Error processing SSI file

Happy Birthday, Socialists!

August 18, 2001

by Tom Barrett,

YOU SEE SOME FUNNY THINGS ON C-SPAN. I was greatly amused at the antics during the 100th Anniversary Convention of The Socialist Party, USA, which C-SPAN televised live. According to their website, "Over 150 activists participated in the July 27-29 Socialist Party 100th Anniversary Celebration and Organizing Conference. The weekend marked the partyís century as Americaís voice for democratic socialism, and boldly declared that the Socialist Party USA will continue to build a vital socialist movement." It would seem that a political party that can only manage to gather a total of 150 delegates to a national convention is unlikely to build any kind of "vital movement" in the near future. But we shouldnít forget that less than 3% of Russians were members of the Communist Party when they overthrew their government.

The podium held a sign that stated, "I Vote Socialist Because I Work For a Living!" The theme of the celebration was the bashing of capitalism. "Socialists believe that once we begin moving to introduce democracy into our economic institutions, it will be possible to establish the public good - instead of private profit - as the cornerstone of a new national and international economic order." As my wife, Ana, pointed out, "Once the capitalists are gone, who will employ the workers?"

They have an answer for that. "Socialists support such institutions as consumer cooperatives, workersí collectives and worker/consumer participation in the management of governmentally-owned industry, as steps toward a society in which political democracy is reinforced and strengthened by economic democracy. Socialists are also strong supporters of democratic planning in the economy and government." One hopes that if they ever get around to studying the history of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, they will realize that such institutions have always failed miserably.

The first speech we saw was given by what I assume was a woman. The hair style and clothing were definitely masculine, but the voice was feminine. The vital gender clue was when she referred to the Socialist Democratic Feminist Movement. Like most liberals, the Socialists assume that the way to build membership is to reach out to "oppressed minorities" like women. Never mind that women are a majority in this country, or that most American women have rejected radical feminism because it has been taken over by lesbians. Even though there were quite a few young people present, the rhetoric of this convention seemed to be trapped in some kind of í60ís time warp.

The oldest speaker was Frank Zeidler, the Partyís 88-year-old Chairman Emeritus, who told stories of Socialist history. He related the story of a national labor union leader who resigned from the Socialist Party at one convention. He was told by his union that he had to register as a Democrat or lose his job.

At 22, Party Co-Vice-Chair Shaun Richman was the youngest speaker. His speech was memorable only because he addressed the assembly clad in a T-shirt featuring Fleshtones, a rock music group. He wasnít the only one in a T-shirt. Ball caps and T-shirts abounded, as did baggy pants. The camera caught a view of one delegateís pants falling down when he stood to give a speaker a standing ovation. The unprofessional dress of the delegates was reflective of the unprofessional tone of the entire event.

They brag that, "We align with no nation, but only with working people throughout the world." They proclaim that, "...working people around the world have more in common with each other than with their national rulers. In fact, their 2000 Presidential candidate, David McReynolds (who received a total of 10,000 votes nationally) proclaimed himself a Marxist in his speech, and the event offered workshops on Marxism. These people have no loyalty to this nation, yet they seek elective national office. Instead of loyalty to their nation, they claim they are loyal to the "workers." The only problem with that is that the "Oppressors of the Workers," the capitalists, all go to work every day. Doesnít that make them workers, too?

McReynolds has been traveling the world gathering helpful information on how the United States should be ruled if he is successful in his 2004 run for the Whitehouse. He has visited such bastions of Socialist Democracy as Iraq, Red China, Russia, and Communist Cuba. If his party ever comes into power, immediately delete all copies of Conservative Truth from your hard drive. They could land you in prison

They believe we should disarm unilaterally and dismantle our military. It is safe to do that because they believe it is in the nature of mankind to act cooperatively, so all other nations will naturally follow our example. "We condemn war, preparation for war, and the militaristic culture because they play havoc with peopleís lives and divert resources from constructive social projects."

At least they are organized. They have a plan for the present, as well as one for the future. "While a minority, we fight for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. When a majority we will rapidly introduce those changes which constitute socialism, with priority to the elimination of the power of big business through public ownership and workersí control." Stalin would be proud.

While you and I may be amused by the spectacle of a group with a nationwide membership of less than 10,000 describing themselves as a "third party" in American politics, letís not forget that they are just the front for the socialist movement in this nation. Those of you who are regular readers know that 55 members of the U.S. House of Representatives (all Democrats) are members of the "Progressive Caucus." That sounds pretty innocent unless you take the time to do a little research, which will reveal that the Caucus is part of the Socialist International. (To find out whether YOUR Congressman is a Socialist, go to:

The openly Socialist members of the Socialist Party USA are not dangerous. They are laughable. They divert attention from the dangerous ones. These are the Socialists who hide behind descriptions like Democrat, progressive or liberal, while secretly advocating the overthrow of the U.S. Government. The beliefs and strategies you will find articulated on the Socialist Party website are held by all of these "closet Socialists." Theyíre just too gutless to advocate them in public, because they want to hold on to the power and perks of elective office.

(EDITORíS NOTE: All statements enclosed in quotation marks in this column were taken directly from the partyís website:


(Thanks to subscribers Kate & John for forwarding this item to us.)

