Cynthia McKinney and Gus Savage Harmed by AIPAC

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

In comments to a June 26, 2018 article at Gumshoe, Mal Hughes said of Zionists: “These creatures, like the US that they have ruled for years, are in a disastrous situation of their own greedy making. Greed for finance and control.”

I challenged him because I always go berserk when an ethnic group (Jews or otherwise) or an ideological group are said to be responsible for the mess we are in. I think we are all responsible.

However there is really no denying the fact that Congress kowtows to the lobby group known as AIPAC. (The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.) I will show you a video below of the kowtowing; it is repulsive.

Anyway, Mal’s comment led me to look for Cynthia McKinney’s tale of getting kicked out of Congress, in 2002, by way of an AIPAC-led move in her state of Georgia. I was surprised to find a video in which she says that during her campaign she was asked to sign a pledge (she did not sign) saying that she would support making Jerusalem the capital of Israel and would support military aid for Israel.

I have run for Congress twice, in 2006 and 2017, and no one approached me for that. (In 2006 I was invited to go on a retreat and “would be taught what to say.” Still cracks me up to think of it.)

Even more surprisingly, McKinney said that once they are elected, all Congresspersons are asked to sign the same pledge, now described as a “paragraph” supporting Israel. Whether before or after election there’s an implied threat that they won’t get re-elected if they fail to sign. She herself was “kicked out” after ten years in Congress.

In a 2011 interview with a female Muslim reporter at PRESSTV.COM, Ms McKinney mentioned that one black Congressman, Gus Savage, cleverly spoke about this issue from the floor, and thus his remarks are in the Congressional Record permanently. That was on March 29, 1990.

I’ll print Rep Savage’s remarks below, abridged. The startling thing to me is that AIPAC is not a PAC (political action committee) – I always made the unthinking assumption that it was. It is a registered lobby and therefore is legally prevented from contributing to candidates. So how does it carry out its threats? It seem that its board members organize real PAC’s, political action committees, which can legally give money.

Savage studied the way in which his opposing candidate Mel Reynolds was able to get money. Savage got re-elected and Mel lost but Mel got 42% of the vote. Of the total amount Mel had received in campaign contributions from PAC’s, 96% were from these AIPAC-spawned PAC’s.

Here is how the New York Times told its readers about the event:

”I had indeed been targeted,” Mr. Savage told today’s audience, ”I was not criticizing my opponent for receiving contributions from Jews or pro-Israeli sources. I was criticizing that it accounted for 96 percent of his PAC money.”

The Congressman said ”Aipac is supportive of a foreign nation.” ”It’s very dangerous when a foreign nation can pour 96 percent of the money into a campaign,” Mr. Savage said. ”Don’t confuse Aipac with the Jewish community. I’m not convinced Aipac would have the support of the Jewish community.”

He said that in his opinion the United States was giving too much foreign aid to Israel and too little to sub-Saharan nations….

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith called Mr. Savage’s remarks ”an outrage” because they ”insinuate dual loyalty on the part of American Jews.”

Speaker Thomas S. Foley of the House said today in a meeting with reporters that Mr. Savage’s remarks on March 17 had ”created an impression of bigotry.” The Speaker said he would closely follow any clarifications Mr. Savage might offer.

Mr. Savage declined to comment today on the remarks of Ronald H. Brown, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, whom he referred to as ”Ron Beige.” Mr. Brown, who is black, had said earlier he was ”appalled” by Mr. Savage’s remarks in the speech.

Mr. Rangel said that he was ”shocked” by reports of anti-Semitic remarks made by Mr. Savage at the rally. ”If I had known that such foul statements would be made, in my presence or out of it, I would not have gone to Chicago,” Mr. Rangel said last week.  [Etc.]

Note: In my opinion Rep Rangel, who sat for 46 years in a New York seat, should have been kicked out.

The rest of this article is Savage’s speech. But first that video – numerous standing ovations for Netanyahu in 2015.  It’s sooo embarrassing. I feel sorry for all Americans especially Jewish Americans, who surely do not want this kind of nonsense.

Congressional Record, 101st Congress (1989-1990)
House of Representatives.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Savage] is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. SAVAGE. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to deal with the problem that occurred in my recent primary election… I want to bring it to the attention of our Nation tonight. For while I mention it in reference to my own experience in the recent primary election, I am convinced that it constitutes a danger for all America and threatens to rip the fabric of our democracy.

I represent the Second Congressional District in Illinois. It is not an inner-city district. It consists mainly of bungalows, semi-professional, and blue collar workers, second and third generation families there. It is approximately 30 percent suburban, approximately 30 percent nonblack. It is an industrial district that has housed most of the heavy industry in Illinois–automobile assembly plants, stamping plants, three steel mills, at one time, four.

In this campaign a strange thing occurred. A column was written by a columnist in the Sun-Times, the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper, by the name of Vernon Jarrett, that raised questions about who really was my opponent, because of what appeared to be a strange tilt in the sources of his campaign funding.

After seeing this column, I began to check the records in the Federal Election Commission report of my opponent for this year, which was available only for January and February, of course, and began to check the identities of those who had contributed to his campaign. I want to let Members know what I found.

It relates to an organization called the American-Israel Political Affairs Committee [later changed to ‘Public’]. It is indeed a rather shadowy operation. AIPAC. This is not to be confused, incidentially, with the term ‘PAC’–referring to political action committees, as Members know, are those organizations under the Federal Election Commission that organize to contribute money to campaigns for Federal candidates and others. However, AIPAC means the American-Israel Political Affairs Committee, not a PAC–has no right to contribute money to candidates,…

I want to just read excerpts to Members from newspapers. In the process, I began to realize that I had been targeted for defeat by AIPAC.

First, The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 1987, an article by John J. Failka. [He] points out that ‘According to a computer-aided analysis of 1986 Federal Election Reports, despite AIPAC’s claims of non-involvement in political spending, no fewer than 51 pro-Israel PAC’s, most of which draw money from Jewish donors and operate under obscure-sounding names are operated by AIPAC officials, or people who hold seats on AIPAC’s two major policymaking bodies’…. and 26 more political action chairmen or treasurers sit on AIPAC’s 131-member executive committee which meets four times a year and set overall lobbying strategy.

‘Twenty-two more political action committee leaders hold seats on the second advisory body or AIPAC, a 200-member national council.’

I ask you to bear with me as I read from three or four clippings briefly to lay the ground work … [This one is] from the Washington Times newspaper, January 13, 1989.  It says:

‘A group of prominent Americans concerned about Washington’s diplomatic tilt toward Israel filed a complaint yesterday with the Federal Elections Commission charging in a 100-page complaint that AIPAC has worked so closely with legally established PAC’s to target political candidates on the basis of their positions toward Israel, that the PAC’s’–political action committees–‘are in effect affiliates of the lobby group.’

That would be illegal. And I continue from the same clipping:

‘AIPAC’s formidable ability to monopolize congressional support is based not upon an appeal to American nation interests’–now, get this–‘but upon threats by a special interests that has resorted to conspiracy and conclusion.’

That is Richard Curtis, formerly the Chief Inspector of the U.S. Information Agency and one of the plaintiffs in this case.

This is from the Washington Post, November 14, 1989, an aritcle by Charles R. Babcock. It says:

Internal AIPAC documents made available to the Washington Post, however, show that the group’s top political operative was actively involved with pro-Israel political action committees–PACS–trying to help raise money for several candidates in the 1986 Senate races.

A memo from Elizabeth A. Schrayer, then AIPAC’s deputy political director, five weeks before that election urged an assistant to call several pro-Israel PACs and ‘try’ to get $500 to $1,000 donations for five specific Senate candidates.

Four other documents are 1985 letters from Schrayer to individuals in Massachusetts, California and Hawaii. In them, she offers to provide fund-raising ideas and arrange speakers for a new pro-Israel PAC, sends a sample solicitation letter and list of pro-Israel PACs to a fund-raiser for Evans, and volunteers to answer questions about starting a PAC.

AIPAC’s major goal is maintaining the level of foreign aid to Israel, now $3 billion a year, and defecting arms sales to Arab countries.

Robert H. Asher was the president of AIPAC.

He wrote a letter [which ended with] ‘Please send your check payable to the Committee to Elect Mel Reynolds in the enclosed envelope. The primary is less than a month away. Sincerely, Robert H. Asher.’

[The letter said] ‘Gus Savage has one of the worst attendance records in Congress.’  Well, now of course that is untrue. Though many of you may know that in newspapers and television for the past 8, 9 years, whenever–many times when they just mentioned my name they say, ‘Gus Savage who has such a poor attendance record,’

[But] they can find out just what that record is, and they would discover that record was not poor except for the few months of bereavement when in 1981, I lost my wife of 34 years to a very excruciating ailment.

I wonder why Asher is so interested in AIPAC in influencing the outcome of a primary election in the Second District of Chicago? The main issue in the Second District in Chicago is not Israel. It is about jobs. These are unemployed steelworkers, unemployed automobile workers. Not Israel. Why then would [Asher] be so concerned about the outcome of that election? Let us see just how concerned he actually is.

Let us just go down [the list of Mel’s received contributions] and see. First of all, the contributor is that same Robert Asher. Now, the most an individual can give to a candidate is $1,000. The most that a PAC can give to a candidate, however, is $5,000. Private corporations cannot give money. Unions cannot give money out of a union fund.

Robert Asher, as I told you, is the President of AIPAC. His address is 5100 Oakmont Road, Highland Park, IL. That is not in the second district, not even in Chicago, but he is interested in the second district to the tune of $1,000.

Let me just read this list. Mary Jane Asher, $1,000, Highland Park, IL; Daniel Asher, $1,000, Highland Park, IL; Howard David Sterling, Beverly Hills, CA, $250.; Susan Asher, $1,000, Highland Park, IL, and on and on. I will not read it all to you.

Add it up. It shows the sum of $8,250 from individual contributors, itemized contributors, $6,750 was from these. In other words, 82 percent.

Since I am particularly concerned about the welfare of the third world, since it is the poorest part of our Earth, one on which we are dependent and benefit greatly, this Nation; we benefit greatly from the natural resources of the 45 sub-Saharan African nations. Now, while Israel only has 3 1/2 million citizens roughly, there are some 350 million citizens in the 45 sub-Saharan African nations.

How much do we give them out of our foreign aid? A $550 million only, which comes to, compared to the $1,000 per Israeli, $1.57 per person.. Our resources are there, but our money goes to Israel.

My position is that that is upside down. We should give the larger amount to the larger group of people who are in greater need and from whom we benefit the most materially in Africa, give the $3.5 billion to Africa. Why not better take that military aid and take it over to Zambia in Africa, give it to the African National Congress so they can be sufficiently armed to chase off the face of the Earth the last remaining vestige of fascism, the apartheid regime of South Africa? That is my position.

The political editor of the Chicago Sun Times, same thing. Steve Neal. Same thing. Called me all kinds of names. I have never met him, never talked with him.

Generally the white press would have at least one apparent African-American columnist to jump on an African-American too in case the African-American hollers too loud and says, ‘well, these columnists jumping on me are white.’ So you have got a page in the Chicago Tribune, a raspberry in the Washington Post, and all, and that is typical.

I was on ‘Cross Fire’ on CNN. Some of you may have seen it. And you saw what a time Robert Novak gave me. I am sure if you saw it you could see it was not fair. How much does he earn? Where is he married? Does he not attend church? Has he ever been a member of the Ku Klux Klan? I am not saying that he is. I know none of that.

All I am saying is we do not know anything about these powerful bosses or spokesmen or talking heads on television and columnists in the most powerful newspaper of our land. And democracy depends upon a free a fair press.

UPDATE from Gumshoe: As I have said in articles at my website, MaxwellForSenate.com, the extent of media’s control over the Republican primary, for the 2017 special election in Alabama, was jaw-dropping. CNN and Fox News could have enabled the choice of anyone. Even little old me. But no, they would only concentrate on the big boys, Luther Strange and Judge Roy Moore. Smaller candidates could not compete, thanks to TV. At times, newsmen sat in the front row when I was at the podium, but they kept their camera on their lap until a big boy was speaking. Next morning, clips from that big boy’s speech would be shown on CNN and no one would know that I had even been present.

We really ought to stop putting up with this.  A quick left hook with the Sherman Anti-trust Act would do wonders.