Saturday, July 9, 2011

`Democracy Now!' Show Funder Censors Anti-War Journalist John Pilger

According to the Lannan Foundation's Form 990 financial filing for 2008, Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! Productions was given three grants, totaling $375,000, by the Lannan Foundation. And that same year the Lannan Foundation also gave three grants, totaling $545,000, to The Nation/Nation Institute alternative left media group and three grants, totaling $475,000, to Foundation for National Progress/Mother Jones magazine.

But the Lannan Foundation apparently doesn't want to allow anti-war journalists who criticize the Democratic Obama Administration's failure to end the endless U.S. military intervention in Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan-Libya-Yemen-Somalia to speak too freely in the United States these days, as indicated by Australian anti-war journalist and anti-war filmmaker John Pilger's recent experience with Democracy Now!'s foundation funder. In an article, titled "The Strange Silence of Liberal America," that was recently posted on the Global Research site, Pilger wrote the following about how the Lannan Foundation apparently operates these days:

"The Lannan Foundation in Santa Fe, New Mexico, believes in free speech. The foundation’s website says it is `dedicated to cultural freedom, diversity and creativity'. Authors, film-makers, poets make their way to a sanctum of liberalism bankrolled by the billionaire Patrick Lannan in the tradition of Rockefeller and Ford.

"Lannan also awards `grants' to America’s liberal media, such as Free Speech TV, the Foundation for National Progress (publisher of the magazine Mother Jones), the Nation Institute and the TV and radio programme Democracy Now! In Britain, Lannan has been a supporter of the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, of which I am one of the judges. In 2008, Patrick Lannan personally supported the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, he is `devoted' to Obama.

"On 15 June, I was due in Santa Fe, having been invited to share a platform with the distinguished American journalist David Barsamian. The foundation was also to host the US premiere of my new film, The War You Don’t See, which investigates the false image-making of war-makers, especially Obama.

"I was about to leave for Santa Fe when I received an email from the Lannan official organising my visit. The tone was incredulous. `Something has come up,' she wrote. Patrick Lannan had called her and ordered all my events to be cancelled. `I have no idea what this is all about,' she wrote.

"Baffled, I asked that the premiere of my film be allowed to go ahead as the US distribution largely depended on it. She repeated that `all' my events were cancelled, `and this includes the screening of your film'. On the Lannan website `cancelled' appeared across a picture of me. There was no explanation. None of my phone calls was returned, nor subsequent emails answered. A Kafka world of not-knowing descended.

"The silence lasted a week until, under pressure from local media, the foundation put out a brief statement that too few tickets had been sold to make my visit `viable' and that `the Foundation regrets that the reason fr the cancellation was not explained to Mr. Pilger or to the public at the time the decision was made'. Doubts were cast by a robust editorial in the Santa Fe New Mexican, The paper, which has long played a prominent role in promoting Lannan events, disclosed that my visit had been cancelled before the main advertising and previews were published. A full-page interview with me had to be hurriedly pulled. `Pilger and Barsamian could have expected closer to a packed 820-seat Lensic [arts centre].'

"The manager of The Screen, the Santa Fe cinema that had been rented for the premiere, was called late at night and told to kill all his online promotion for my film, but took it upon himself to re-schedule the film for 23 June. It was a sell-out, with many people turned away. The idea that there was no public interest was demonstrably not true.

"Theories? There are many, but nothing is proven. For me, it is all reminiscent of the long shadows cast during the cold war. `Something is going to surface,' said Barsamian. `They can’t keep the lid on this.'

"My talk on 15 June was to have been about the collusion of American liberalism in a permanent state of war and the demise of cherished freedoms, such as the right to call government to account. In the United States, as in Britain, serious dissent – free speech -- has been substantially criminalised. Obama, the black liberal, the PC exemplar, the marketing dream is as much a warmonger as George W. Bush. His score is six wars. Never in US history has a president prosecuted as many whistle-blowers; yet this truth-telling, this exercise of true citizenship, is at the heart of America’s constitutional first amendment. Obama’s greatest achievement is having seduced, co-opted and silenced much of liberal opinion in the United States, including the anti-war movement.