As it is critical to know our enemies, real Americans must familiarize themselves with the language of the Socialists among us, most of whom call themselves "liberals." Hence, I offer these excerpts from the "Socialist to English" dictionary:

Loophole: A remaining freedom yet to be eliminated
Objective: A socialistic perspective
Bipartisan: Multi-party support for a socialist cause
Truth: Any belief which furthers the cause of socialism
Fact: Any belief commonly held by socialists
Idealogue: Someone who believes in something
Narrow-minded: Basing oneís opinions exclusively on facts and reason, without regard to "feelings" or consensus
Extremist: One who will not compromise on everything
Hate: The conveyance of "inconvenient" facts which could impede the progress of socialism
Peace: The absence of resistance to socialism
Freedom: The ability to live in any manner approved by those in power
Sensible: Socialist
Reasonable: Socialist
Liberal: Socialist
Progressive: Socialist
Moderate: Tentative socialist
Democracy: Socialism via majority (mob) rule
Crime: A violation of law committed by a patriot
Mistake: A violation of law committed by a socialist
Fishing Expedition: A criminal investigation of a socialist
Liberal Intellectual: Mythical figure (akin to "intelligent chicken")
Moving forward: Proceeding towards socialism


Dr. David Yeagley in, June 21, 2001
Reprinted with permission

IN NEW YORK CITY, Muslims can pray in public schools. Christians canít. Muslims can assemble in school auditoriums, during school hours, and pray. Christians cannot.

So says the New York Post, in a Dec.1, 2000 article titled, "Muslim Kids Get To Pray In School For Ramadan," by Carl Campanile. This article didnít make it far in the national news. I found it referenced in a rather obscure Christian newspaper out of Fort Worth, Texas, The Hour of Prophecy.

I thought, "Are these Texans the only people that care? How could this situation not make national headlines?" It marks one of the most dramatic inconsistencies of Constitutional interpretation in recent history.

At Lafayette High School, in Bensonhurst, in Brooklyn Technical & International in Queens, and in other Brooklyn schools, Muslim students are allowed to assemble and worship publicly in school auditoriums or makeshift prayer rooms during the regular school day.

At Lafayette, "The school lets us do our own prayer. Itís beautiful," said Umit Kulug, a 17-year-old senior from Turkey, according to the Post. "They let one hundred of us boys and girls pray together in a big auditorium. Some of the non-Islamic students get a pass to watch us pray." Kulig said teachers help students catch up on what they missed in class.

On the other hand, the Post notes, a Bensonhurst school mural dedicated to youths who had died was painted over just a few weeks before Ramadan, because it featured Jesus Christ. Christmas songs heralding the name of Christ are not allowed in public schools. There cannot be Bible reading or Christian prayer, because this violates the separation of church and state.

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Americans disagree on what this means. Chief Justice Rehnquist has opined that, "There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers [of the Constitution] intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]." (Wallace v. Jafree, 1985).

On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that school prayer violated the Constitution. But how did any of this ever come to mean that Muslims can worship in public schools, but Christians canít?

There is more.

In 1998, Tibetan monks conducted Tantric Buddhist devotionals in the public schools of Grand County, Utah, according to reports by the Jefferson 21st Century Institute. Two California school districts have introduced New Age curricula honoring Lucifer, God of Light.

Liberal authorities seem to show unlimited compassion for anything that is foreign to Americaís foundational values. Is this the intent of the Constitution? If Christian worship in public schools is prohibited because it would be considered the stateís "respecting an establishment of religion," then why doesnít the same logic apply to the Muslim, Buddhist, New Age or Satanist religions?

Ralph Waldo Emerson considered a foolish consistency "the hobgoblin of little minds." Recently, the Supreme Court took a step in the direction of Emersonian large-mindedness. On the front page of the Dallas Morning News, June 12, Mark Curriden reports that the U.S. Supreme Court "clarified a murky area of constitutional law involving the separation of church and state." In "Justices Say Religious Clubs Can Meet At Public Schools," Curriden seems to laud the court decision [Monday, June 11] that allows church groups to use public school facilities, so long as the meetings are open to the public.

The decision directly affects a situation in Dallas. The Dallas Independent School District had heretofore refused to let church groups use school facilities, rejecting more than 70 such requests just last year. Now the DISD is reversing its policy, and will allow churches, like any other civic group, to use school buildings.

So, we have Muslims allowed to worship in school, during school hours, and now Christian church groups can at least use the school buildings- after hours. Itís not exactly equality, but that has to be some kind of step in the right direction, no? Well, leave it to those freedom-loving Texans to at least report this news as well.

Donít worry. Iím not going to advocate the peyote cult of my Comanche ancestor Mumsekai for public school practice. We Indians are much more reserved about our religious beliefs. I just think America needs to remember the principles it was built on. And I donít think Islam, New Age-ism or Buddhism were among them.

(Dr. David A. Yeagley will begin teaching humanities at the College of Liberal Studies, University of Oklahoma in the fall. His opinions are independent. He holds degrees from Yale, Emory, Oberlin, University of Arizona and University of Hartford. He is a member of the Comanche Tribe, Lawton, OK. For more information on Dr. Yeagleyís initiative to teach patriotism in the schools, e-mail him at

Error processing SSI file
Error processing SSI file