Talk:National Caucus of Labor Committees

message: The new version seems pretty solid to me. If anyone has any specific criticisms, let's discuss them here. -Willmcw 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: old comments

message: I have not read any articles of Fusion, but it seems rather presumptive and biased to claim LaRouche as "praising Nazi Rocket Scientists", and what is the deal with the DDT?.
Just asking.
RoyBot 69.248.43.27 11:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Fusion''

message: ;Cognition was right to say "Willmcw, the changes in question were added by an anonymous passerby who did not provide citations or discuss the additions on the Talk page." I have noticed on other pages that Willmcw will often demand extensive source citations, and on this one he let all sorts of biased comments in without any objection. This seems like a double standard. --NathanDW 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any specific issues about the article that you'd like to raise, or are you just complaining? -Will Beback 22:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If these are the problems with the text then deal with them - don't revert the entire article back to an old version. I'm going to revert your revert, and then address these specific issues. -Will Beback 18:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sources for the disputed material would help settle this. Thanks, -Will Beback 01:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Cannot have the same identical paragraph on two pages on LaRouche. Link if you must.--Cberlet 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous edits

message: ;Cberlet, you deleted information about Michael Hudson, saying that it duplicates information in other articles. I think that this is a mistake because the reader of this article would have no way of knowing that there was information about Hudson in the other article. Also, I have seen that you frequently put duplicate information in more than one article, for example in Jeremiah Duggan and Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. You have done that quite recently in fact. So, you should not object to the Hudson information appearing here. --NathanDW 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cannot have the same identical paragraph on two pages on LaRouche. Link if you must.--Cberlet 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Hudson

message: ;I notice there was an edit war over whether the group "left" or "was expelled" from SDS. Does either side of this conflict have any evidence? It doesn't seem like it should appear at all if there is no verification. Or, both versions of the story should appear. --172.197.75.131 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SDS

message: ;Is the article still disputed? There doesn't seem to be much discussion going on. --Tsunami Butler 21:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flag should probably be removed.--Cberlet 22:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the flag, and trimmed the LaRouchite propaganda unrelated to this page. Please abide by Arbcom decisions regarding pro-LaRouchite material on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 03:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of names are still there, with links. The unrelated promotional plugs that are not really connected to the history of the defunct NCLC are gone. Are you a LaRouchie? Please abide by Arbcom decisions regarding pro-LaRouchite material on Wikipedia. --Cberlet 16:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Cberlet, please be mindful of WP:CIVIL. There is nothing illegitimate about this person asking you if you are Chip Berlet -- it's a matter of record at Talk:Chip Berlet. --NathanDW 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be mindful of the Arbcom decision against attempts to plug pro-LaRouche material into multiple pages. You are in violation.--Cberlet 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have verifiable sources for the material? -Will Beback 23:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's our source for Billington's Chinese education? How is it relevant to this article? -Will Beback 05:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: Why is there no mention of this being a cult?  Is there a threat of being sued by LaRouche?  It was a cult when I saw the people in it in the 1970s, they were intimidated time and again, and some exceedingly nasty things were said to individuals.  This by "leaders" who were doing it to the "cadre"--those who essentially believed the "organization."  It was, as I saw it in the 1970s in the town in which I lived, a cult.  The people in it were mostly young, and I suppose that is why they got away with such outlandishly belittling treatment of their "cadre."  Calling this a "cadre" organization seems to be pandering to the Larouchites, it was certainly more like a "cult" organization than anything I've seen since. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.237.176.83 (talk • contribs).
:Please understand that this is just one of several articles about the LaRouche Movement. If you have any sources which support your view of this topic then please add them. We can't write articles based on our personal knowledge.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention

message: *All of the victims [Michael Billington, Anita Gallagher, Paul Gallagher, Laurence Hecht, Donald Phau] were, at all relevant times, associates of a philosophical association known as the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC).(Footnote 1) 
*Footnote 1: The abandonment of dues-payment membership was a process which unfolded during the years 1976-1978. The NCLC had been formed in January 1969, as a coalition of sundry organizations which had come together at some time during the 1966-1969 interval. From that time, until 1976, the NCLC existed as a due- paying membership organization, with sundry income- yielding and expense-incurring activities included. In 1976, most U.S. citizens members of the NCLC became members of the U.S. Labor Party (USLP), a registered political party which included a large ration of persons not associated with the NCLC.  Continuing Cointelpro operations targetting the NCLC, and also the Labor Party, by the FBI and its sundry public and private associates, prompted the NCLC to abandon its quasi-corporate organization, in order to limit itself to the status of a purely philosophical-legal association. During the course of the 1980 Democratic Primary campaigns, most members of the USLP participated in various Democratic Party campaigns; most of these, together with numerous others, participated in a new political-action committee, the National Democratic Policy Committee, which was formed within the setting of the August 1980 New York Democratic convention. During the same interval, 1976-1980, the publishing and scientific organizations whose corporate life had begun with partial sponsorship by the NCLC, evolved in ways which reflected the changes in the NCLC.  Apart from its functions as a philosophical association, the principal other activity of the NCLC, from 1978 to the present date, has been in connection with legal cases against the Cointelpro and related offenses of the FBI and associated agencies.  
So that's a source for five "associates" of the NCLC. I'm still looking for other sources on members/associates. Wasn't there a governing "National Committee"? The membership of that would be important to include.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to LaRouche himself, it was a dues-paying membership organization until 1976 or 1978. He says the USLP had a different, though overlapping membership. From what LaRouche, Niels, and others say, it seems that there were no members after that or currently - that people just drop in and out of the movement without formal registration or letters of resignation. However it appears that the governing National Committee does have a defined membership. For example both of the Kronbergs are described as belonging to it. I think that we should only include people on this page who are verifiably described as members of the NCLC or the NC. We have a separate article for the general movement. Likewise, I think that we should not include folks described only as USLP members since we have an article on it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: More members.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: More members.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Another member.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: More members, advisors, spokesmen, directors, etc.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: More members, etc.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Another chair.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership

message: *Alice Roth, member[LAT 10/14/86]
*Alicia Weitzman, member
*Anita Gallagher, member
*Carol (Schnitzer) White, member, "Editor-in-chief, 21st Century Science & Technology magazine", author of The new dark ages conspiracy : Britain's plot to destroy civilization
*Charles Park, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
*Christine Berl, "leading NCLC members"
*Christopher White, "EIR Director",, member, author of "The Political economy of the American Revolution"
*Donald Phau, member
*Donald Roth, member[LAT 10/14/86]
*Edward Spannaus, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
*Elias Typaldos "former member",
*Fletcher James, "long time USLP/NCLC member", , 
*Jeffrey Steinberg, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87], author of "Dope, inc. : Britain's opium war against the U.S."
*Jose Torres, "leading NCLC members"
*Ken Kronberg, NC member
*Konstantin George, member
*Laurence Hecht, member
*Mark Stahlman, "longtime member",
*Michael Billington, member
*Michael Gelber, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
*Michelle Steinberg, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
*Molly Kronberg, NC member
*Paul Gallagher, member, "Defendant, LaRouche movement Virginia cases,"
*Paul Goldstein, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
*Paul Teitelbaum, "long time USLP/NCLC member", ,
*Richard Sanders, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
*Robert Greenberg, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
*Roy Frankhauser, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87], advisor
This is compiled, from the list above, of those folks who have been directly called "members" of the NCLC or the NC in reliable sources.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourced members of the NCLC/NC

message: According to the Seattle newspaper, and the Charlotte Observer, the Red Hornets created the campaign T-Shirts. The design credit is "Nelson Rockefeller"--obvioulsy false--a fixation of LaRouche at the time.  There is no copyright notice anywhere on the design. In the mid-1980s I interviewed a representative of the Red Hornets for an article. Alas, the paragraphs were cut for space. But in the course of the interview I asked permission to use the graphic from the T-shirt.  I was told that the Red Hornets encouraged reproduction of the image, and they were delighted when people used it. I received a box of the T-shirts from the Red Hornets. They have been in my possession the entire time. They are the original design. There is no copyright notice anywhere on the  T-shirt. I scanned the image off one of my T-shirts last week. I posted it to Wikimedia. How much more sourcing is required?--Cberlet (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it looked like Rockefeller signed it. Anyway, I can't see any good way of verifying the material in this context. If it were published in a reliable source then that would be different. OTOH, an assertion of fair use might be made.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I assert Fair Use. I am not in the T-shirt business and the image is notable. What else do I need to do?--Cberlet (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I LOVE that cartoon!!!  I have it on my wall at work. I sent it to all my friends! Please, get permission and place it on my page.  Fabulous!--Cberlet (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the cartoon not appropriate?  Does the carrot look too much like a penis?  Some people suggested that when they first saw the T-Shirt.  Could it have something to do with LaRouche's pulsating priapic homophobia? I solicit your honest opinion.--Cberlet (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appropriatess is not the issue, in my opinion. This article is not a bio. WP includes contemporaeous political cartoons and posters in articles on political topics, which is standard practice for history books and articles in other publications. Further, the cartoon criticizes the followers of LaRouche, not LaRouche the person. Neutrality requires reporting on all significant points of view, and it's quite possible that those points of view are expressed chiefly on t-shirts, posters, or other images. The issue that I see with this t-shirt cartoon is whether we believe it's a real t-shirt as claimed, or if someone has created it more recently and is claiming that it's an old t-shirt. Since the latter is hard to believe I'm more convinced by the former.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Hornets

message: Just for the record, does the Kevin Roderick article specify NCLC, or is it more generic to the "LaRouche organization"? --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which citation are you referring to?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to add only material that directly refers to the NCLC.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kevin Roderick

message: ;I think that this article should be merged with LaRouche movement, because the two are essentially the same, and there is no need for two different articles. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they are "essentially the same." --Terrawatt (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There's some merit to that. But I think we should wait a bit. This article is being expanded with material for the first time in years and it'd be easier to keep it separate while its being improved. Clearly the LaRouche movment includes many discrete organizations, many of which have overlapping personnel and aims, and some of which are notable enough on their own for articles. For example, the U.S. Labor Party probably deserves an article because every little political party gets an article. OTOH, the National Democratic Policy Committee, while in some ways equally important, probably doesn't merit an article and should be covered in one of the other LaRouche articles. Most of the PACs or campaign comittees are covered in the presidental campaign articles, but thousands of other candidates also ran under  LaRouche-affilitiated groups. No one ever said this is a simple movement.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea to merge.  I have boxes of material on NCLC, and I am just geting started. Happy holidays!--Cberlet (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I against merging, and also against Berlet just importing his slanders which are already in other articles. If the slanders have to be included, they don't have to appear in every article. This article should be about NCLC. --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: ;IMO, this article was an incoherent mess. I re-wrote it, providing sources, eliminating some unsourced info and trivia. I also took the material out of "criticism" and put it into the history section, along with balancing accounts from LaRouche. --Polly Hedra (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your edit because it did too much at once without any prior discussion. You remoevd a lot of sourced, relevant material. Please discuss here the individual changes you'd like to make.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, Cberlet didn't delete anything. I'm gogint to restore the sourced material, since no specific objections to the reliability of the sourcess has been raised here.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write

message: * The issue here is simple and fundamental to Wikipedia's iron clad rule of Verifiability:The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.[emphasis from page]If there is no reliable source for a member they must be stricken even if true. Again, from WP:V:The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.If an editor added these members, they must provide reliable sources which is defined as: A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Published works are best. And again:Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.Be sure your source provides such structures. And more:In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.  More:Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. ∴ Therefore | talk 08:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So where do we find this list of "cothinker, LaRouche-affiliated organizations"? Why would peeople who've had books publised by a "cothinker, LaRouche-affiliated organizations" necessarily be leading members of the NCLC? Do you have a source for that?   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use Wikipedia as a source. The Heritage Foundation article doesn't indicate the relationship between the NCLC and these other groups. It simply says that they are all part of the LaRouche network and that the NCLC is the core of the network. If we can verify that some entities are subsidiaries, then the heads of those subsidiaries could be listed as such. I still don't see any reason to assume that having a book published makes one a leading member. I suggested that the leading members were indicted, to which Terrawatt replied "If you have a bonafide reliable source that says so-and-so is a leading personality in the NCLC, fine." and "Also, as I said above, your claim that those who were prosecuted are automatically 'leading members' is OR and self-serving to your POV." Likewise, the claim that authors are automatically 'leading members' is OR and "self-serving to your POV". Unless we have a source calling certain folks or categories of folks "leading members" then we should revert back to the generic "notable members" system used in the rest of Wikipedia.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: criteria

message: This article seems to have become a target for vandals, which is odd because I would think that it's a somewhat obscure topic. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's related to a vandal I blocked, and has nothing to do with this article per se. Sorry for the trouble.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange vandalism

message: A
*During the 2000 presidential campaign, the LaRouche Committee received $1,448,389 in federal matching funds. The Committee spent the bulk of these funds for advertising and fund-raising services by seven vendors that LaRouche and several of his political associates created in the mid-1980's to provide and distribute material advocating LaRouche's political, philosophical, and scientific views. LaRouche was the vendors' sole client. Some of these vendors had provided services to LaRouche's 1988, 1992, and 1996 presidential campaigns...The seven vendors were American System Publications, Inc., Eastern States Distributors, Inc., EIR News Services, Inc., Hamilton Systems Distributors, Inc., Mid-West Circulation Corp., Southeast Literature Sales, Inc., and Southwest Literature Distributors, Inc.
**LaRouche Com New vs. FEC, US.FEDERAL.ca12
**Federal Circuits, D.C. Circuit (March 03, 2006)
**Docket number: 04-1311
**Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/20189710
B
*Another means by which the LaRouche network establishes links to business is through the operation of commercial firms that specialize in printing services and computer software. ...Included among the firms linked to LaRouche are Computron Technologies Inc., The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company, World Composition Services, and PMR Printing Company. ...Because the LaRouche network contains such a large and ever-changing list of political organizations, publications, and business enterprises, it is useful to categorize the network's elements into three groups: publications and publishing enterprises, political groups, and businesses. A list of current and former elements of the network includes:...Business Enterprises: Computron Technologies (now bankrupt), Computype (a financial printing firm), World Composition Services, PMR Printing Company, Inc....Another means by which the LaRouche network establishes links to business is through the operation of commercial firms that specialize in printing services and computer software. ...Included among the firms linked to LaRouche are Computron Technologies Inc., The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company, World Composition Services, and PMR Printing Company. 
**Institutional Analysis #28 "The Larouche Network" by Copulos, Milton R., Heritage Foundation 
C
*... Mr. LaRouche and the National Caucus of Labor Committees, his central organization. Also charged are the LaRouche Campaign, Independent Democrats for LaRouche, Caucus Distributors Inc. and Campaigner Publications Inc.
**"Trial for LaRouche and 7 Starting Tomorrow" AP. New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Sep 20, 1987. pg. A.27
D
*Promissory notes that an elderly widow received in exchange for $40,000 in loans to organizations that raised money for Lyndon LaRouche were unlicensed securities, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled. The decision, to be filed today, affirms a ruling by state Commerce Commissioner Michael Hatch. He had ordered the organizations to stop offering or selling unfiled promissory notes or debt instruments without obtaining an opinion letter from the Department of Commerce. The woman, identified only as "MM," gave money to Caucus Distributors, Campaigner Publications Inc. and Independent Democrats for LaRouche in 1984 and 1985.
**"Elderly woman's promissory notes for loans were securities, court rules;" Margaret Zack, Staff Writer. Star Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Apr 5, 1988. pg. 03.B
E
*A federal judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the fraud and conspiracy trial of political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, six aides and five LaRouche organizations after complaints from jurors that the case was taking too much time....The four organizations charged with fraud are the LaRouche Campaign, Independent Democrats for LaRouche, Caucus Distributors Inc. and Campaigner Publications Inc.
**"JUDGE CALLS LAROUCHE MISTRIAL;" Associated Press. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: May 5, 1988. pg. 8
F
* The incorporation papers of Caucus Distributors, Inc.—the most successful of LaRouche’s telephone fund-raising entities—affirm outright that its purpose is to promote the "political ideas and beliefs" of the National Caucus of Labor Committees.
**King, Dennis (1989) Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, Doubleday 
G
*[The prosecution] said Caucus Distributors Inc. and Campaigner Publications Inc., which raise money, publish and distribute material for the LaRouche organization, also have not filed tax returns. 
**"LAROUCHE, FOLLOWERS ACCUSED OF TAX EVASION AND CREDIT FRAUD" William M. Welch. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Jan 29, 1987. pg. 16
I
*'Prosecutors say more criminal charges are expected against the LaRouche network of companies and groups, which they say are really operated jointly under the auspices of the National Caucus of Labor Committees-the political group LaRouche convened in the late 1960s. A national executive committee oversees policy, according to members. In a 1981 memo to National Caucus of Labor Committees members, LaRouche disclosed how the small New York group had grown into a large money-making international organization. He said it required income of $225,000 a week in gross sales to keep its programs going-or $11.7 million a year... The grand jury in Boston heard testimony that a single account of Campaigner Publications Inc., which publishes some of the LaRouche literature sold in airports, handled $4.5 million in a four-month period of 1984. And the empire includes a dozen such companies and committees...Much of what comes in stays in. The organization's own companies typeset, print and distribute all the literature, with a staff of about 250 in Leesburg....On the Proposition 64 campaign, much of the $200,000 spent to gather signatures was sent to California by a New York unit, Caucus Distributors Inc., and was largely paid in salary to local LaRouche candidates....The grand jury said, after a two-year investigation, that unauthorized charges were made to the credit cards of about 1,000 people who bought New Solidarity and other LaRouche publications, such as Executive Intelligence Review and Fusion magazine. 
**"Authorities See Pattern of Threats, Plots Dark Side of LaRouche Empire Surfaces" KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 14, 1986. p. 1
J
*'An FBI affidavit, filed in 1985 in connection with a Massachusetts federal grand jury probe of the LaRouche network's finances, states that just one of three Manhattan bank accounts of Campaigner Publications, a LaRouche propaganda arm, handled total credits of more than $4.5 million in a four-month period in 1984, maintaining an average balance of $95,000. This account was one of dozens maintained at that time by NCLC-controlled businesses, political fronts and regional offices across the country and in various foreign countries...LaRouche entities are closely interlocked, often sharing office space, telephone switchboards and staff, and all headed by top NCLC members. Flow charts and financial reports of the NCLC show the cash going into one kitty. Mr. LaRouche, using intelligence-community jargon, has referred to business spinoffs as conducting "proprietary" activities. A former LaRouche follower, Eric Lerner, stated in a 1979 affidavit filed in a commercial dispute with LaRouche loyalists that he had been pressured by NCLC leaders to "funnel" profits from an engineering business to the U.S. Labor Party (an electoral arm of the NCLC) in violation of election laws. "It is the policy of the USLP to use corporations as fronts for the USLP and as channels for funding of USLP," Mr. Lerner charged, citing the case of Computron, a software firm once associated with Mr. LaRouche.
**"The Empire of Lyndon LaRouche". Dennis King and Patricia Lynch. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: May 27, 1986. pg. 1
K
*[NBC] asks LaRouche to admit that those expenses are paid by some 20 organizations linked to him, including his presidential campaign committees, which have received nearly $1 million in federal matching money during two elections, his National Caucus of Labor Committees and his various magazines and other organizations. Some of them, including Caucus Distributors Inc., are among the LaRouche- related entities under investigation for alleged credit card fraud by a federal grand jury in Boston, according to government prosecutors.
**"NBC MOVES AGAINST LAROUCHE" William M. Welch. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: May 27, 1986. pg. 9
L
*Another arm of the LaRouche empire, Caucus Distributors Inc., supplied most of the $215,000 spent to gather signatures for the AIDS initiative. 
**"Medical Experts Assail Initiative on AIDS Officials Dismiss Claims Made by Supporters of LaRouche-Backed Prop. 64;" ROBERT STEINBROOK, KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 3, 1986. pg. 3
M
*The corporations named in the indictment were Campaigner Publications Inc. and Caucus Distributors Inc., which were described as fund-raising entities controlled by Mr. LaRouche....The three campaign committees indicted were the LaRouche Campaign, Independent Democrats for LaRouche and the National Caucus of Labor Committees.
**"U.S. CHARGES AIDES TO LaROUCHE WITH CREDIT-CARD FRAUD SCHEME" PHILIP SHENON, Special to the New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 7, 1986. pg. A.1
N
*Prosecutors say more criminal charges are expected against the LaRouche network of companies and groups. Prosecutors say they are really operated jointly under the auspices of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, the political group LaRouche convened in the late 1960s. A national executive committee oversees policy, according to members....The organization's own companies typeset, print and distribute all the literature, with a staff of about 250 in Leesburg. On the Proposition 64 campaign, much of the $200,000 spent to gather signatures was sent to California by a New York unit, Caucus Distributors Inc., and was largely paid in salary to local LaRouche candidates.
**"Raid Stirs Reports of LaRouche's Dark Side" Kevin Roderick, Los Angeles Times. San Francisco Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). San Francisco, Calif.: Oct 14, 1986. p. 1
O
*The National Caucus of Labor Committees, LaRouche's central political organization, is charged with conspiring to obstruct justice. All the individual defendants are members of the NCLC, which the government says set strict, daily money-raising quotas for LaRouche followers throughout the country. The LaRouche Campaign, the political extremist's campaign organization up until Walter Mondale won the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination, is charged with 51 counts of wire fraud for allegedly receiving donations charged to credit-card accounts without authorization. Independent Democrats For LaRouche, his 1984 campaign organization from the time Mondale got the nomination until the general election, is charged with 59 counts of wire fraud. Caucus Distributors Inc., a New York-based organization which operated under the NCLC to support LaRouche money-raisers, allegedly was involved in all 116 wire fraud counts. Caucus also is charged with one count of mail fraud for allegedly soliciting a campaign loan with no intention of repaying it, one count of conspiring to obstruct the investigation and one count of contempt of court. Campaigner Publications Inc., an organization which raised money and distributed literature for LaRouche and his campaigns, is charged with four counts of wire fraud for allegedly accepting money raised through unauthorized credit-card charges, three counts of mail fraud for allegedly soliciting loans with no intention of repaying them.
**"FOLLOWING LAROUCHE LEADS TO FAR SIDE OF EXTREMISM -- PARANOIA RUNNING RAMPANT AS KEY FIGURES GO ON TRIAL" JOHN MINTZ. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Sep 23, 1987. pg. B.6
P
*With financial help from his wife's family, Kronberg created World Composition Services (WorldComp), a typesetting company that he operated out of LaRouche's offices. At the time, WorldComp was a cutting-edge venture, the first company of its kind to use computer typesetting in New York. Kronberg came to control PMR as well, which printed most of the group's pamphlets, books, and newspapers...In one case, bankruptcy proceedings revealed that Computron, a well-respected software company owned and managed by high-ranking cadres, was spending $5,000 to $10,000 a week to cover 20 percent of the organization's budget...In 1978, she had helped to open the New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House in order to serve as the publisher of Dope Inc., a massive project that famously named the Queen of England as the head of the international drug trade. It was first serialized in Executive Intelligence Review and later published as a book...  
**"Publish and Perish" Avi Klein. The Washington Monthly. Washington: Nov 2007. Vol. 39, Iss. 11; pg. 21, 7 pgs
There are businesses that were created to "provide and distribute material advocating LaRouche's political, philosophical, and scientific views", and whose "sole client" is LaRouche. Businesses have been included, along with publishing houses and political groups, as "elements" of the LaRouche movement. Business organizations were tried alongside LaRouche and other NCLC members. Some of the firms have even been repeatedly descrobed as "organizations". Businesses are at least as important to the movement as books and magazines.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that business enterprises are an integral part of the LaRouche network. There's no reason to put non-profit groups like FEF on a different basis than for-profit groups like the Caucus Distributors. Also, I've added more cites that connect the NCLC to the various companies.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Businesses 

message: While we don't have any sources saying that the leading members of the NCLC are those who've published books, we do have sources that say the NEC is the most important body in the organization. Some call it the "governing" body" or the "highest" authority. It seems that the members of the NEC are the leading members of the NCLC so we shold include NEC members in our list. However I'm having trouble finding a list of the NCLC NEC. Is the membership secret? Or have I just looked in the wrong places?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I said the sources aren't great, that they were just used to start compiling the list. What's a better source for the NEC membership? They are the leading members of the NCLC, aren't they? We have multiple (very good) sources that say so. Most organizations have a list of their senior officers, advisory groups, etc. By comparison, the CEC lists its NEC. Is the NCLC NEC membership secret?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further some of the sources seem adequate.  and   appear reliable. As I said before the best source would be a LaRouche site, but the organization doesn't post the names of its leadership then we have to rely on other sources.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Executive Committee 

message: ;When I click this link, I get a message saying that it is unavailable. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - it uses a dynamic link from a search rather than a hard link to the specific document. You can find the document by searching from this page. If I can't figure out a way to make a direct link I'll move it to a "further reading" section and add a notation on how to access it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to CIA report

message: ;I should think that the FOIA document should suffice. However, Dennis King also claims the NCLC was a COINTELPRO target.  --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several books about COINTELPRO, and none of them mention the NCLC. That program ended in 1971, and this allegation concerns 1973. The matter covered in the King book, which I certainly agree is a reliable sources, is about Tony Papert, who isn't even mentioned in this article. The criteria for inclusion in the category is that entries should be "confirmed targets". Let's keep looking for confirmation, and in the meantime we should leave off the category.   Will Beback  talk   17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When Tony Papert gets an article then we can add it to the category.   Will Beback  talk   01:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble with using Google Book's snippet view is that you only see snippets. In the broader context, it appears that the King is referring to the SDS Labor Committee, not the National Caucus of Labor Committees. It's pretty well known that the SDS was a target of COINTELPRO, as confirmed by reliable 3rd-party sources.   Will Beback  talk   06:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is well known that the NCLC is a continuation of the SDS Labor Committee." What circles do you travel in that this is well known? We don't even mention this "fact" in the article, just like we don't mention Papert. Regarding the letter, it is here strictly for decorative purposes. It's not a usable source.   Will Beback  talk   17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read WP:PSTS. If we started using primary source files for Wikipedia articles, such as this one, then we'd be in serious violation. The FBI?FOIA letter never even mention "COINTELPRO". As for SDS Labor Committee and Tony Papert, they aren't mentioned in this article. If they are really important parts of this topic then we should start by adding them. For the record, are you saying that you think Dennis King's book is a reliable source?   Will Beback  talk   01:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd-party confirmation for category: COINTELPRO targets 

message: ;Should National Caucus of Labor Committees be removed from Category:COINTELPRO targets? Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a source that says Tony Papert was a target. Papert is in the category. The FBI letter is on an entirely different matter, and came two years after the end of the COINTELPRO program. Further, it's a primary source. There is ample scholarship on COINTELPRO and none of it seems to mention the NCLC.   Will Beback  talk   16:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying there's no 3rd-party source that confirms the NCLC was a target of COINTELPRO. If you want to see the books written on the topic then "COINTELPRO" has a list. I checked a couple and could not find any mention of the NCLC or LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk   00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should [[National Caucus of Labor Committees]] be removed from Category:COINTELPRO targets? 

message: ;See previous discussion. We have solid sources that demonstrate that the NCLC was originally called the "SDS Labor Committee," and that the Labor Committee was a target of COINTELPRO. There is no reason to believe that the FBI discontinued COINTELPRO activity against the NCLC, and good reason to believe that it did not, in the form of this photostat of a document obtained by FOIA lawsuit. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a source that says Tony Papert was a target. Papert is in the category. The FBI letter is on an entirely different matter, and came two years after the end of the COINTELPRO program. Further, it's a primary source. There is ample scholarship on COINTELPRO and none of it seems to mention the NCLC.   Will Beback  talk   16:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying there's no 3rd-party source that confirms the NCLC was a target of COINTELPRO. If you want to see the books written on the topic then "COINTELPRO" has a list. I checked a couple and could not find any mention of the NCLC or LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk   00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by involved editors

message: Postings by socks of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk   02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Socks

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Caucus of Labor Committees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216113652/http://www.etext.org/Politics/LaRouche/larouche.program.03 to http://www.etext.org/Politics/LaRouche/larouche.program.03
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516195203/http://www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_programs_1991-1995.html to http://www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_programs_1991-1995.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)