"The reaction to the Lannan ban has been illuminating. The brave, like the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, were appalled and said so. Similarly, many ordinary Americans called into radio stations and have written to me, recognising a symptom of far greater suppression. But some exalted liberal voices have been affronted that I dared whisper the word, censorship, about such a beacon of `cultural freedom'. The embarrassment of those who wish to point both ways is palpable. Others have pulled down the shutters and said nothing. Given their patron’s ruthless show of power, it is understandable. For them, the Russian dissident poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko once wrote, `When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.'

"The War You Don’t See" is available on www.johnpilger.com

John Pilger is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by John Pilger

(Not surprisingly, neither The Nation, Democracy Now! nor Mother Jones magazine has apparently provided its readers, listeners or viewers with much information about either the historic or current business activities of Lannan family members or about which transnational corporate stocks are contained in the investment portfolio of the Lannan Foundation. Yet, according to its Form 990 financial filing, on December 31, 2008 the Lannan Foundation owned $942,000 worth of Microsoft stock, $953,683 of Disney Company stock, $1,267,640 worth of Wells Fargo stock, $1,389,789 worth of Coca-Cola Company stock, $1,580,982 worth of Wal-Mart stock and $44,145 worth of Goldman Sachs stock.--bf)

Friday, July 8, 2011

Black Worker Jobless Rate: 16.5 Percent Under Obama & GOP House of Representatives

Between May and June 2011, the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Black workers in the United States increased from 16 to 16.5 percent under the Democratic Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives; while the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all white workers in the United States increased from 7.7 to 8.2 percent, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The number of officially unemployed African-American workers increased by 134,000 (from 2,838,000 to 2,972,000) between May and June 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of officially unemployed white workers in the United States increased by 722,000 (from 9,618,000 to 10,340,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data..

The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years of age jumped from 40 to 45 percent between May and June 2011, while the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years of age increased from 20.6 to 24.8 percent during this same period.

The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Black female workers over 20 years-of-age jumped from 13 to 13.9 percent between May and June 2011; while the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 16.7 percent in June 2011. The number of unemployed Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 79,000 (from 1,172,000 to 1,251,000) between May and June 2011, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of unemployed white female workers over 20-years-of-age increased by 205,000 (from 3,753,000 to 3,958,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

Between May and June 2011, the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic workers in the United States also increased from 11.1 to 11.5 percent; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic workers increased by 125,000 (from 2,518,000 to 2,643,000), according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data, during this same period. The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latina or Hispanic female workers increased from 11.1 to 11.4 percent between May and June 2011; while the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers in the United States was still 9.8 percent in June 2011. According to the “not seasonally adjusted” data, the official unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19-years-of-age jumped from 26.1 to 35.4 percent between May and June 2011; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic youths increased by 130,000 (from 236,000 to 360,000) during this same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

For all U.S. workers (male and female) over 16 years-of-age, the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate increased from 8.7 to 9.3 percent between May and June 2011; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all male workers over 16 years-of-age increased from 9.2 to 9.6 percent and the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all female workers over 16 years-of-age increased from 8.3 to 9.1 percent during this same period. Between May and June 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers over 16-years-of-age increased by 988,000 (from 13,421,000 to 14,409,000), according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ July 8, 2011 press release:

“…Since March, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 545,000, and the unemployment rate has risen by 0.4 percentage point…

“The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks increased by 412,000 in June. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was essentially unchanged over the month, at 6.3 million, and accounted for 44.4 percent of the unemployed…

“The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged in June at 8.6 million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job…

“In June, 2.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force…These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey…

“Among the marginally attached, there were 982,000 discouraged workers in June…Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them…

“Employment has been essentially flat for the past 2 months…Government employment continued to trend down…

