By All Means, Ms. Pelosi, Let’s Examine the Funding Sources
August 20, 2010

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Progressive-Leftist from San Francisco, said when asked for her opinion on the construction of an Islamic Center and mosque just 500 feet from the footprint of the World Trade Center – Ground Zero – that the controversy had been "ginned up” for political purposes and that she would support an examination of the funding behind the "opposition movement.”

Said the Speaker:

"There is no question that there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some...And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque (is) being funded."

We, here in the United States, don’t persecute people for their religious beliefs, although the Progressives do seem to be on an ongoing crusade to expunge all religion from the public square sans Islam. This is due to the undeniable fact that the Framers and Founders knew full well that there would be a time when a tyrant like Ms. Pelosi would be ascended to power by an uninformed and disengaged electorate. It is for this reason that the rights to Free Speech and Freedom of Religion were enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

But, if only for the next few moments, let us play along with Ms. Pelosi and pretend that the federal government has the power to persecute the American citizenry by investigating and examining the funding of political and ideological movements.

Socialized Healthcare Movement
First, let’s look at the movement that brought quasi-socialized medicine to the American people in the form of Obamacare.

As Michelle Malkin pointed out in her 2009 article Who’s Funding the Obamacare Astroturf Campaign?,

"...if you look at the funding behind the Obamacare Astroturf campaign, it’s the same few Leftist billionaires, union bosses, and partisan community organizers pushing the socialized medicine agenda.”

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) can be counted among those groups who helped to fund the movement, as can the Progressive groups Health Care for America Now (HCAN), MoveOn.org, the action fund of the Center for American Progress (a George Soros entity) the Campaign for America’s Future and ACORN.

Then there are the Progressive-Leftist loyalists who routinely regurgitate funding for socialist and quasi-socialist causes: Peter Lewis, Herb and Marion Sandler, Gara LaMarche, Drummond Pike and, through connections with them all, the Tides Foundation.

So, as it would appear, the Obamacare movement was less about the poor, down-trodden of the working-class pining for relief from the big, mean insurance companies and more about the will of a group of well-funded Progressive elitists whose agenda is globalization, socialization and opportunism.

Pro-Amnesty Movement
We all remember those "immigration rallies” that took place around the country, most notably in Arizona, Chicago and New York, where hundreds of thousands (per the mainstream media) turned out to protest for "equality” and "opportunity” for those who arrived on American soil illegally, don’t we?

Funding for the very coordinated pro-amnesty rallies around the country come, in part, from: The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles; The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights; The New York Immigration Coalition; The Latin American Integration Center in Woodside, New York; The Center for Community Change; Casa of Maryland; The National Council of La Raza; and The Farmworker Justice Fund (a subsidiary of La Raza), to name but a few. It should be noted here that each of these entities receive funding from the United States government, your tax dollars.

Then, of course, there are the usual suspects: SEIU, the AFSCME, MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, etc.

Again, the pro-amnesty movement is completely funded by a small group of very vocal Progressive elitists who have a societal agenda and not the lowly migrant worker who is simply here to "achieve a better life in America.”

Anti-War Movement, Then & Now
The difference between the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s and the anti-war movement of the 21st Century is little more than the name change of the ideological movement. Where in the 1960s and 1970s it was found that the anti-war movement was funded, in part, by the Marxist elites of the former Soviet Union, today the anti-war movement is funded, in part, by the Marxists of the American Progressive movement. In both cases the ideology is decidedly Marxist and decidedly anti-American.

In the Vietnam Era, organizations and groups such as: the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Socialist Workers Party (SWP), and an uneasy alliance of radical pacifists, moderate pacifists, communists, socialists and reform Democrats facilitated the protest marches and activities that captivated the televisions in the first "televised war.”

But in the 21st Century military conflicts – namely Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) – groups such as Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), Code Pink, the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), Not In Our Name and the Green Party USA, among others, worked to skew the public’s perception of the mission that saw our young men and women engaged in two theaters of battle.

What separates the two eras? Not much. A cursory examination of all of these groups, both past and present, illustrates a common ideology leaning heavily toward a Marxist/Socialist/Communist anti-American bent.

Yet again, it was not the distraught family members of those serving in the US military who were taking the lead in the anti-war protests, both then and now – although there were some among the membership in these organization, rather as John Tierney points out in an April 2004 study titled, The Anti-War Movement in 2004,

"The organizers of the "peace movement” have little interest in peace. The irony is that they exploit war to press their long-standing goal of radical political change. Liberal groups will deny it, but the ideological base of the peace movement can fairly be labeled ‘neo-Communist’ because its leaders belong to remnants of the old Communist Party of the United States.”

So, in the end, maybe it wasn’t such a good idea for Ms. Pelosi to suggest that we look into "how is this opposition to the mosque (is) being funded.” Because – in the end – what is good for the goose is good for the gander...or the salt marsh mouse of San Francisco, as it were.

Truth be told, the Ground Zero mosque issue, for Ms. Pelosi’s edification, is not one of constitutionality because no one is suggesting that Muslims – fundamentalist or otherwise – shouldn’t be allowed to practice their religion. In fact there are a good number of mosques in the vicinity of lower Manhattan and a great many in New York City and its outlaying areas. The issue is exclusive to ethics and morality; whether aggressive members of the Islamic community (read Feisal Abdul Rauf and his supporters) should feel obliged to build what will undoubtedly be seen as a trophy of conquest to the radical Islamist world just 500 feet from what is essentially a graveyard for 2,967 souls, slaughtered by jihadists – radical Islamists – on September 11, 2001. Remember, those who lost loved ones on that day have only Ground Zero as the tombstones for their dead, our dead.

Maybe Ms. Pelosi should dispense with the Progressive clap-trap and investigate the funding behind the September 11, 2001, attacks and the advance of radical Islam inside the United States and around the world.

Post Script: I was contacted by the Center for Community Change after the publication of this piece about data cited from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. In the interest of accuracy I offer their clarification for your consideration: