From: ³THE KID² <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:52:24 -0700

 

Maybe this ³Beacon of Integrity² is the role model for your son Eric? Being that heıs already yours. And just as Jesus and ³Neon² were the current topics, I had to go and find this.

 

Are Liberals even allowed to make ³Six Figures² and own a ³Yacht?² isnıt there a rule book or something like that which forbids that? I know being surrounded by Hollywood Stars is ³De Rigueur² but isnıt it awfully Conservative/Republican to make ³Six Figures² AND own a ³Yacht?² Isnıt that punishable by Liberal Law?

Whereıs the ACLU when you need them?

 

Word to the ³Panthers! Kill Whitey!² Big Ups to those Crazy Commies ³Che y Fidel² and a Shout out to all Spies in the House my boy ³Wen Ho Lee² YEEEEEEAAAAAAHHH BOOOOOOOOYEEEE!!!

 

Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist By John Perazzo

 

For nearly two decades Robert Scheer has been a ³national correspondent² and then regular columnist for the Los Angeles Times, where he has specialized in national security issues.

 

From one of the most powerful press platforms in the country, Scheer articulates, on a weekly basis, the leftıs corrosive assertions about the moral deficiencies of our nation, our president, and our efforts in the war on terrorism. It is but a continuation of what he did before he ever got to the Times. While posturing as someone who cares about the welfare of our nation, Scheer has spent his entire adult life as a passionate America-hating Leftist. He first signaled his political inclinations long ago when he co-authored a 1961 book defending Fidel Castroıs Communist revolution in Cuba. In 1965 he ran for liberal Democrat Jeffrey Cohelanıs congressional seat, attacking Cohelan from the radical left. He was the political editor of the largest magazine of the radical left, Ramparts, and was given the diaries of Che Guevara to publish by the Cuban dictatorship itself. Later in the decade, Scheer and Tom Hayden co-founded Berkeleyıs Red Family - a commune of urban guerrillas, which trained its members in the use of explosives and firearms and called for the creation of ³liberated zones² in the United States - a liberation to be accomplished by force of arms.

Dedicated to Maoist principles, Red Family leaders adorned the walls of their headquarters with portraits of such Communist heroes as Ho Chi Minh and North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung, and Black Panther thug, Huey Newton.

 

Scheer strongly supported the violent Black Panther Party in the Sixties, and devoted a great deal of time and energy to helping Eldridge Cleaver, the Panther whose volcanic hatred for whites and police officers was legendary.

Scheer not only got Cleaver out of the prison where he was serving an indeterminate sentence for rape, but also edited Cleaverıs writings for publication in book form. Distinguishing himself from the mass of what he deemed ³racist whites,² Scheer felt great solidarity with the Panthersı cause. In his introduction to an article in which Cleaver declared his intention to kill whites - an article that Scheer himself titled ³The Courage to Kill² - Scheer expressed his approval for Cleaverıs sentiments with the exclamation, ³Right on, Eldridge!² After Cleaver fled the U.S.

following his ambush of two San Francisco policemen in 1968, Scheer joined a Red Family overseas delegation to visit the fugitive.

 

In the early 1970s, Scheer joined the Red Sun Rising commune which was devoted to ³armed struggle² and the teachings of Kim Il-Sung. In the three decades that followed, he rose to influence at the L.A. Times (in part through his marriage to Narda Zacchino, one of the Timesı top editors), became a friend of Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda and Warren Beatty; and in his columns vigorously opposed Americaıs Cold War efforts against the Soviet bloc. In his L.A. Times columns, Scheer regaled the same unfounded, hate-driven denunciations of American policies and motives that now dominate the speeches heard at anti-war rallies around the country.

 

³What the heck, letıs bomb Baghdad,² is how he recently depicted the supposed lack of gravity that ³our accidental president² attached to his decision to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein. ³Sure,² Scheer wrote sardonically, ². . . many of its more than 3 million inhabitants will probably end up as Œcollateral damage,ı but if George the Younger is determined to avenge his father and keep his standings in the polls, thatıs the price to be paid.²

 

Beyond accusing President Bush of going to war simply to boost his own popularity and to settle an old score in his fatherıs name, Scheer joins his chorus of fellow leftists in asserting that Bush is animated by an unspoken lust to create a globe-spanning American empire. ³The worldıs current unprecedented hostility toward the United States,² he writes, is ³a profound alarm over the imperial endpoint of Bushıs design for the world.² ³Imperialist greed,² he says, ³is what Œregime changeı in Iraq and Œanticipatory self-defenseı are all about, and all of the rest of the Bush administrationıs talk about security and democracy is a bunch of malarkey.² Echoing the sentiments of Muslim fundamentalists who accuse Bush of waging a cruel ³war against Islam,² Scheer deems it ³fitting² that, just prior to the current war, Bush met to strategize with his British and Spanish counterparts in the Azores, ³an island chain originally settled by a Portuguese Crusader whose goal was to encircle the Muslim world with Christian armies.²

 

Scheer sees lust for oil as yet another of Bushıs motivations for war, explaining that ³oil is black gold, and Iraq has a whole heck of a lot of it.² Despite Bushıs innumerable public proclamations that Iraqıs oil wells are to be preserved solely for the benefit of the Iraqi people, Scheer lectures Bush about the wisdom of the ³peace² crowdıs ³No Blood for Oil² mantra. Moreover, he deems it suspicious that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice once ³served as a Chevron director and had an oil tanker named after her.²

 

And of course, no litany of ascriptions for Bushıs war motives would be complete without the ever-popular charge of ³diversion.² True to form, Scheer calls the current war ³the modern equivalent of the Roman Circus, drawing the peopleıs attention away from the failures of those who rule them²; ³a smoke screen to obscure our floundering economy²; and a ³convenient distraction² from President Bushıs ³close personal and financial ties to the company - Enron - whose demise is the most glaring symbol of the broad moral disarray of the nationıs corporate culture.²

 

While these reckless assertions betray Scheerıs deep contempt for Bush, they are utterly barren of intellectual integrity. Any fair-minded person understands that, given warıs many uncertainties, Bushıs military initiative in no way assures his continued popularity, but rather places it in peril; that America is not in any way an imperialistic nation; that Bush has repeatedly gone on record before the entire listening world, proclaiming that Iraqıs oil wells belong to its people; and that the threat of weapons transfers from rogue states to terrorists is no mere concocted ³distraction,² but a deadly serious concern.

 

Scheer, however, is not the fair-minded person he pretends to be.

Indeed, who but an America-hating leftist could, as Scheer does, draw moral equivalence between Osama bin Laden and Enron CEO Kenneth Lay?

Asserting that Americaıs military efforts in the war on terror are founded on the ³simplistic² notion of a struggle between good and evil, Scheer smugly contends that the most destructive practitioners of evil reside not in some far-off land, but rather in the Bush administration and corporate America. ³Is there any doubt,² he asks rhetorically, ³that the chicanery of Enron executives and [other] top CEOs has done more long-term damage to the U.S. economy than the efforts of anti-American terrorists?² It takes remarkable chutzpah to write such words.

 

Scheerıs assertions about Bushıs motives for going to war reveal an immense double standard, given that Scheer routinely criticized those who, during the previous administration, in any way questioned the motives behind the actions of Bill Clinton - whom he deems ³a great president,² ³supremely capable,² and ³one of the hardest working, most competent, fundamentally decent and smartest men to ever serve in the office.² This assessment of Clinton is surely based in part on their shared background as counter-culture leftists who, in their younger days, never shrank from an opportunity to publicly denounce their country But more than this, it is rooted in Scheerıs well-known appetite for access to the high and mighty, in short his opportunism.

 

Scheer enjoyed his friendships with Clinton White House operatives like James Carville and Sidney Blumenthal as much as he savored the salons of the Hollywood left. Such associations inflate his uncomely sense of superiority over those who figuratively stand on the outside, looking in. In a revealing moment, Scheer once cruelly mocked an unemployed journalist thusly: ³Look at you. You support the System, and youıre struggling, while I attack it and have a six-figure salary and a yacht, and am surrounded by Hollywood stars.² (Reported in David Horowitzıs Radical Son.)

 

Scheerıs opportunism is evident in the double standards that governed his reporting on the Clinton Administration. Now Scheer is writing columns which assert that even one Iraqi killed by American arms constitutes a war crime.

But in December 1998, when Clinton ordered the firing of 450 missiles into Iraq (more than in the entire Gulf War) and did so on the eve of the impeachment vote in the House, Scheer saw nothing suspicious about the timing. When Clinton ordered the bombing of Kosovo in 1999, Scheer flatly rejected the notion that Clinton may have been using military action as a means of diverting attention away from the stubborn Lewinsky scandal or the recently discovered Chinese espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratory (Scheer was the biggest press defender of Wen Ho Lee). Such accusations were merely the senseless rantings of partisan ³jackals² intent on making Clinton feel ³the lash of the self-righteous,² said Scheer. Only Bush, it seems, can be accused of hidden agendas and ignoble motives.

 

Consider also Scheerıs reaction after Clinton ordered the infamous 1998 missile attacks on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. The attack in the Sudan was in response to terrorist attacks on two American embassies and destroyed the countryıs only medicine factory which Clinton claimed was a chemical weapons plant. Clinton got no UN approval, did not demand an inspection of the plant, and got no congressional authorization. Scheer, who has viciously attacked Bush for dereliction on these grounds, not only found nothing wrong with Clintonıs actions, he defend them. Denouncing those who wondered whether Clinton was ³wagging the dog² in an effort to tone down the Lewinsky headlines, Scheer saw nothing objectionable or even suspicious that Clinton launched this strike into a foreign ³Third World² country on the very day that Lewinsky was scheduled to testify before a grand jury. Even when the Sudanese site proved to be an aspirin factory that produced half of that war- and famine-ravaged countryıs legitimate drugs, Scheer called Clintonıs missile attack ³an appropriate response to the carnage² at the American embassies. ³If our modern and very expensive weapons cannot be used against terrorists,² he wrote, ³what good are they in this post-Cold War world?² In essence, Scheer was endorsing the very policy for which he now condemns President Bush.

 

Despite Bushıs dogged attempts to disarm Saddam via UN Resolutions and meaningful inspections - all on the heels of twelve years of Iraqıs refusal to abide by its disarmament obligations - Scheer depicts Bush as a warmonger less deserving of trust than the Iraqi dictator. In recent months, this has become a fashionable tactic of the ³pro-peace² left. As Scheer bluntly puts it, ³Hussein is not the aggressor - we are.² ³[T]o anyone not rabid for war,² he pontificated shortly before the war commenced, ³the United Nations inspections would seem to be going well. As regards the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Husseinıs dictatorship is now arguably the most open society in the world. Certainly no other nation has been willing to allow deeply suspicious foreign experts access to every nook and cranny . .

. to ensure that bad things are not being done.² These comments illustrate Scheerıs penchant for extravagant hyperbole in the service of misrepresentation of the facts. Scheerıs extolling of Iraqıs ³willingness² to allow inspections, failed to recognize the role played in this change of approach (if not change of heart) by hundreds of thousands of American troops dispatched to Iraqıs borders.

 

The real war criminals, according to Scheer, are Americans. ³How could one blame George W.,² writes Scheer, ³if he is among the vast majority of Americans who blissfully and conveniently forget that we are the only ones to ever actually use a nuclear weapon? [This] may explain why even those who love freedom and democracy as much as we do are frightened not only of Saddam Hussein, but increasingly of us.² Japanese imperialism, war atrocities, voracious military aggression and determination to kill hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in making their last stand of course had nothing to do with the dropping of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

This was just American terror.

 

According to Scheer, ³the most outrageous Big Lie of the Bush administration [is] that delaying an invasion to wait for the UN to complete inspections would endanger the U.S. The fact is that for more than a decade the military containment of Iraq has effectively neutered Hussein, and there is no reason to believe that canıt continue.² Yet Scheer argued for years in the Times to end the containment of Saddamıs weapons program, repeatedly condemning it as a cruel means of ³punish[ing] the Iraqis for failing to overthrow Hussein.² ³In Iraq,² he recently wrote, ² . . . more than one million children [who] suffer from malnutrition . . . are the true victims of our embargo, not Hussein, who continues to live the high life.² On another occasion he wrote, ³It is in the interests of innocent civilians that we begin the process of normalization [lifting the sanctions], as was called for in an editorial. .

. in the state-run Baghdad Observer.² The only consistency in Scheerıs columns on Iraqıs weapons program is his service to the propaganda line of Saddamıs regime.

 

Like so many leftists who consider George Bush an illegitimate President, Scheer is clearly more prepared to place his faith in the words and pledges of ruthless dictators than in those of Bush. Indeed in June 2000, Scheer crowed jubilantly about Kim Jong Ilıs declaration that he would work toward the peaceful reunification of North and South Korea. ³If the two Koreas . .

. can come to terms,² wrote Scheer, ³what warring parties canıt?² ³The threat from . . . Œrogue nations,ı² he said, ³can be met far more cheaply with talk, trade, and aid than with . . . warrior fantasies.² Rejecting the very concept of ³evil² as a simplistic, culturally biased judgment rooted in ³differing values,² Scheer prefers to attach that label to America rather than to a regime that has tortured hundreds of thousands of its citizens in political prisons and starved millions of its people to death. Though in recent months Kim has defiantly terminated his nationıs nuclear nonproliferation pledges and ominously threatened to invalidate the 1953 Korean War cease-fire agreement, Scheer maintains that ³people of all stripes want to make love, not war.²

 

Consistent with his efforts to help Saddam circumvent the UN restrictions on his weapons of mass destruction program, Scheer praises the misguided efforts of Jimmy Carter - the very man whose benign assessment of North Korean leadership in 1994 led him to broker, for the Clinton administration, the disastrous deal that supplied Pyongyang with fuel, food, and light water nuclear reactors in exchange for a hollow, unverifiable pledge not to develop nuclear weapons. Now that the pledge has been broken, we face a potential international crisis - thanks in large measure to the man who Scheer says ³won the Nobel Peace Prize for a career of successfully waging peace.² ³While Carter has exhibited the patience of the peacemaker,² writes Scheer, ³a sweet Jesus for our time, willing to rebuke contemptible leaders while offering them a path for redemption, Bush has become a self-fulfilling prophet of war, delighting in the discovery of what he defines as immutable evil, thereby justifying an endless crusade against the infidels.² Of course, there is no instance on record where Bush has even remotely intimated that he was conducting such a ³crusade,² though there are myriad examples of Islamic terrorists candidly pronouncing their desire to murder every last ³infidel² loyal to the ³Great Satan.² Unfortunately, Scheer and the left prefer to attribute such hateful bigotry only to Americans, particularly if they happen to be Republicans.

 

Just prior to the start of the current war, Scheer asserted that because ³Iraq at this time poses no direct threat to the well-being of the American people,² it logically followed that ³the maiming or killing of a single Iraqi civilian in an attack by the United States would constitute a war crime.² He complained that the US, by aggressively enforcing Resolution 1441 over the objections of some other nations, had ³gutted² the UN. But when the UN backed an American-led coalition to drive Iraqıs invading army out of Kuwait twelve years ago, he wasnıt nearly such a stickler for following that organizationıs decrees. In March 1991, Scheer decried Americansı ³patriotic orgy² over the coalitionıs campaign of ³terrorism² that was not unlike the ³hijacking [of] a commercial aircraft - treating civilians as combatants.² Thus we are presumably to understand that twelve years ago America practiced terrorism by following the UN mandate, and that today America practices terrorism by failing to push harder for additional UN mandates. The fact is that for Scheer, America is the villain - unless his friends are in the White House - no matter what it does.

 

============================================

 

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:40:38 -0700 (PDT)

From: ³Eric Burgess² <zteecher@yahoo.com> 

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

 

jack,

 

do you recognize the irony of sending an article of hate about someone who supposedly hates? regarding ³America-hating Leftist² robert scheer, allow me to quote the great american philosopher, will smith: ³donıt hate the player, hate the game.²

 

peace,

eb

 

============================================

 

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:19:07 -0700

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

From: ³THE KID² <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

 

How profound... Youıre quoting the ³Fresh Prince!² Do you have anything from ³Jazzy Jeff? Willis? Webster? Nellie Olson?²

 

I see no irony what so ever. Robert Scheerıs track record and hypocrisy speaks for itself and those who canıt see it or refuse to.

 

The irony I do see though, is that coming from you, the man who so smugly sent that ³ESPN² story about What Deion Sanders allegedly did in the name of Jesus, without even seeing if it was true or not. Now Thatıs IRONY! LOL

 

Young Luke Scheerwalker you have learned well from your Master, Obi Dumb Scheernobi. Youıre Modus Operandi is flawless and shameless at the same time. Your unabashed adulation of him is without peer, yet ironic (thereıs that word again...) considering you say that you understand the ³Common Man² (I know that to be true because I remember seeing that picture of you sitting on the bench next to that poor out of work, passed out homeless man that you took on that day off you and Brian had off a few months ago. Such compassion, Iım sure Scheer would have done the same thing you did, being that you are both liberals, and those are the people you care about so much right? sniff... sniff...

is that Irony I smell?) so well, while worshiping at the altar of this idiot.

 

Dude, all I ask is this, when the time comes for you to put your bandana on along with the explosive vest and youıre sitting in front of the video camera with your AK-47 saying your goodbyeıs to all of your loved ones explaining why you decided to blow up some building,plane,shopping mall or some ³Blue Bus² in honor of The Lizard King... Can you put in your will that youıre giving me your MP3 collection?

 

Word to the Scheerhad!!!

 

jack

 

============================================

 

From: ³Eric Burgess² < zteecher@yahoo.com >

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:03 AM

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

 

dude, the neon deion story was a joke. i did not ³smugly² send it to you as an example of how bad christians are, as you claim. damn, as you have stated before, we all have our buttons and apparently the possibility of peopleıs poor perception of christians is yours. ³Lighten up² my friend.

peace,

eb

 

============================================

 

From: ³THE KID² <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:33:32 -0700

 

Yeah I suppose youıre right, I do get a bit touchy like you do when I talk about Scheer. But itıs not about peopleıs poor perception of Christians, it was your ³Will Smith² quote.

 

Iım still pissed at him after paying $10 to see MIB II. It would have been more entertaining if I had just held the $10 bill in my hand and lit it on fire, at least then I would have got my moneyıs worth.

 

paz fuera

 

joaquin

 

============================================

 

From: ³Clark A. A.² <clark.a.@gte.net>

Subject: RE: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:55:36 -0700

 

Eric,

 

I didnıt see the article as being ³an article of hate², I just saw it as EXPOSING TRUTH. Groups trying to SPIN a situation or stance (like the homosexual agenda, for example) like to use the phrase ³donıt be a hater² to spin you as far AWAY from the FACTS as possible. In similar fashion as before...this doesnıt work with the intelligent readers.

 

Pass THIS message on to ³the list² as well.

 

Jesus Saves!

Clark.

 

============================================

 

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:59:22 -0700

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

From: ³Richard Winters² <jdrudge@earthlink.net> 

 

The strangest thing is to equate Marx and Scheer. Iıve heard Scheer called a lot of things, some of them accurate, but to call him a Marxist is to betray a fatal ignorance of what Marxism is all about. Scheer has never called for a bloody revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Scheer has never advocated the implementation of a Central Committee to make all economic and fiscal decisions. Scheer has never wanted the confiscation of private property, or the collectivization of the land. Scheer is well aware that the division of society into two classes in these days is ludicrous, and he has said so publicly. Scheer is, in fact, a good example of the scrambling of the old class systems that rules this day. He is both a wage earner and an independent contractor. He is a Capitalist and a member of the Proletariat (those who work for wages) as are almost all of us. He is also a member of the landed gentry, as are all of us who own our own homes (the American dream). Yet, he is a Liberal. Good for him. He is also one of the last of the muckrakers, yet he is a powerful insider, with wide-ranging connections in all camps. How do you think he gets all the early info he does, much of it comes from Republicans.

 

The scary thing is that there are those who would inflame us with words like ³Marxist,² even when they use them in an entirely inaccurate way. This is the dishonesty in the process. Scheer is no Marxist, and those who call him one are guilty of the old practice of ³Red Baiting.² The sad thing is, that practice can still destroy, or cost someone a job. Hmmmmmmmmm

 

Dick

 

============================================

 

From: ³THE KID² <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:43:42 -0700

 

Dick, that was ³GUCCI² Marxist, now say it with me... GUUUUUUCCI MARXIST.

 

What I find strange if not typical with you two is that when Robert Scheer writes the things he does, it's called ³Attempting to Illuminate the Truth² yet when somebody exposes him for what he really is as it was clearly done in that article, you guy's call it a ³Witch Hunt.² Hmmmmmmmmm

 

EXAMPLE: ³ATTEMPTING TO ILLUMINATE THE TRUTH² Democratic Senator Carl Levin is having a grand old time slamming the Bush Administration over the magic 16 words in the State of the Union speech.

Levin is calling for an investigation of Bush's claim that ³The British government has learned that Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.²

 

EXAMPLE: ³WITCH HUNT² On October 9, 1998 (when there was a Democrat in office) Carl Levin made a speech on the floor of the Senate in which he stated that there are reports that ³Iraq (has) attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear program contrary to its treaty obligations.²

 

So, Levin wants an investigation (TO ILLUMINATE THE TRUTH), does he?

 

We are now waiting for Carl Levin to call for an investigation (WITCH HUNT) into his own remarks. Like that's going to happen...

 

Here's another example, a recent quote from Senator Bob Graham, ³Florida's embarrassment² .

³ATTEMPTING TO ILLUMINATE THE TRUTH² ³If the standard of impeachment that the Republicans set for Bill Clinton, that a personal, consensual relationship was the basis for impeachment, would not a president who knowingly deceived the American people about something as important as whether to go to war meet the standard of impeachment?²

 

³WITCH HUNT² Once again . and maybe it will sink in this time . Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury. He lied under oath. That's a crime.

People can go to jail for that. He lied to deny a woman her day in court under a law that he, Clinton, signed into law.

 

Now the reason that Bob Graham can get away with this nonsense is because he knows that he's trying to appeal to Democratic voters. Democratic voters will buy this idiocy that Clinton was impeached because of a sexual relationship.

 

Bob Graham understands this . but he also understands that he can ignore the truth and change the facts in order to enrage the passions of the know-nothings who might actually vote for him.

 

IGNORE THE TRUTH AND CHANGE THE FACTS TO ³ENRAGE² THE PASSIONS.

HMMMMMM...

 

Nice spin on that piece though gentleman, you two NEVER disappoint.