“…Employment in temporary help services changed little over the month and has shown little movement on net so far this year…

“Employment in government continued to trend down over the month (-39,000). Federal employment declined by 14,000 in June. Employment in both state government and local government continued to trend down over the month and has been falling since the second half of 2008…

“Manufacturing employment changed little in June…Employment in this industry has been flat for the past 2 months…

“Construction employment was essentially unchanged in June….Employment in construction has shown little movement on net since early 2010…

“In June, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased…”

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Imprisoned Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner's June 13, 2011 Message From Behind The Wall

(The following article was originally posted on the Support Chuck Turner site)

Reflections from Behind the Wall:
Topic: Preview of Anatomy of a FrameUp

June 13, 2011
Dear Supporters,

I was arrested by the FBI on November 21, 2008 at 6:15 a.m. at Boston
City Hall where I had served as a City Councilor for 9 years. At 3
p.m. on the same day, I was arraigned before a judge magistrate in
Worcester, MA, 45 miles from Boston, on one count of extortion, 3
counts of lying to FBI agents, and 1 count of conspiracy. On October
29, 2010, I was convicted of 1 count of extortion and 3 counts of
lying to FBI agents. The conspiracy charge was dropped without
explanation. On January 25, 2011, I was sentenced to 36 months in a
federal penitentiary. The sentence was based on my conviction on the
four counts and the judge’s assertion that I had perjured myself when
I took the stand to testify in my own defense.

Today I am in my 11th week at the work camp at USP Hazelton in
Bruceton Mills, West Virginia, where 130 men convicted of nonviolent
financial crimes serve as the work force for the Hazelton prison
complex, composed of a women’s medium security prison with 1000
inmates and a men’s maximum security prison with 1700 inmates. Based
on the Bureau of Prison Sentencing Monitoring Computation of
3-31-2011, I will be released on November 2, 2013 if I maintain my
good time.

Due to my financial insolvency, I applied for a court appointed
appeals lawyer and was fortunate to have the appeals court appoint,
Attorney Charles Rankin of the firm of Rankin and Sultan. Attorney
Rankin is a prominent Boston appeals lawyer. Based on his reputation,
I am convinced he will make an excellent presentation of the appeal.
However, I believe I have a responsibility based on my experience with
the Justice Department during the last two and a half years to show
how U.S. Attorneys and their special police force, the FBI, use their
law enforcement powers as well as media and political relationships
to eliminate those who they view as a threat or as not cooperating
with their political objectives.

I made this promise to my supporters at a rally in front of my Roxbury
office on the day before Thanksgiving 2008, a few days after my
arrest. I think I have enough objectivity now to effectively make such
a presentation. Each week for the next eight weeks, I will send an
installment of what I am calling, “Anatomy of a FRAME UP”. My purpose
is not to prove my innocence. While I am innocent of the crimes of
which I was convicted, I understand that regardless of the outcome of
my appeal, I will always carry the label of being a convicted felon.
Fortunately, I have learned through my 48 years of activism that it
does not matter what people label you as long as you live by the
principles that you believe are appropriate for a civilized society.

I realize that there is a danger in accusing a former member of the
Justice Department of what i view as a crime, especially while I am
under the control of the Bureau of Prisons, a bureau of the Justice
Department. However, I have spent my life urging those who are being
oppressed to stand up, speak the truth, and fight the power despite
the dangers. I have pointed out that justice can only result when
those experiencing injustice loudly and publicly oppose the forces
perpetuating it. How can I do less at a time when the “criminal
justice system” is so ruthlessly taking away the liberty of my
brothers and sisters of all races. We must all do what we can to fight
“Prosecutorial Terrorism”. It is our responsibility to free our
country of this cancer. We owe it to our future generations,
particularly those of us who have experienced their terrorism.

What follows are the titles of the eight installments and a brief
summary of what will be the focus of each.

Installment I: A Lifetime of Activism:

Since US Attorney Sullivan alleged that my crime was a betrayal of my
public trust as an elected official, I feel it is necessary for me to
share my background that led to a life time of activism; the nature of
that activism; what led me to run for political office at age 59; and
how I carried out those responsibilitIes for nine years before I was
convicted of being a corrupt public official and removed from the City
Council by a vote of my fellow Councilors 11-1 (I couldn’t vote).

Installment 2: The Keystone Cops Strike Again:

My arrest was obviously a very serious matter. At the same time, the
way they handled the arrest of a 68 year old activist and respected
public official seemed to me at the time and today as a scene out of a
grade B FBI movie of the 40s. However, it also had shadings of the
slapstick comedy of the Keystone Cops movies of the 20s. Their
behavior certainly did not seem appropriate for Justice Department
officials handling the arrest of a fellow officer of the government.

Installment 3: The Big Lie:

A few hours after my arrest on November 21, 2008, US Attorney Sullivan
called a press conference to announce that I had been arrested for
conspiring with a black female state senator, Senator Dianne
Wilkerson, to extort money from a Roxbury business man, Ron
Wilburn,who was trying to obtain a liquor license. However, since US
Attorney Sullivan had authorized in March 2007 the hiring of Mr.
Wilburn to attempt to entrap the Senator and I, he was obviously lying
about the participants in the conspiracy. He was the chief conspirator
using the FBI, his staff, and Wilburn to attempt to create a crime
around the Senator and i. I believe Sullivan’s lying to the media
about the background of my arrest is what should be prosecuted as wire
fraud. Unfortunately US Attorneys can not be tried for the crimes they
commit “under color of law”.

Installment 4: A Jury of My Peers:

Less than five hours after my arrest, almost as if synchronized with
the US Attorney’s press conference, the then President of the City
Council, Maureen Feeney, having consulted with Mayor Menino’s lawyer,
William Sinnott, announced to the press that I was being stripped of
all my City Council Committee responsibilities and would be invited to
a special meeting of the City Council the following work day when the
Council would determine what action to take based on the accusation
that I had committed a crime. She backed away from her plan when she
saw five hundred of my supporters come to City Hall to attend the
meeting that i had requested be open to the public. However, she
continued her quest by getting the Mayor hire a lawyer to gather
evidence and explore althernatives at $500 a hour. Fortunately, the
new Council President Ross rescinded her actions.

Installment 5: What First Amendment?:

Infuriated with the fact that I had been challenging the actions of
his office since the day of my arrest, US Attorney Sullivan had Asst
US Attorney McNeil file a motion on January 5, 2009 requesting that
the presiding magistrate approve a gag order to silence me. The order
which the magistrate approved required that all the evidence in the
case be withheld unless I signed a gag order saying that I would not
publicly discuss anything in the evidence. I refused to sign for the
following reasons. First, I was running to retain my Council seat and
believed I had a responsibility to my constituents to speak to the
issues involved in the case. Second, I believed I had a responsibility
to defend my first amendment rights. The third reason was that since
the US Attorney had begun the public discussion of my case, by showing
alleged evidence of “my crime” to the media, I didn’t think that I
should be denied the opportunity if I chose. This led to the U.S.
Attorney’s office withholding their “evidence” from my lawyer for 10
months until I won the election and signed the order.

Installment 6: The Three Ring Circus:

This installment will focus on the trial. Its title does not refer to
Judge Woodlock’s handling of the trial. I use the term because at a
circus, the action takes place in three rings. During my two week
trial, there were three elements/rings that served from my perspective
as the foundation of my conviction for a federal crime: a)Judge
Woodlock’s explanation to the jury that while I was being charged with
extortion, I did not even have to ask for money in order to be
convicted on the charge; b) My decision that as a public official I
had to take the stand despite my lawyer and the judge urging me not to
do so; and c) The testimony by a liquor wholesaler that if Mr. Wilburn
had obtained a liquor license, and if he had opened a club, and had
bought liquor from the wholesaler’s 0firm, the alcohol would have to
come from out of state. The fact that the alcohol would have had to
cross state lines gave Sullivan the opportunity to use his federal
powers to initiate a sting regarding the issuance of state liquor
license to entrap the Senator and i
.

Installment 7: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury:

I will use this installment to present the evidence, seen by the jury,
that should have convinced them of my innocence. I will present the
evidence in the form of a closing argument to the jury. I will also
point out in that argument the relevance to my innocence of the fact
that U.S. Attorney Sullivan built his public justification for my
arrest around the lie that Senator Wilkerson and I conspired to extort
money from Mr. Wilburn. How could I be in a conspiracy with the
Senator to extort money from Mr. Wilburn when the evidence presented
at the trial shows that the FBI instructed Mr. Wilburn to suggest to
the Senator that they involve me in the scheme that he was creating to
entrap the Senator.

Installment 8: I Warned You:

The jury found me guilty of one count of extortion of $1000 and three
counts of lying to federal officials when I told them that I did not
recognize their picture of Mr. Wilburn or remember any interactions
with him. Despite the fact that I had never been convicted of a crime,
either state or federal, other than civil rights protests and had 700
letters of support urging that I be given probation, I was sentenced
to 3 years in jail and three years probation. I will use this last
installment to show how they used my assertion of innocence before the
trial as well as on the witness stand to justify a sentence that many
view as cruel and unusual punishment for a crime I didn’t commit.

I debated whether to include an installment on my ouster from the
Boston City Council on Rosa Parks Day, December 1, 2010. I have
decided to not include it in the “Anatomy……” since it was an
action initiated not by the US Attorney and the FBI but by Council
President Ross, supported by Mayor Menino and his lawyer, William
Sinnott. In addition, my lawyer, Chester Darling who is representing
me in my challenge of the legality of the Council ouster, says that
the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) at the request of the Chief Justice
of the Massachusetts Federal Court Mark Wolfe will hear our arguments
regarding the illegality of the Council’s actions and the erroneous
advice of Counsel Sinnott either in September or October. So I will
hold any discussion of this until after the arguments before the SJc.

Next week: Installment 1: A Lifetime of Activism

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Simon Property Copley Place Owners Involved In Inheritance Litigation

The Indiana-based billionaire Simon Dynasty that wants to build a 47-story luxury residential skyscraper on top of the Copley Place shopping mall that it owns in Boston's Back Bay has apparently been involved in a "Simon vs. Simon" court battle in Indiana in recent years. According to a WISH TV website posting of July 2010:

"NOBLESVILLE (WISH) - Initially we expected the fight over Mel Simon's billions to continue today in Hamilton County Superior Court. Both sides will now be at it again later this month.

"Simon's widow Bren and Simon's children are at war over his $2 billion fortune. 24 Hour News 8 has learned just how explosive the feud is; we obtained a copy of Bren Simon's deposition where she reveals her husband's dying wish -- to fight the kids (from Mel's first marriage) so she could have a 'say' after his passing.

""For three weeks, the last three weeks of his life," Bren tearfully testified: "every night I would sit with him and he would squeeze my hand and say, 'fight 'em Bren, fight 'em.'"

"The Simon kids claim their father was coerced to change his will while on his death bed, drastically reducing their inheritance and upping Bren's by as much as $300 million.

Watch 24 Hour News 8's Brad Edwards' full report (to the right) where in a 5 hour deposition, Bren Simon details her husbands final days and the war with his kids. At one point, tension was so high Bren ordered security to keep the kids out of their $ 50 million Bel Air estate


http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/indianas-billion-dollar-family-feud-simon-v-simon

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

The Progressive Party of Massachusetts Revisited

If you feel that neither the corporate-sponsored Republicans nor the corporate-sponsored Democrats offer much of an electoral alternative for anti-corporate Massachusetts voters these days, your feeling is not an historically unique one. After World War II, Massachusetts supporters of Henry Wallace's unsuccessful 1948 Progressive Party presidential campaign attempted to provide progressive voters in Massachusetts with an electoral alternative to the Democrats and Republicans by forming the Progressive Party of Massachusetts.

By the mid-1950s, however, the Progressive Party of Massachusetts had pretty much disappeared as a factor in Massachusetts electoral politics. But one of the campaign songs for its 1949 Boston mayoralty candidate, "The MTA Song", was recorded by The Kingston Trio in the late 1950s and remained on Billboard's "Top 40" list of hit records for six weeks during the summer of 1959.

In its 1952 platform, the Progressive Party of Massachusetts characterized the political situation in Massachusetts at that time in the following way:

"Today fear and desperation are in tens and thousands of Massachusetts homes…

"Stop the shameless corruption and chiseling, the politicians' junkets and sheer waste and inefficiency and tens of thousands of dollars would be available for the real needs of the people of Massachusetts.

"Second, end the greater graft and chiseling represented by Massachusetts' outrageous income tax law, under which the man who gets a hundred thousand dollars pays at no higher rate than the worker who earns $2500. The burden of all our state activities is shifted onto the shoulder of our working people. Taxation according to ability to pay thru a graduated income tax law, would make millions of dollars available for state needs…"

In its 1952 platform, the Progressive Party of Massachusetts also called for such things as:

1.a public works program to provide jobs for unemployed Massachusetts residents;
2.an end to "Jim Crow policies of public utilities (gas, electric, telephone, etc)" in Massachusetts "who employ the basic minimum number of Negroes;"
3.a stop to police brutality and racist attacks in Massachusetts;
4.a state rent control law;
5.tax exemption for small homeowners; and
6.free state college education for all qualified youth in Massachusetts.

In its November 17, 1952 post-election analysis, however, the Progressive Party of Massachusetts indicated why--despite its visionary platform and its popular anti-war position--it failed to attract many Massachusetts voters during the Korean War era:

"…There is an automatic distrust of the Progressive Party and of everything that they propose.

"…There is considerable isolation between progressives which prevents that all important feeling of oneness.

"These realities are best understood if we delve for a moment on the root causes. Most outstanding is our lack of personal contact in the community. By this is meant that while we take certain issues and enter the community to get petitions signed, distribute leaflets…we lack the all important factor of developing a person-to-person relationship.

"Clearly related to this question is our lack of follow-up on the contacts that we do make…

"Of course not to be overlooked was the general black-out of all news of the Progressive Party in the press, radio and TV. This lack of fair presentation of the fact that there was an opposition party contributed in no small way to the size of our vote and our inability to reach people effectively…"


Four years before, in 1948, the Progressive Party of Massachusetts' executive director, Walter O'Brien, had entered the Democratic Party's primary in Boston's 10th Congressional District and had actually won the Democratic nomination there, by securing 20,000 votes. Although O'Brien subsequently lost in the heavily Republican district to his Republic opponent, Christian Herter, in the general election, 59,000 voters did cast ballots for O'Brien in November 1948.

The following year, O'Brien was the Progressive Party of Massachusetts' candidate for Mayor of Boston. And hopes were initially high among the approximately 1,500 party members in Massachusetts that their executive director might actually win the 1949 Boston mayoralty election. The minutes of the Progressive Party of Massachusetts State Committee meeting of June 24, 1949, for instance, noted how O'Brien summarized the state's political situation at that time:

"Reports opportune year for stepping up activity. Unemployment prime issue in Commonwealth. Lawrence should be major concentration due to mass unemployment there, though Boston has many big problems, such as Nation's worst slums…"

Another party leader, Amos Murphy of Lawrence, also reported that workers in Lawrence were "filled with angry and righteous resentment" and the possibilities were "enormous for placing Lawrence in vanguard of national progressive movement."

Born in Portland, Maine, O'Brien had been a shop steward in the CIO's Industrial Union of Shipbuilding Workers of America, prior to volunteering for the U.S. Merchant Marine in 1943. After World War II, he moved to Boston and was active in the Boston Tenants' Council before first running for Congress in 1948.

At the time of the 1949 Boston mayoralty campaign, 25,000 to 30,000 workers were unemployed in Boston, so O'Brien proposed that a city public works program be established. He also came out in favor of rent control in Boston and in opposition to the MTA fare increase that inspired his campaign's famous "MTA Song".

The "temporary" fare increase on MTA lines was put into effect on August 6, 1949, after its approval by the Department of Public Utilities at a 90-minute closed hearing. Although O'Brien's subsequent stirring speech at an anti-fare increase rally on the Boston Common--that thousands of protesting Boston commuters attended--was well-received, the favorable crowd response did not translate into votes for the Progressive Party of Massachusetts candidate in the 1949 Boston mayoralty election. Less than 3,300 votes were received by O'Brien, while Democratic Mayor Curley received over 126,000 votes and the Boston corporate establishment-backed candidate, Hynes, won the election with over 137,000 votes.

To draw votes away from O'Brien's 1949 campaign, the Democratic Party machine in Boston also entered another candidate whose last name was also "O'Brien". The Democratic Party machine's hope was that the dissatisfied voters who wanted to vote for "Walter O'Brien" would, in this way, get confused and end up casting meaningless votes for "Thomas O'Brien", instead.

The Progressive Party of Massachusetts' 1949 mayoralty candidate in Boston charged that a "generation of misrule in Boston" and an "unholy alliance of State Street and City hall" had "kept Boston a sink-hole of reaction and corruption." O'Brien also accused the Democratic Party's Curley Machine of squeezing people to pay for obtaining city government contracts and leaving most Boston residents poor, while Curley "posed as anti-bankers." Following its 1949 electoral defeat in Boston, the O'Brien for Mayor campaign attributed Hynes' victory to a "deluge of expensive advertising, radio and billboard blurbs and assorted maneuvers" and his endorsement by a "coterie of Republicans" and a Truman Administration cabinet member named Tobin.

Despite its 1949 defeat in the Boston mayoralty election, in December 1949 the Progressive Party of Massachusetts still had 18 genuinely active political clubs in Massachusetts. Its leaders also felt that these clubs should then begin to concentrate their organizing efforts in Worcester, Lawrence, Springfield, Dorchester, Roxbury, East Boston and South Boston. And in 1950, Progressive Party of Massacusetts members were attempting to win the following demands in Boston:

1. better housing in the South End;
2. breaking Jim Crow in city jobs;
3. end to police brutality;
4. increased welfare benefits;
5. more modern fireproof schools and playgrounds; and
6. a better city medical center.

But in Lawrence, Massachusetts, a local Progressive Party of Massachusetts leader complained about the lack of support from Boston members for their party's 1950 campaign to elect Amos Murphy to political office there. In a November 11,1950 letter to Boston party leader O'Brien after the 1950 election, for instance, an Amos Murphy campaign supporter wrote the following:

"Dear Wally,

"To us, Progressives in Lawrence, it is clear that to date Boston Progressives, including yourself, have failed to see the significance of the Murphy campaign in Lawrence. This is apparent from the lack of support from Boston.

"This political blindness must be corrected now…"

The following year, a November 17, 1951 "Report of the Administrative Committee to the State Committee" of the Progressive Party of Massachusetts indicated why the party was generally unsuccessful in attracting African-American voters in Massachusetts, despite its anti-racist political program:

"White supremacy attitudes are latent in the Progressive Party organization, its attitude toward Negro membership and especially toward Negro leadership in the Progressive Party."

Ironically, in the 21st century, some of the same political problems and weaknesses that characterized the Progressive Party of Massachusetts 60 years ago have also plagued some of the third-party alternative groups that are currently seeking to use the Massachusetts electoral process to immediately end poverty and homelessness in Massachusetts in 2011.