johnson demanded expanded abortion services, denial of personal tax exemptions beyond the first or second child and tax penalties for large families, cutbacks on low-income housing, and a closing of U.S. borders. California must limit its population to its “carrying capacity” or face “ultimate disaster,” he said. “Population is the ultimate gun barrel at the head of society.” Two-thirds of the state Senate and the Hispanic Caucus called for Brown to fire Johnson. But as Huey Johnson publicly predicted, Brown stood by him.    Brown met Huey Johnson through the San Francisco Zen Center. Johnson had served as a director of the Nature Conservancy and, in 1969, had served as chairman of the Unesco conference on “Man and His Environment: A View Towards Survival,” held in San Francisco. It was here that the genocidal Club of Rome was launched. Johnson was also a collaborator of anthropologist Dame Margaret Meade. Jerry Brown brought Meade’s husband, Gregory Bateson, into his administration as a special adviser. Bateson inaugurated Brown’s administration with a sermon praising the use of the hallucinogen peyote.    Jerry Brown’s New Age style and much-publicized $100 campaign contribution limit are just part of a media package. Brown is himself a millionaire, with holdings in stocks and real estate. His campaign adviser is Jimmy Carter’s pollster Pat Caddell. His sister, now state treasurer, is married to Van Gordon Slater, former CBS News chief and mentor of Dan Rather. As Jerry Brown’s longtime political ally Tom Hayden gleefully put it, “The $100 limit is the blue Plymouth of the ’90s. Jerry has designed a campaign where every attack–from Republicans, Democrats, or the media–is proof that he’s right.” Hayden is referring to the used blue Plymouth which Jerry Brown drove as governor, publicly eschewing a limousine.        - Organized crime in the Democratic Party –    The March 22 announcement by the Clinton campaign that it was naming Californian Mickey Kantor to be Gov. Bill Clinton’s national campaign chairman should focus attention on the ties of California “organized slime” to Brown and Clinton. The Kantor appointment came 10 days after California Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown, in an interview in the {San Francisco Chronicle,} himself a lobbyist for mob interests such as the Bronfman family of Seagrams, Inc. and the bankrupt Olympia and York real estate giant, publicly threatened Clinton to stay away from California. It was just a temporary turf disagreement.    Jerry Brown and his family have long had cozy relations with leading organized crime figures. Jerry Brown’s father, Pat Brown, was a member of the board of directors of the late Bernie Cornfeld’s “Fund of Funds” investment scam. Cornfeld was the notorious bagman for organized crime boss Meyer Lansky. Another Al Capone mobster, Paul Zifferin, became state party chair and a powerbroker in the Democratic Party. Zifferin installed his younger brother Lester as deputy attorney general under then-California Attorney General Pat Brown.    No wonder that Brown has referred to the California Democratic Party as a “Potemkin village,” which, “when you looked behind it, there wasn’t much there.” Kantor, also a former state Democratic chairman, is a partner in the law firm of Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg and Tunney. Charles Manatt is a former chairman of the state Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee, and was Jerry Brown’s campaign co-chairman in 1974 and 1976. Besides a bevy of Hollywood and rock stars, the Manatt law firm has represented Playboy, Inc.; Eli Lilly, famous for its patent to produce LSD in the United States beginning in 1956; and Gulf & Western and its subsidiary Transnation, tied to organized crime figures Meyer Lansky and Sidney Korshak. Brown’s 1982 campaign chairman Kantor handles the Occidental Petroleum account of the late Armand Hammer for the Manatt law firm.    Jerry Brown,

… read more »

Response: