Department of Offense

A list of seventy alleged American Socialist Party members has been winging its way around the internet.

Unfortunately, while most of those listed are indeed socialists, there is no such organization as the American Socialist Party. There is a small Socialist Party USA and the U.S.’s largest Marxist organization Democratic Socialists of America – which works largely inside the Democratic Party.

The list actually appears to be a membership roster of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

This organization was formed in 1991 by openly socialist independent Congressman Bernie Sanders, the far left Institute for Policy Studies, and Democratic Socialists of America.

Because the Progressive Caucus was hosted for many years on the D.S.A. website, some have claimed that all Progressive Caucus membership D.S.A. membership are synonymous. That may possibly have been the case, in the early years, but I have seen no evidence that it still applies.

What is beyond doubt is that most Progressive Caucus members are indeed socialists. In a European country, most would be comfortable in either the Socialist, Communist or green parties.

Several current or former Progressive Caucus members appear to have been members of D.S.A. including Neil Abercrombie, Danny K. Davis, Ron Dellums, Jerry Nadler and Major Owens.

Some members like Barbara Lee and Luis Gutierrez have been involved in Marxist-Leninist parties.

Many others have ties to D.S.A., the Communist Party USA, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, the Institute for Policy Studies, or other far left groups.

Many also have maintained ties to Cuba, Venezuela, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or other anti U.S. regimes.

Prominent recent former members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus include Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Obama’s Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Obama Transition Team member and former Democratic Party whip, David Bonior. Since leaving the house, David Bonior has formally joined D.S.A.

At more than 70 members, the Progressive Caucus is the most powerful bloc in the U.S. Congress, leading several powerful committees, including Judiciary (John Conyers) and until recently, Ways & Means (Charles Rangel).

It is also important to note that many far left Senators and Congressmen and NOT members of the Progressive Caucus – Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa and Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy (one time D.S.A. member) from Ohio being good examples.

If you follow the blue links on this page it will lead you to biographies of all those listed on this post, from our sister site KeyWiki – our online encyclopedia of the American left. The KeyWiki Congressional Progressive Caucus page also lists former members of the organization.

Many profiles are still only only “stubs”, but some are comprehensive. We welcome contributions from readers to “flesh them out”. We also welcome more volunteer KeyWiki editors and contributors. Contact details here

Check out the socialists in your Congress!

The current members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are as follows:

Co-Chairs

•Raul Grijalva (AZ-07)
•Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs

•Diane Watson (CA-33)
•Keith Ellison (MN-05)
•Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
•Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
•Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
•Donna Edwards (MD-04)
•Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Senate Members

•Bernie Sanders (VT)
•Tom Udall (NM)
•Roland Burris (IL)
House Members

•Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
•Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
•Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
•Robert Brady (PA-01)
•Corrine Brown (FL-03)
•Michael Capuano (MA-08)
•André Carson (IN-07)
•Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
•Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
•William (Lacy) Clay (MO-01)
•Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
•Steve Cohen (TN-09)
•John Conyers (MI-14)
•Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
•Danny Davis (IL-07)
•Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
•Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
•Sam Farr (CA-17)
•Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
•Bob Filner (CA-51)
•Barney Frank (MA-04)
•Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
•Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
•John Hall (NY-19)
•Phil Hare (IL-17)
•Alcee Hastings (FL-23)
•Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
•Michael Honda (CA-15)
•Jesse Jackson Jr (IL-02)
•Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
•Hank Johnson (GA-04)
•Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
•Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
•Barbara Lee (CA-09)
•John Lewis (GA-05)
•David Loebsack (IA-02)
•Ben Lujan (NM-3)
•Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
•Edward Markey (MA-07)
•Jim McDermott (WA-07)
•James McGovern (MA-03)
•George Miller (CA-07)
•Gwen Moore (WI-04)
•Jim Moran (VA-08)
•Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
•Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL)
•John Olver (MA-01)
•Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
•Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
•Donald Payne (NJ-10)
•Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
•Jared Polis (CO-02)
•Charles Rangel (NY-15)
•Laura Richardson (CA-37)
•Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
•Bobby Rush (IL-01)
•Linda Sanchez (CA-47)
•Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
•José Serrano (NY-16)
•Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
•Pete Stark (CA-13)
•Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
•John Tierney (MA-06)
•Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
•Maxine Waters (CA-35)
•Mel Watt (NC-12)
•Henry Waxman (CA-30)
•Peter Welch (VT-AL)

Every effort should be made to vote out as many as possible CPCers in the November mid term elections.

The Ground Zero Mosque controversy continues to stir up new revelations.

Now we learn that tax dollars have been used to build mosques around the world

And yesterday, Fox News reported that the Ground Zero Mosque imam has rejected an offer by New York Governor David Paterson to help move the mosque to another location. What does this tell us about the imam’s alleged commitment to interfaith bridge building? About his “sensitivity”?

A CNN poll this week revealed that 68% of American voters now oppose the Ground Zero Mosque! Driven by new revelations and increasing media coverage, this is an increase of nearly 10 points in the past 30 days. For example, since April Brigitte Gabriel has conducted nearly 200 radio and TV interviews about the Ground Zero Mosque! The rising opposition of public opinion certainly contributed to Paterson’s decision to try to mediate a solution and get the mosque moved.

You can help fuel this rising opposition by signing our petition if you haven’t yet done so AND forwarding this email to everyone you know!

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, addresses a gathering as groups planning a proposed mosque and cultural center near Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan to be named Cordoba House showed and spoke about their plans for the center at a community board meeting in New York Tuesday, May 25, 2010. Community members both for and against the plan spoke during the meeting. (AP Photo/Craig Ruttle)

The State Department is sending Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – the mastermind of the Ground Zero Mosque – on a trip through the Middle East to foster “greater understanding” about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States. However, important questions are being raised about whether this is simply a taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt to underwrite his reviled project, which is moving ahead in Lower Manhattan.

Mr. Rauf is scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar, the usual stops for Gulf-based fundraising. The State Department defends the five-country tour saying that Mr. Rauf is “a distinguished Muslim cleric,” but surely the government could find another such figure in the United States who is not seeking millions of dollars to fund a construction project that has so strongly divided America.

By funding the trip so soon after New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission gave the go-ahead to demolish the building on the proposed mosque site, the State Department is creating the appearance that the U.S. government is facilitating the construction of this shameful structure. It gives Mr. Rauf not only access but imprimatur to gather up foreign cash. And because Mr. Rauf has refused to reveal how he plans to finance his costly venture, the American public is left with the impression it will be a wholly foreign enterprise. This contradicts the argument that a mosque is needed in that part of New York City to provide services for a burgeoning Muslim population. If so many people need the mosque so badly, presumably they could figure out a way to pay for it themselves.

Americans also may be surprised to learn that the United States has been an active participant in mosque construction projects overseas. In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque’s namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country’s Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of “Muslim triumphalism” glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument – and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.

The mosques being rebuilt by the United States are used for religious worship, which raises important First Amendment questions. U.S. taxpayer money should not be used to preserve and promote Islam, even abroad. In July 2009, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) faith-based and community initiatives that examined whether government funds were being used for religious activities. The auditors found that while USAID was funding some religious activities, officials were “uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution” when balanced against foreign-policy objectives.

For example, our government rebuilt the Al Shuhada Mosque in Fallujah, Iraq, expecting such benefits as “stimulating the economy, enhancing a sense of pride in the community, reducing opposition to international relief organizations operating in Fallujah, and reducing incentives among young men to participate in violence or insurgent groups.” But Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits USAID funds from being used for the rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for “inherently religious activities.” It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam.

The State Department is either wittingly or unwittingly using tax money to support Mr. Rauf’s efforts to realize his dream of a supersized mosque blocks away from the sacred ground of the former World Trade Center, which was destroyed by Islamic fanaticism. This ill-considered decision will raise the ire of millions of Americans and illustrates the limits of what the denizens of Foggy Bottom know about diplomacy.

Indisputable Failure – by Newt Gingrich

Before I get to the primary focus of this week’s newsletter–the Obama administration’s dismal failure on jobs and on maintaining the confidence of the American people–I want to update you on last week’s topic, an all-out effort to prevent the Democrats from using a lame duck session to pass all the radical left-wing bills on their agenda before a new, much more conservative Congress takes over in January.

Yesterday, Congress voted on a resolution offered by Tom Price that would have prevented a lame duck session of Congress after this election. It was defeated by a vote of 236 to 163. Six Democrats voted for the resolution. One Republican voted against.

However, this is not the end of the fight. It is the beginning. In just one week, over 85,000 Americans have signed letters to their representatives telling them to take the No Lame Duck Pledge.

By continuing to pile on the pressure, and make this a big issue in the fall, we can still box in the Democrats so that they are unable to justify holding a lame duck session after the election.

Please visit AmericanSolutions to sign up for this important effort.

A jobs failure

What do 9.5% and 71% have in common?

They are both proof of the failure of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid secular-socialist machine.

9.5% was the unemployment rate in June. The Obama administration warned that unless its big government stimulus bill was passed, that unemployment would rise above 8%. The bill was passed (in a panic, without being read) and nevertheless, unemployment rocketed past 8% to settle at 9.5%.

What’s more, the 9.5% unemployment rate is likely too rosy a picture of the American economy. The real unemployment rate — which includes those who are underemployed and those who have given up looking for a job and left the workforce–may be as high as 22% according to some analyses.

The stimulus has clearly failed to create jobs as promised.

Furthermore, the radicalism of the administration and Congress’ domestic policies has hampered the natural resiliency of the American economy, artificially extending the recession.

See the failure to believe the failure

Several charts illustrate the gravity of the left’s failure economically.

The first, produced by American Solutions, shows the Obama Jobs Gap. That’s the difference between the rate of job creation needed to return the U.S. to 5% unemployment by 2015 and the actual track record of this administration. The Obama Jobs Gap surpassed 1 million in July.

Another chart, produced by the Heritage Foundation, shows the Obama Jobs Deficit. That’s the difference between the 3.5 million jobs President Obama promised to create by December 2010 during the 2008 campaign and the 4.1 million lost during his administration. That’s an Obama Jobs Deficit of 7.6 million jobs.

Another, from Calculated Risk, shows just how long it is taking our economy to recover compared to past recessions, and that with last month’s loss of 131,000 jobs, the trend lines are heading in the wrong direction.

Despite the indisputable data, last week in the New York Times, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner boldly declared, “Welcome to the Recovery.”

At 9.5% unemployment, most Americans don’t feel welcomed to a recovery. They might welcome, however, a return to reality at the White House.

Choosing Unemployment over a Job

An article in the Wall Street Journal Monday painted a frustrating picture of the joblessness situation, showing that, despite our high unemployment, many firms are having trouble filling job openings. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, if job openings were getting filled at a normal rate, the unemployment rate would be 6.8% instead of 9.5%.

So there are actually many jobs out there that need to be filled. Yet, in the worst recession since the Great Depression, many employers can’t make hires..

The article cites several reasons for this phenomenon, a few of which are long term trends such as our education system not producing enough qualified engineers. But others factors fall squarely on the backs of this administration and Congress.

For instance, the extension of unemployment benefits has given people a perverse incentive to stay on unemployment rather than accept a job. The part-owner of a machine parts company, Mechanical Devices, is looking for as many as 40 new engineers, but is quoted in the article as saying many applicants at job fairs were “just going through the motions so they could collect their unemployment checks.” The article also quotes an engineer who admits he turned down more than a dozen offers because the salary would have been less than he made on welfare.

This story encapsulates the problem of the long-term unemployed. The depth and length of this recession is at risk of creating a permanent pool of unemployed Americans, who get so used to being unproductive that they are willing to accept welfare indefinitely instead of taking a job.

Uncertainty Also Prevents Job Creation

As I travel to different cities across the country with American Solutions hosting Real Jobs Summits, I always try to hold meetings with the local members of our Jobs and Prosperity Task Force. Comprised solely of small business owners, these meetings always offer a useful perspective about the real world consequences of the administration and Congress’ radical agenda.

The most common theme I hear at these meetings is uncertainty. Small business owners are so paralyzed by the radicalism of the Democrats’ agenda that they are afraid to hire new workers or otherwise invest in their businesses because they are unable to predict with any degree of confidence anything from how much they will owe in taxes in the future to the price of energy if an energy tax is passed.

A major source of uncertainty is the new health care bill, the details of which Speaker Pelosi proudly boasted ignorance of by saying “We have to pass the bill in order to know what’s in it.” With so much uncertainty surrounding how the bill will affect Americans, employers don’t know how to project the future costs of health care. So they simply don’t hire.

The second election repudiating Obamacare

The other number that indicates the failure of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid secular socialist machine is 71%.

71% is the percentage of voters in Missouri — a swing state — who in a vote last week rejected a federally imposed individual health insurance mandate, a key provision in Obamacare that requires all Americans to buy health insurance.

This is actually the second time an election has repudiated the Democrats’ big government health care plan. The special election to replace Ted Kennedy became a referendum on Obamacare and the results there were equally stunning.. Republican Scott Brown — an ardent opponent of the health care bill — was elected to replace a man who called government-provided health care for every American the “cause of his life.”

The latest national polls show that a majority of Americans favor repealing the health care bill. Even more Americans believe the bill will cause health care costs to go up.

This series of repudiations means that the President and Congress’s signature achievement – centralized health care — is being firmly rejected by the American people.

Indisputable Failure

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Reid are clearly failures at delivering the results they promised. They promised jobs and an economic turnaround. What they’ve delivered instead is economic stagnation.

They’re also clearly failures at maintaining the support of the American people for their policies. Their most significant victory — the big government health care bill — is so unpopular that most Americans want it completely repealed.

9.5% unemployment.

71% repudiation at the polls.

This is what failure looks like. And it is indisputable.

Your friend,

Newt

By Karl Rove

The Bad News About ObamaCare Keeps Piling Up
It’s now obvious that many millions will lose the coverage they have.

In his brilliant exposition of why sweeping policy changes often have unintended consequences, the late sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote that leaders get things wrong when their “paramount concern with the foreseen immediate consequences excludes the consideration of further or other consequences” of their proposals. This leads policy makers to assert things that are false, wishing them to be true.

Which brings us to President Obama’s many claims about his health-care reform. Take his oft-expressed statement that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. That sounds good—but perverse incentives in his new law will cause most Americans to lose their existing insurance.

This was brought home to me when I asked the CEO of a major restaurant chain about health reform’s effect on his company, which now spends $25 million a year on employee health insurance. That will jump to at least $90 million a year once the new law is phased in. It will be cheaper, he told me, for the company to dump its coverage and pay a fine—$2,000 for each full-time worker—and make sure that no part-time employee accidentally worked 31 hours and thereby incurred the fine.

Employees who lose coverage get to select a policy from a government-sponsored insurance marketplace called the “exchange.” This will be subsidized by taxpayers. Depending on his income, a worker will have to pay between 8% and 9.8% of the cost.

But there are a few hitches. Employers now pay for employee health plans with pre-tax dollars, but workers who buy into one on the exchange pay with after-tax dollars. Families making less than $30,000 and individuals making less than $15,000 a year will be dumped into Medicaid, widely viewed as second-class health care.

Either Mr. Obama was stunningly blind to these perverse effects when he promised people could keep their coverage, or he felt that admitting his plan would collapse employer-provided health coverage could keep it from passing. Either way—self-deception or deliberate deceit—health reform is going to turn out far differently than was promised. And because more workers will be dumped into subsidized coverage, taxpayers are likely to pay much more than the $1 trillion-plus price tag claimed by ObamaCare advocates for its first 10 years.

It doesn’t end there. Another way the new health reform will have consequences that are the opposite of what was promised can be found in new draft regulations (its Interim Final Rule) from the Department of Health and Human Services. The proposed rules could cause as many as half of all workers to lose their existing coverage.

Health-care plans that existed before the new law are “grandfathered” with regard to some of its provisions. The rules released Monday spell out how little these plans can change without losing their protected status.

Health plans would no longer be grandfathered if a business changes insurance companies (a common practice when employers shop for lower prices), raises deductibles more than 5%, drops any existing benefits, or even increases co-pays by as little as $5.

Complying with these new rules would raise costs for companies who provide coverage, reduce competition among health insurance companies, and discourage efforts to make employees more price conscious. The Obama administration itself estimates that these draft rules could cost up to 80% of small employers and 64% of large employers their grandfathered status. This translates to between 87 million and 115 million Americans losing their current coverage. Companies and insurers promise a hardy fight on the proposed regulations, but repeal of the provisions that authorized them are the only guarantee of their defeat.

ObamaCare generates more bad news every month. On top of sluggish job creation, burgeoning deficits, out-of-control spending, and a miserable response to the Gulf oil leak, the Obama presidency may be reaching a tipping point. His competence is being called into question and his credibility undermined. Either one is bad for any president. Both can be politically lethal.