Johnny Cochran should be worshipping at the altar of ³Eric & Dick.²

 

Isn't it ironic (There's that word AGAIN!) that both of you are white males and your Boy was helping Eldridge Cleaver, who declared he wanted to ³Kill Whites² and your boy's article entitled ³Courage to Kill² expressed his approval with his (Eldridge Cleaver) views. ³Right on, Eldridge!²

 

If you haven't noticed Eric (Dreadlock period aside), you would be one of those ³White People² he said he wanted to kill. Not only did your boy express his approval, he cheered the fact that he fled the country ("Right on, Eldridge!²) after killing (ambushing, who cares about semantics when killing someone is involved right?) two SF Policemen.

 

But as Dick noted: The scary thing is that there are those who would inflame us with words like ³Marxist,² even when they use them in an entirely inaccurate way. This is the dishonesty in the process (something Scheer has NEVER done right?), Scheer is no Marxist, and those who call him one are guilty of the old practice of ³Red Baiting.² The sad thing is, that practice can still destroy, or cost someone a job.² Hmmmmmmmmm Let's see, Cost someone a job with the TRUTH about his past history who supported a cowardly killer or the DEATHS of two Human Beings who were Ambushed (Killed by a Coward) in cold blood. God forbid that actually pointing out (Red Baiting) what Scheer actually is could cost him his job at USC (I hope it does! Let him go teach at UCLA)

 

Yet not only did he (Scheer) openly revel and ³expressed his approval for Cleaver's sentiments with the exclamation, ³Right on, Eldridge!² After Cleaver fled the U.S. following his ambush of two San Francisco policemen in 1968, then Scheer joined a Red Family overseas delegation to visit the fugitive.²

 

So tell me Dick, is the Cowardly (Ambush) killingly of two SF Policemen any ³Scarier or Sadder² than this guy you and Eric so unabashedly admire losing his job than the Killing of two policemen?

 

Dick, you say he ³Wasn't a Marxist² would the correct word be ³Communist?² What ³Exactly² would you call someone who uses one of the most powerful press platforms in the country, and articulates, on a weekly basis, the left's corrosive assertions about the moral deficiencies of our nation, our president, and our efforts in the war on terrorism. It is but a continuation of what he did before he ever got to the Times. While posturing as someone who cares about the welfare of our nation, Scheer has spent his entire adult life as a passionate America-hating leftist.

 

He first signaled his political inclinations long ago when he co-authored a 1961 book defending Fidel Castro's communist revolution in Cuba. He was the political editor of the largest magazine of the radical left, Ramparts, and was given the diaries of Che Guevara to publish by the Cuban dictatorship itself. Later in the decade, Scheer and Tom Hayden (The former Mr.

Hanoi Jane Fonda) co-founded Berkeley's Red Family--a commune of urban guerrillas, which trained its members in the use of explosives and firearms and called for the creation of ''liberated zones'' in the United States--a liberation to be accomplished by force of arms (I thought you lib's were against citizens owning guns?). Dedicated to Maoist principles, Red Family leaders adorned the walls of their headquarters with portraits of such communist heroes as Ho Chi Minh and North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung, and Black Panther thug, Huey Newton. (Eric's has the same ones up on his walls along with portraits of Scheer and Maureen Dowd, right next to the Jim Morrison ³Wanted² poster I gave him for his B-Day a few years ago).

 

Scheer is nothing more than a radical left winger who goes a long way back in supporting anything but conservative issues so it is no surprise that he currently works at the L.A. Times. This is the paper that frequently published articles about how awful we were doing during the war, backed up by intelligence from the Ministry of Intelligence in Iraq.

 

What would you call someone like that? (This is gonna be good, I better put my seatbelt on for this one, the spin on this is gonna be something else!)

 

It's ironic (Damn if that word doesn't continue to keep coming up!) that when the war ended so quick much to the dismay of people like Eric with so few casualties, and being that I supported the war, he as only he can, said ³A dead Marine is a dead Marine² so being that Scheer ³strongly supported the violent Black Panther Party in the Sixties, and devoted a great deal of time and energy to helping Eldridge Cleaver, ("Right on, Eldridge!²) the Panther whose volcanic hatred for whites and police officers was legendary.² Does the ³A Dead Policeman, Is a Dead Policeman² principle apply here as Iım ³Attempting to Illuminate² the Truth about your boy Scheer? Or am I ³Red Baiting² or ³Witch Hunting² when ³I² say that?

 

Jack

 

Hereıs a little story about the ³Black Panthers² (That crazy bunch of guyıs that Scheer felt great solidarity with) regarding one of the most disturbing, yet little-known, crimes of the New Left era. It happened 28 years ago.

 

Remember, Dick did say that ³Scheer has never called for a bloody revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie (Just White people),² and also said ² Scheer is, in fact, a good example of the scrambling of the old class systems that rules this day.² So I guess ³Feeling great solidarity² with a party who wants to kill ³Whitey² (What a ³Great Example² he is) among other things in the following story doesnıt apply right Dick?

 

Who killed Betty Van Patter?

 

Twenty eight years ago Betty Van Patter disappeared from a tavern on University Avenue called the Berkeley Square and was never seen alive again.

 

Six months earlier, she had been recruited to keep the books of the Educational Opportunities Corp., an entity created for the children of the Black Panther Party. By the time the police fished her battered body out of San Francisco Bay in January 1975, It was known that her killers were the Panthers themselves.

 

At the time, the Panthers were still being defended by writers like Murray Kempton and Garry Wills in the pages of the New York Times, and by then-Gov.

Jerry Brown of California. The governor was even a confidant of Elaine Brown, who had hired Betty and whom Huey Newton had appointed to stand in for him as the Panther leader while he was in ³exile² in Cuba.

 

At the time of Bettyıs death, Elaine was running for Oakland City Council and had just secured a $250,000 grant from the Nixon administration under a federal juvenile delinquency program. J. Anthony Kline, the consigliore to whom she had been able to turn when the partyıs enforcers got in trouble with the law, was about to be appointed to Gov. Brownıs cabinet. (Today Kline is a justice on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.)

 

In pursuit of answers to the mystery of Bettyıs death, It was subsequently discovered that the Panthers had killed more than a dozen people in the course of conducting extortion, prostitution and drug rackets in the Oakland ghetto. While these criminal activities were taking place, the group enjoyed the support of the American left, the Democratic Party, Bay Area trade unions and even the Oakland business establishment. (The head of Clorox, Oaklandıs largest company, for example, sat on the board of the Educational Opportunities Corp.)

 

On a far smaller scale, the Panther killings were an American version of the ³Katyn massacre,² the infamous murder of Polish officers carried out on Stalinıs orders that the left had denied and kept hidden for decades, until the opening of the Soviet archives settled the ³dispute² for good. It was hard to understand why the Panthers should be able to get away with these murders in democratic America, and why the nationıs press should turn such a blind eye to a group that the nationıs law enforcement had made an object of its attentions.

 

Whatever the reasons, the fact remains that to this day not a single organization of the mainstream press has ever investigated the Panther murders, even though the story is one that touches the lives and political careers of the entire liberal establishment, including the first lady and the deputy attorney general in charge of civil rights for the Clinton administration. Both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Lann Lee began their political careers as law students at Yale by organizing demonstrations in 1970 to shut down the university and stop the trial of Panther leaders who had tortured and then executed a black youth named Alex Rackley.

 

This silence is even more puzzling since, despite the blackout by the national media, the details of the story have managed to trickle out over the years. This has been the result of efforts by Peter Collier, by radical journalist Kate Coleman, by Hugh Pearson, by the nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting, New Times magazine and one or two others, including most particularly David Talbot and David Weir, now editors at Salon.

 

Because of their efforts, informed citizens are at least aware of these murders. On the other hand, unlike in the Soviet Union -- where testimonies emerged as soon as the threat of retaliation was gone -- in the 29 years since Bettyıs death, few additional witnesses have come forward to add to our knowledge about her case or these other American crimes. There are hundreds if not thousands of veterans of the Œ60s who have at least some knowledge of these deeds, but who have remained silent and therefore complicit to this day.

 

These include notable figures like Tom Hayden and journalists like Los Angeles Times columnist ROBERT SCHEER, both of whom promoted the Panthers as revolutionary heroes at the time, and have failed to correct that impression ever since. But it also includes many lesser figures who worked day in and day out to facilitate the Panthersı rise to power and to cover up their crimes along the way. Evidently, these fellow travelers have remained convinced that even though the crimes were committed, it was (and is) no responsibility of theirs to help solve them.

 

To think that a man who was involved with people like this, and who now is ³posturing as someone who cares about the welfare of our nation,² it would be as Dick has said ³Scary and Sad² if he were to lose his job because of his past and current beliefs. NOT!!!

 

============================================

 

On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 08:54 PM,

Eric Burgess wrote:

 

sheesh, jack, your imac must be overheating from the google searches you are running in order to dig up all the dirt on robert scheerıs past. woodward and bernstein would be proud... oh, except for the fact that you are attempting to discredit a journalist only because his ³passionate American-hating leftist² words are revealing the imperialist agenda of dubya and all the presidentıs men.

 

i guess you didnıt understand the dilbert cartoon. i know, since itıs in the business section itıs too high-brow. again and again and again, jack, you research and criticize everything but the present. i mean, itıs impressive that you followed scheer back to 1968. but again, i bring to the table the numbers of american soldiers that continue to die every damn day in 2003!

 

so you condemn scheer for supporting a murderous black panther. good for you. i, then, condemn you for supporting a man who leaves thousands upon thousand of americans in harmıs way. the blood of americaıs soldiers staining the steets of iraq is on the hands of george walker bush!

 

yes, i know, you will spout some well-researched facts about how clintonıs moral definciencies led to his deserved impeachment. but i ask you one thing, jack: how many americanıs died because of clinton?

 

peace, eb

 

p.s. i, too, support the troops. thatıs why i care so much for their lives.

 

============================================

 

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:10:30 -0700

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

From: ³THE KID² <the-kid@sbcglobal.net>

 

Wasnıt it over 3000 killed on 9/11/01, which I will condemn you for, because that blood is on Clintonıs hands.

 

And as far as you supporting the troops? LOL Where did you get that last line? A hallmark Card? Be sure to add that to your web site.

 

jb

 

============================================

 

On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 09:12 PM,

Eric Burgess wrote:

 

again backwards, instead of now. you blame for clinton for 9/11 but george tenet for the 16 words in bushıs state of the union speech?! thatıs nutty. get back to googling, dude....

peace,

eb

 

============================================

 

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:17:51 -0700

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

From: ³THE KID² <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

 

Nutty said the ³White boy² whose adulation of a man who supported the Black panthers who Wanted nothing more than to kill White men.

 

OOOOOOOkay Eric

 

============================================

 

On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 09:24 PM,

Eric Burgess wrote:

 

³adulation²?! because i agree with his politics? geez, that means you must want to have children with dubya.

 

OOOOOOOkay Jack

 

============================================

 

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:30:53 -0700

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

From: ³THE KID² <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

 

No, but his mother is a Hottie!

 

============================================

 

On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 09:35 PM,

Eric Burgess wrote:

 

donıt be mocking barb or youıll be getting a visit from some marines instituting a regime change in your house complements of rumsfeld.

 

============================================

 

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:45:39 -0700

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

From: ³THE KID² <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

 

Mind you sir, I mock not, and I fear not!

 

Remember, Janet Reno is no longer in charge, so there will be no ³Elian Gonzalez² like raid on my humble home.

 

Gotta run, Dick just replied and i think Iım being scolded for being mean to you.

