Raul Grijalva: Good Friend of Communists

Raul Grijalva is a long-time Southern Arizona congressman running for re-election in November. 

By Trevor Loudon, Contributing Writer, The Epoch Times

December 26, 2018

Long-time Communist Party USA ally Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) is to chair the critical House Committee on Natural Resources. This position will give Grijalva significant influence over key economic and environmental decisions.

In this position, he will be able to stall and otherwise influence legislation and create major uncertainty for potential infrastructure, natural resource, and energy investors.

Grijalva is so excited about his new post that he has even opted to resign from his influential position as co-chair of the far-left Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Allowing a man with Grijalva’s radical record to wield such influence could have disastrous implications for American jobs and economic growth.

The Early Years

Grijalva foreshadowed his legislative strategy in 2013 when he revealed to In These Times, a Democratic Socialists of America affiliated publication, that “I’m a Saul Alinsky guy,” referring to the “community organizer” who mentored Hillary Clinton and inspired Barack Obama.

But even the Marxist Alinsky wasn’t Grijalva’s most radical influence.

According to a 2009 Center for Immigration Studies memorandum, as a young activist in Tucson, Arizona, Grijalva became a leader in several Marxist-leaning groups including the Chicano Liberation Committee, which pressured the University of Arizona to implement affirmative action for Chicano staff and establish a Mexican-American Studies program.

Grijalva was also active in Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), which agitated for the return of the “Chicano” areas of the U.S. Southwest to Mexico. The group’s motto was “Por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada,” which translates to “For the race, everything; outside the race, nothing.”

Grijalva further joined the radical Raza Unida Party. After losing a school board race in 1972, Grijalva dropped some of his revolutionary posing and sought to involve himself in more “mainstream” Democratic Party politics.

In 1993, Grijalva, identified at that time as a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors, wrote an anti-NAFTA article headlined “North America Needs ‘Fair’ Trade” for the Nov. 13 edition of the Communist Party USA’s newspaper People’s Weekly World (which has since changed its name to People’s World).

Through the 1990s, Grijalva used his Pima County position to assist Communist Party USA-affiliated organizations, such as the Southern Arizona People’s Law Center and the Tucson Tenants Union.

By the early 2000s, Grijalva was ready for the big time, and the Communist Party USA was eager to help.

Communist Party Assistance

According to Tucson Communist Party USA leader Steve Valencia, his mentor—the late Arizona Communist Party USA chair Lorenzo Torrez—was a pioneer in the “struggle” for Mexican-American political representation.

Valencia told People’s World newspaper in 2012, “I always say: Before [Communist Party USA-aligned Democratic Rep.] Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva, there was Lorenzo Torrez.”

The article continues: “Pastor and Grijalva are Arizona’s first two Mexican Americans [sic] members of the U.S. Congress. But Torrez ran for Congress before they ran, and also boldly ran against Republican Senator Barry Goldwater.

“‘Lorenzo told us it is time for these majority Latino districts to be represented by a Mexican American,’ said Valencia. ‘He wanted voters to see a Latino name on the ballot.’

“When Pastor declared his candidacy, Torrez rallied the Tucson CP [Communist Party] club to join in the effort. Pastor’s victory in 1991 set the stage for Grijalva’s election in 2002.”

On Sept. 21, 2002, the People’s World published an article headlined “People Gain in Arizona Primaries” by local Communist Party leader Joe Bernick. It dealt mainly with Grijalva’s victory in the recent Democratic Party primary:

“The tireless efforts of hundreds of grassroots volunteers dealt a blow to the corporate establishment here and their attempt to dominate Southern Arizona politics in the Sept. 10 primary election.

“Long-time progressive Raul Grijalva routed seven other candidates to win the Democratic nomination for CD-7, one of Arizona’s two new Congressional seats. …

“As a Pima County Supervisor and Tucson School Board member Grijalva consistently fought for working people’s interests.

“The Grijalva campaign was a textbook example of how to conduct a people’s campaign, beginning with its name: ‘A whole lot of people for Grijalva.’ Hundreds of people came out seven days a week, sometimes twice on Saturday, to wear out tons of shoe leather.

“Grijalva thanked labor for its key support and for ‘putting the union label on me.’ He promised the Southern Arizona Central Labor Council, at its Sept. 12 meeting, to become ‘an extension of the voice of labor in the U.S. Congress.’”

At a meeting of the National Board of the Communist Party USA in South Chicago, on the last weekend of January 2003, an Arizona activist boasted, “Using street heat tactics, all of labor worked to back one candidate Raul Grijalva in Tucson … And we won!”

Tucson Communist Party USA supporter Susan Thorpe confirmed this narrative in an article covering the 2002 Grijalva campaign in an article in People’s World on Nov. 7, 2003, titled “Arizona: Grassroots Can Beat Big Bucks”:

“Nevertheless, here in Tucson, we are gearing up for local elections in 2003 and the presidential election ahead in 2004 by using the same tactics we did in 2002 to get Raul Grijalva elected to Congress. …

“Congressman Raul Grijalva is proving to be a wonderful voice for the people of Arizona. And our movement and those important connections made during his campaign are still alive in Tucson.”

In Congress, Grijalva worked to help the Communist Party USA where he could.

Returning the Favor

According to a 2005 statement by Latinos for Peace (an anti-Iraq War front for the Communist Party USA) published in the Communist Party USA theoretical journal Political Affairs on Oct. 4, 2005: “On Monday September 26 we participated in the peace movement lobby day at the capitol. We met with Rep Raul Grijalva who said he would work to help build our campaign.”

On July 13, 2006, Communist Party USA member Carolyn Trowbridge addressed 14 fellow black-shrouded members of the “peace” group “Raging Grannies” along with 40 supporters. Trowbridge’s speech was followed by “a reading of an antiwar speech” by Grijalva. They then marched to the late Sen. John McCain’s office to “deliver a petition on Iraq demanding an immediate end to the U.S. occupation, the closing of all U.S. military bases and the removal all U.S. mercenaries and corporate involvement,” according to People’s World.

Later that same year, on Nov. 7, Arizona voters became the first in the nation to reject a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The campaign was led by activist group Arizona Together. Both Arizona state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema and Congressman Grijalva assisted the campaign.

According to Arizona Communist Party leader and Arizona Together activist Joe Bernick, who wrote it up in the People’s World:

“Why Arizona? How come voters in more liberal states have voted for similar hateful laws while conservative Arizona voted no?

“So how did we do it? The answer is: educating, organizing and mobilizing.

“As soon as proponents started circulating petitions to put 107 on the ballot, opponents brought out their own clipboards, signing up thousands of volunteers. Arizona Together emerged as the campaign committee, chaired by progressive state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema.

“Congressman Raul Grijalva appeared on radio ads calling Prop. 107 an attack on working families. The Grijalva campaign worked closely with Arizona Together, using its literature in their extensive door-to-door canvassing.”

Sinema, now the newly elected U.S. senator from Arizona, also has close ties to the Communist Party USA.

On March 29, 2003, Grijalva sponsored and addressed the Third Annual Cesar Chavez Day March and Rally for Peace.

The rally was organized by Tucson Communist Party member and high school teacher Ray Siqueiros, one of the most militant teachers in Tucson. In 2006, Siqueiros was involved in organizing a mass walk-out by Tucson high school students protesting proposed legislation that would classify illegal immigrants as felons. Some of the students waved Mexican flags.

In June 2015, Siqueiros received a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition from Grijalva for “valuable service to the community.”

Border Security

In September 2015, the late Sen. John McCain from Arizona introduced legislation (S750) to exempt certain projects from environmental protection laws, in order to better enhance border security.

S750, if passed, “would exclude new surveillance installations and other border patrol activities from environmental protection laws. The bill would apply to federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S.–Mexico border in Arizona and parts of California,” according to People’s World.

Grijalva was apparently willing to work with the Communist Party USA to stop legislation designed to keep America’s borders secure.

Then the senior Democrat in the House’s Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulations, Grijalva fought back against the proposal.

Grijalva spoke at a forum co-sponsored by the Communist Party USA-led Arizona Peace Council, and the Communist Party USA-run Salt of the Earth Labor College, saying he was “confident regarding the ability to defeat S750 provided people stay aware of it and speak out against it.”

According to People’s World, Grijalva said in part: It’s a two pronged agenda. … Part of the agenda … [is] to end any legislative hope … that we would end up with something semi-rational in terms of comprehensive immigration reform because this bill is about enforcement only—only enforcement. …

“The other agenda is about attacking bedrock environmental laws that have been on the books for 50, 40, 45 years. … It’s both about immigration and the environment and citizen accountability and participation in decision making.”

As today’s Communist Party USA is loyal to Cuba, China, and Venezuela, Grijalva was effectively attempting to aid and abet enemies of the Republic.

The Communist Party USA is the sworn enemy of American capitalism.

Houston Communist Party leader Bernard Sampson wrote only this past September: “We aren’t like other parties. We are a party dedicated to the overthrow of the capitalist class in this country.”

Yet Grijalva has worked with these people for more than 30 years. He is clearly fully on board with the Communist Party USA agenda.

Imagine the damage Grijalva will be able to do to America’s economy, environment, and national security as Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources. Communist Party USA leaders must be rubbing their hands in revolutionary glee.

Americans likely do not realize that elected officials such as Grijalva are not required to undergo any form of background security check before serving on sensitive committees. If they were, Grijalva would certainly fail.

America’s enemies are aware of this loophole and are using it to their advantage.

Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch

It’s Ducey, Brnovich, Douglas, Reagan in GOP Primary

Doug Ducey has won the Arizona Republican primary race for governor. RINO Scott Smith is in second, with Christine Jones third, Ken Bennett fourth, Andy Thomas fifth and former congressman Frank Riggs sixth.

Mark Brnovich is ending scandal-ridden RINO Tom Horne’s reign as Arizona attorney general.

Diane Douglas ousted incumbent John Huppenthal for Superintendent for Public Instruction. Douglas ran on her opposition to Common Core education, which Huppenthal supported.

RINO Michele Reagan is winning the nomination for secretary of state. She will most likely lose in November to Democrat Terry Goddard.

Jeff DeWitt is heading for victory in the three-man primary race for state treasurer, with RINO Hugh Hallmann in second and former AZ GOP chairman Randy Pullen running third.

Wendy Rogers is leading Andrew Walter by about 5,000 votes in the GOP Congressional District 9 race.

Gary Kiehe is surprisingly leading in the GOP Congressional District 1 in a close race with Adam Kwasman and Andy Tobin.

Several incumbent congressmen ran unopposed.

In the Republican race for Arizona Corporation Commissioner, Tom Forese and Doug Little have secured nominations for November’s general election.

In a huge disappointment, Arizona-bashing Bob Worsley has defeated challenger Dr. Ralph Heap in the State Senate race for District 25.  

Additionally, John Giles won handily over conservative Danny Ray in the election for mayor in Mesa. Giles was backed by all the current councilmen — all of whom, incidentally, were identified as “friends” and “champions” of Big Government by Americans for Tax Prosperity.

During the summer campaign, The Arizona Conservative questioned the loyalty of many Republican candidates to GOP principles. Several of those candidates won or did well tonight, raising additional questions about Republican voters, as well. Do personalities and advertising tactics weigh more heavily with Republican voters, or do they observe GOP principle as their criteria for voting decisions? The answer is in, and the GOP platform was a big loser in here in Arizona this summer. And as we said previously, it hasn’t been tried and found wanting. For many of the candidates — particularly Smith, Hallmann, Reagan, Worsley, Horne, and others — it has not been tried. Obviously, conservatives have much to do to educate Republicans in this state, which appears to be drifting away from the conservative principles that made America great.

DEVELOPING …

Economics: Why Keynesian Economics Doesn’t Work

Whenever the economy tanks, people in Washington argue that the government should inject money into the economy to stimulate growth. If you think government is enormous now, Obama is agitating for even greater stimulus spending for trillions more in entitlements and make-work projects.

After the “Big Bang stimulus” totaling $4.7 trillion, unemployment remains at 9.1% and the economy has grown an anemic 1.3% (summer 2011 data). But the stimulus hasn’t failed, they say, the government just needs to spend a lot more and keep doing it until it works—the beatings will continue until morale improves.

The problem is, spend a trillion here and a trillion there and soon we run into some pretty big money.

What Is It and Where Did It Come From?

The idea of big government spending as national savior got started in the 1930s when the country was in the throws of the Great Depression. English economist John Maynard Keynes argued that the government could boost the economy if it borrowed money then spent it.

According to this theory, now known as Keynesian Economics, money would find its way into people’s wallets and then they would spend the money. This was supposed to “prime the pump” as money began circulating through the economy. One dollar spent is another dollar earned by someone else. (This is called the multiplier effect).

Following the Keynesian paradigm, Obama and the past Democratic Party-dominated Congress increased spending through the extension of unemployment benefits, the health care takeover, bailouts of financial  institutions, bailouts of homeowners, increases in other entitlement spending and the funding of hundreds of billions of dollars for special interest projects. Since domestic consumer spending accounts for 2/3 of the U.S. economy, all this government spending should have spurred demand, which in turn should have created more jobs to meet the production requirements to meet this new demand. This demand-side economics has not created jobs.

Keynesian theory looks good on paper and it would be the magic spell for flagging economies everywhere if it didn’t have this one glaring logical fallacy. It overlooks the fact that the government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking it out. The theory only looks at half of the equation. As the government puts money in the right hand, it borrows money from the left hand. Government spending clearly benefits those people who receive the money, but there is no net increase in productivity and no increase in the national income (GDP).

GDP will appear to grow as long as the money doesn’t run out. Once the recipients have spent the money, the growth fizzles. The economic reaction is unsustainable because the private sector understands that the government “stimulus” stimulates nothing in the long term, so they will not invest in new products or new hiring.

How Does It Affect the Economy?

The Keynesian response is to say that there will be an increase in the overall available cash, which increases consumer spending rather than the money sitting idle. That’s wrong because the money doesn’t sit idle. Why? Because of a key economic axiom: savings=investment

When people are not spending, they are saving, but they don’t keep their savings in a cookie jar. It is in the bank, in real estate, in stocks and other various instruments, including U.S. Treasury issues.

But when the government gives money to someone to spend, that money is taken from someone else who doesn’t get to spend it.

This can come in two forms: taxation and/or borrowing. The results of taxation are obvious. The effects of  borrowing are not so obvious. When the government borrows, it “crowds out” other types of investments. The government’s demand for money is high and generally the interest rates rise on the law of supply and demand. Higher interest rates translate to higher costs for businesses and consumers which can slow down  growth. Investors and entrepreneurs are then less likely to borrow and so new ideas, services and technology which do provide sustainable employment, don’t appear.

Under the current circumstances of 2011, the crowding out phenomenon has not happened because the Federal Reserve injected trillions into the economy through two rounds of quantitative easing, or QE. QE is when the Federal Reserve buys back its bonds. The Fed’s own demand for bonds raises the price of the  bonds, which in turn lowers their annual percentage yield. Since long term and medium term rates follow the Treasury bonds, these rates fall as well. This sounds like a good deal except “their ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” as the late Milton Friedman said. The big flood of dollars without the increase in productivity is inflationary and the dollar loses its value. Inflation is here.

Nevertheless, businesses should be borrowing like mad but they’re not.

Excessive and ridiculous regulations, uncertainty about health care, corporate tax rates and cap and trade and other unlegislated environmental laws are terrible conditions for businesses and they will remain sitting on their cash in these terribly uncertain times until the heat dies down.

Keynesianism Has Failed: The Evidence

Keynesianism is a failure. Let’s look at the evidence.

During the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover increased taxes dramatically including the top tax rate from 25% to 63% (tax the rich), he imposed harsh protectionist policies such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, significantly increased intervention in private sector and most importantly from the Keynesian perspective, he boosted government spending, which he financed with debt, by 47 percent in 4 years.

Hoover entered office in 1929 with a small surplus and left office with a deficit of 4.5% of GDP. Growth went down and unemployment went up.

FDR followed the same approach. Top tax rate went to 79% [tax the rich], and government intervention became more pervasive and invasive. Keynesians, especially those in the Obama administration, point out that GDP did indeed grow under the New Deal, proving that stimulus works; and it will work again if the
government spends enough.

Looking at the graphs below, we can see that, under FDR, GDP remained pretty flat and unemployment remained staggeringly high until 1940. As Robert Reich is fond to saying repeatedly, “it’s not the deficit we  need to worry about; it’s jobs.”

A Word About FDR and WWII Spending Keynesian enthusiasts will point out that from 1940 on, GDP grew and unemployment went down rather dramatically. I agree.

The biggest jump in debt, employment and GDP came from mobilization and participation in WWII, all financed by the government through debt and the taxpayer. As long as the war carried on, all these factors would continue to grow.

We need to remember several key points about this. First, GDP came from the manufacture of armaments and everything that went along with that. Resources are limited so in order to keep the war effort going, there was a lot of rationing, including, but not limited to, anything involving metals, plastics, nylon, rubber, gasoline, sugar and flour.

Two, the war effort employed millions of active duty and civilian members in every imaginable sector.

Three, unemployment increased after the war as hundreds of thousands of returning soldiers started looking for work.Four, and this is especially important for the years following 1945, was that after the dust settled, the United States was the last man standing. With infrastructure, factories and resources all but destroyed in Europe and in parts of East Asia, the world was America’s customer. It was not the WPA, or even the war effort, that got the US out of Depression. It was America being open for business when no other country could supply all that was needed by the rest of the world. Private sector and free market to the rescue.

Five, defense spending trickles throughout the commercial sector, and technological innovation comes from it that offers ongoing benefits to industry and consumers alike–the gift that keeps on giving.

And six: providing for the common defense is about the only thing the Constitution mandates the government to spend money on.

But when the government spends money on entitlements and special interests that produce nothing, as in O’s stimulus package, then sustainable growth and job creation will never happen, any more than it did with FDR’s WPA.

Another example: in 1972 Gerald Ford gave tax rebates that did nothing to grow the economy because  the money did nothing to improve economic output.

On the international front, Japan tried to use Keynes to stimulate their stagnant economy but the only thing that went up was Japan’s debt, which had doubled during the decade.

Where Might This Economic Thinking Lead America?

The last point about the Keynesian approach is that government spending hurts economic output by misallocating resources. That is, the government chooses what gets developed in the economy rather than the free market which consists of businesses and consumers who decide what they want to buy.

If sound reasoning and all the data show that Keynesian is foolish economics, why does Obama want to keep trying the same approach over and over again? I don’t think that Obama has changed his mind about fundamentally transforming America. I think he is taking advantage of the recession to push his socialist agenda into place.

Either that or he is absolutely nuts.

SOURCE: Conservative Politics in the Progressive Era