 

Later... HONKEY! LOL

 

ŒYou need me, I need you. You come to L.A., we rule that world,ı² Malone said. ³Thatıs what he told me.² Karl Malone at todayıs press conference, imitating Shaqıs phone call to him before deciding on coming to L.A.

 

============================================

 

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:47:26 -0700

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

From: ³Richard Winters² <jdrudge@earthlink.net> 

 

I donıt remember saying he was illuminating the truth. I just said that he was in no way a Marxist. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I am a Liberal. I believe that people can become poor through no fault of their own. I believe that the economy and humankind are better off if we try to help our fellow humans. I believe that it is crazy for any country to leave thirteen percent of its populace living below the poverty level. I believe that if those people, forty percent of whom are younger than sixteen (the legal age to work) and twenty-five percent of whom are working, had disposable income, all of us would be better off. I believe the historical record which shows that the greatest indicator of a rise in crime is a rise in the unemployment rate, and that the greatest indicator of a drop in crime is a drop in the unemployment rate. I believe that the environment is much more complex and much more fragile than we realize. I see science telling us that every day. I believe that humanity has had an outsize impact on the environment, mostly damaging, and that we are going to have to change at least some of our ways.

 

What I donıt get is the sarcasm and fear. I am not afraid of conservative ideas. True conservatives make us stop and examine our proposals. Will what we say we want to do really make things better? Why canıt conservatives apply that same question to the things they want to do? Why havenıt conservatives really examined the questions which abound about tax cutting? Why wouldnıt they examine the rush to war?

 

The other thing that turns me off, Jack, is the way you write to Eric. he is a good friend of yours, but Iıve seen things in print that would really hurt me if I was Eric. Maybe he knows you better than I do (Iım sure of that), and maybe he knows youıre just blowing smoke and trying to create argument, but I still donıt see the need for the nastiness I see in your communications with him. If weıre going to debate, letıs at least try to find some common ground from which to argue. Otherwise this is all just stupid posturing.

 

Dick

 

============================================

 

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:29:42 -0700

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

From: ³THE KID² <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

 

I hear ya dick, but itıs not like that. Right Erica? or is it? j/k Thatıs the only thing that really gets him is when I call him Erica.

 

There was only one time that things sort of crossed the line, and that was a while back before we went public with our various discussions.

And without getting into specifics, he (didnıt see that one coming huh?) was the one who lashed out at me, with a little prodding on my part. But we came to an agreement that no matter what, we will always remain friends, sniff... sniff.... I LOVE YOU MAN!

 

But eric is sly, he probably doesnıt think I notice his ³subtle² yet backhanded remarks toward me, but Iım hip to you eric!

 

Besides he knows I have mucho dirt on him <coughsexchangecough> that I can <coughsucksatsoftballcough> reveal at any <coughintheclosetneo-concough> moment.

 

O.T. If anybody has the chance to see ³Ellen DeGeneres² routine ³Here and Now² playing on HBO (check your local listings) please do so, cause I am laughing my ass off here, I never knew she was so damn funny! The routine of organizing your music collection while high is killing me and there is a ³Doors² joke in there. but I digress...

 

I believe we have all come to an impasse here regarding our views regardless of what they are. Weıre not listening to each other, weıre just waiting to reply and get our own view across and nothing more. At least thatıs how I feel. Besides there are about 30 other people on this list who i feel are actually in on these discussions and others, yet itıs only you, Joe, eric and myself that even say anything.

 

Although I have my suspicions that there is a whole other debate going on without me. To quote George Goebel ³I feel like a pair of Brown Shoes, while the whole world is a Tuxedo.²

 

But as long as there is another voice out there with an opinion that is different than mine, then I will continue, without the stupid posturing.

 

So rest easy dick, everything is Cool. BTW, have you officially retired yet? Are you enjoying the fruits of you labor yet? by lying around all day in your P.J.ıs watching Oprah instead of having to go to work with the rest of us stiffs?

 

LOUIS VUITTON JACK

 

============================================

 

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:08:39 -0700

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

From: ³Richard Winters² <jdrudge@earthlink.net> 

 

The line I loved best was your, ³I could have just lit fire to the ten dollars I spent and had more excitement than I got form the movie.² If you can write lines like that, youıre okay.

 

Yeah, Iım retired now, and moving off to the wilds of Oregon, where I can ruin a generation of future teachers at the University of Oregon. I guess that makes me only semi-retired. Take care jack, and all the rest of you.

 

Dick

 

===========================================

 

From: ³Clark A. A.² <clark.a.@gte.net> 

Subject: RE: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:04:17 -0700

 

Scheer sucks! Dilbert sucks! Will Smith rocks!

 

Late!

Martin Sheen

 

============================================

 

From: ³Clark A. A.² <clark.a.@gte.net> 

Subject: RE: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:56:51 -0700

 

Good question. How many people died during the Clinton years?

Hundreds of thousands...which is one of the key reasons terrorists like Hussein need(ed) to be stopped. Bush Jr. (personally, I think Bush Sr. was too much of a puppet and too U.N. reliant...sorry Jack) is making this world (including the United States) a safer place to live. How quickly we forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqıs innocent citizenıs who were treated like lab rats while Clinton sat back and did NOTHING. (Something he was great at during his tenure) Stop suffering and oppression around the world!

With Clinton staying ³in the bubble² and not taking out Bin Laden when he (Clinton) had the chance to ³pull the trigger² on him (yet another example of his famous passivity) parlayed into the rest of the worldıs terrorists feeling that they could actually pull off a 9/11. Way to protect us, Clinton! Thank God that Gore didnıt get elected...he would have (with shaking knees) invited Bin Laden to take over as President of the U.S.

as long as Bin Laden promised to ³leave me alone and donıt hurt me². Gore sucks! (Hey Gore...call Jenny Craig, dude...we need to add another zip code to cover your ass!)

 

Peace... ;-)

Clark.

 

===========================================

 

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:44:55 -0700

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

From: ³JAX BOX² <jaxbox@sbcglobal.net> 

 

Clark, Clark, Clark... have you not learned anything young Grasshopper besides not to correct an english honors teacher on his grammar?

 

You have to stay in the present with Eric or else he just dismisses anything you have to say on why we are in the situation we are today because of Clinton being asleep at the wheel.

 

And while i tend to ³Google² for my information that would put Woodward and Bernstein to shame, eric always emphasizes his replies by GASP!

googling for pictures of funerals of our dead soldiers and their families grieving and then he usually sprinkles in some obscure quote from some dead drunk German poet, philosopher wannabe pundit. Youıll learn the routine.

 

Those Clinton years he still yearns for mean nothing because President Bush is a 16 word liar who is just loving the fact that our troops are dying in Iraq to preserve our freedom and even his.

 

And Clinton NEVER (damn you Eric, now you have me thinking about those friggin rules and how Iım breaking them every other word) sent troops to their death. The indiscriminate bombings (aspirin factories, empty tents) that were supported if not encouraged by the very same people who are now condemning Bush. But thatıs all irrelevant to him because that was in the past.

 

One word of advice while dealing with Eric on these topics, make sure you donıt eat anything before you read any of his replies. Because the ³Spin² he puts them will make you hurl anything you just ate... in technocolor.

 

And I wasnıt a big Bush ³41² fan, Now Mrs. ³41² is another matter!

 

³Experts say that Osama bin Laden has shaved off his beard and heıs laying low plotting his revenge. No, wait a minute, thatıs what theyıre saying about Al Gore.²

 

Iım off like a Prom Dress...

 

jack

 

===========================================

 

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:12:24 -0700 (PDT)

From: "Eric Burgess" <zteecher@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist (with picture)

To: ³JAX BOX² <jaxbox@sbcglobal.net>

 

damn right you need to stay in the present. while bemoaning the clinton years as hell on earth may make conservatives feel better because they have a convenient outlet for spewing their enmity and acrimony but none of this changes the fact the the deaths of american soldiers in iraq are dubyaıs responsibility (fyi: ³FALLUJAH, Iraq - A U.S. soldier was killed Friday when a bomb detonated under a military convoy in which he was traveling²). yes, ANOTHER american death. you may mock my ³hallmark card² remarks, jack, but at least i make them, as oppposed to you waving old glory, celebrating another red, white and blue ³victory² in the world. check the yahooed picture attachment and notice the DEAD 3rd infantry american that will be returning home early -- yes, in a flag-covered coffin. oh, and clark, i hope you didnıt eat anything per jackıs advice, because if you are anything like me the picture will make you sick.

peace in the present,

eb

 

 

 

===========================================

 

From: ³JAXBOX² <jaxbox@sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist (with picture)

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:37:51 -0700

 

You see Clark? Heıs Good!

 

He went right past the fact that you and I both said had Clinton not been asleep at the wheel while in the white house or busy with the numerous fires (Scandals) he was trying to extinguish, we wouldnıt be the situation weıre in today.

 

That has NOTHING to do with anything going on now as far as Eric seeıs it.

His paragraph stating: ³conservatives feel better because they have a convenient outlet for spewing their enmity and acrimony but none of this changes the fact the the deaths of American soldiers in iraq are dubyaıs responsibility² only needs two words changed ³Conservatives for Liberals² and ³Dubyaıs to Slick Willies.²

 

Peace with the TRUTH

 

Jack

 

===========================================

 

From: MaddogMV@aol.com |

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:26:34 EDT

Subject: Re: Robert Scheer, Gucci Marxist

 

       You know I am all for saving the world and ending world wide oppression, so we can all hold hands one day and sing camp fire songs. But you know when that happens, the aliens are going to try to take over the world. (thatıs a little Simpson reference, for those of you who didnıt know) First off though, BIG bro has to realize how fucked up our nation is and stop trying to save the rest of the world. Lets first try to solve our own problems here at home before we move on to saving the rest of the world. And about blaming 9/11 on Clinton, we could easily blame IRAQ 2 on Bush I. In IRAQ 1 he could have just killed Hussien then, because thatıs whatıs going to happen once they catch him and put him through a military tribunal, which is going to solve what? An eye for an EYE? of course you let him live and goes about his bad ways, so you cant let that happen. I pose this question to all of you: What sentence would you give hussien and bin laden, for commiting all their crimes? Somebody else will just come along and be just as bad and the whole thing will start up again, so then what?  And as far as inviting over Bin Laden to become PREZ, first they would have to find him. Not too mention that BIG Bro (thatıs the man, for those who donıt know) is willing to put 25 million dollar price tags on these guys, while we spend a BILLION A week trying to stabilize Iraq. Thatıs 52 billion dollars a year. SO lets see, almost everyone is saying that the US will be in Iraq for about 5 or so years, so let me get out my calculator........ carry the 1 and divide by PI and you get $260 billion dead presidents, cash that is. Thatıs a nice sum of money, which could go to pay off the national deficit or fund something else. Maybe help the Central Intuitive Agency to find some more reliable resources. OR get bush some better oratary skills, because watching him try to keep up with tony blair is hilarious. Its nice to see that BUsh got a  top notch edge-uhmacation from GOOD Olı YALE. Perhaps to help with the budget crisis over here in CaLI. Instead the board of regents raise the fee for UC students bye 30%, with more rate hikes coming in the future. Not that I am complaining, since Iıll be working my ass of for the next 15 years trying to pay off my student loans from USC.  Always nice to hear from you old timers, keep up the debate. Iım out...

 

PEACE ³FIGHT ON!²

 

MIKE V.

 

Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious. Brendan Gill

 

PS: somebody stop the bleeding and get the troops out of IRAQ

 

===========================================