John R. Houk
© August 11, 2014
Here is the next group of Presidents that may have been involved in impeachable crimes. In the last post of Nefarious Presidential Actions was Teddy to Harding. Just as a point of reprise these posts are in response to a G+ exchange between myself and Gideon Money who is one of the Liberals that can’t see past the Obama cover-up with the typical blind support for President Barack Hussein Obama and his impeachable actions:
Gideon fewer Executive Orders does not translate into less unConstitutional actions. Obama’s EO’s contradict the Constitution’s Separation of Powers instituted by the Founding Fathers.
How so? Be specific and use SCOTUS precedent, not Fox talking points.
Calvin Coolidge: 8/2/1923 to 3/4/1929
At 2:30 on the morning of August 3, 1923, while visiting in Vermont, Calvin Coolidge received word that he was President. By the light of a kerosene lamp, his father, who was a notary public, administered the oath of office as Coolidge placed his hand on the family Bible.
Coolidge was “distinguished for character more than for heroic achievement,” wrote a Democratic admirer, Alfred E. Smith. “His great task was to restore the dignity and prestige of the Presidency when it had reached the lowest ebb in our history … in a time of extravagance and waste….” (Calvin Coolidge; WhiteHouse.gov)
Notorious for saying practically nothing when not giving a public speech, Calvin Coolidge takes the second spot of controversial-free presidents on this list. His no-nonsense presidency restored public faith in the office after the scandal-wracked presidency of Harding. (Calvin Coolidge; By Freeman Stevenson; Deseret News; 3/20/13 12:51 p.m. MDT)
Herbert Hoover: 3/4/1929 – 3/4/1933
As a kid growing up in Washington State, whenever Herbert Hoover’s name was mentioned in my family the look of disgust came from both my Grandmother and my Mother. My Grandmother was a young adult and mother of three children during the depression and my Mother was one of those children. Their memories of Conservative Republican President Hoover were not fond. My Grandmother and Mother idolized Hoover’s successor – President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. My family blamed Hoover for the Depression making them lifelong Democrats.
As much as the voting Americans blamed Hoover for the Great Depression he really did nothing impeachable. Hoover became unpopular and with about seven or eight months left in his term of Office in election year 1932 (Hoover would later loose in a landslide to FDR), an incident took place which was huge at the time. In 1924 WWI veterans were promised a bonus that would mature in 1945. By 1932 the Great Depression was in full swing in the USA with unemployed, homeless and hungry Americans all over the place. This included WWI veterans who were involved in the world’s most horrific war in terms wounded and killed in history. The WWI veterans began to grumble for an early payment of their promised 1945 bonus to occur in 1932. To protest WWI vets, their wives and children organized a march to Washington DC to make their grievance clear to Congress and President Hoover. The organized marchers called themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force (BEF) after the term used for the U.S. Army contingent sent to Europe to fight Kaiser Wilhelm’s German army in 1917. That contingent was called the American Expeditionary Force. The American press called the BEF the Bonus Army, the Bonus March or the Bonus Army March.
I have read three versions of what happened during this march. I can summarize the part that might have been impeachable for Hoover. The U.S. Army led by General Douglas MacArthur was sent to Washington DC to break up and disperse the BEF. Violent confrontation eventually took place and a few veterans died and wives and children were under threat of MacArthur led violence. The impeachable Offense was in using the Army as a police force in a domestic issue with the use of armed infantry and tanks. According to a Congressional Act passed in 1878, mobilizing the army to engage in police action on U.S. was supposed to be illegal without prior authorization from Congress. This law is still on the books today and is called the Posse Comitatus Act:
This article is about a United States statute prohibiting the use of the armed forces for law enforcement. For the sheriff‘s powers of law enforcement at common law, see posse comitatus. For the terrorist organization, see The Posse Comitatus.
The Posse Comitatus Act is a law of the United States (18 USC 1385) passed in 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, and was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The original act only referred to the Army, but the Air Force was added in 1956 and the Navy and Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is mentioned whenever it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.
There are a number of exceptions to the act. These include
· National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state
· troops when used in pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the Rodney King riots
The relevant legislation is as follows:
Sec. 1385. – Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
The three versions I read have a bit different views of what happened with the most detailed being written by a person that begins by glorifying FDR as a person that “rewrote history”. The brief description is then clarified in the most positive of lights.
The Bonus Army was the popular name of an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who gathered in Washington, D.C., in the spring and summer of 1932 to demand cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Its organizers called it the Bonus Expeditionary Force to echo the name of World War I’s American Expeditionary Forces, while the media called it the Bonus March. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant.
Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time, visited their camp to back the effort and encourage them. On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. Veterans were also shot dead at other locations during the demonstration. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans’ campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.
… Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the police to remove the Bonus Army veterans from their camp. When the veterans moved back into it, they rushed two policemen trapped on the second floor of a building. The cornered police drew their revolvers and shot two veterans, William Hushka and Eric Carlson, who died later.
At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the spectators to yell, “Shame! Shame!”
After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and tear gas (adamsite, an arsenical vomiting agent) entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested. A veteran’s wife miscarried. When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas “didn’t do it any good.”
During the military operation, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, later the 34th President of the United States, served as one of MacArthur’s junior aides. Believing it wrong for the Army’s highest-ranking officer to lead an action against fellow American war veterans, he strongly advised MacArthur against taking any public role: “I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there,” he said later. “I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff.” Despite his misgivings, Eisenhower later wrote the Army’s official incident report which endorsed MacArthur’s conduct.
… READ ENTIRETY (Bonus Army; Wikipedia; last modified 7/24/14 at 22:39)
… Herbert Hoover was still president, an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers – 17,000 World War I veterans, plus their families, and affiliated groups – many being penniless and despairing – gathered in Washington, D.C. Their goal was simple: in the starving season of despair that engulfed America, now known as the Great Depression, the veterans rather reasonably begged for the early distribution of funds the government promised them. Specifically, they wanted immediate payment of a soldiers’ “bonus” promised by the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924; the bonus was to be distributed in 1945 but if the men could receive it in 1932 it was estimated it would amount to approximately $500 per man.
The BEF marchers encamped in parks, dumps, abandoned warehouses, and empty stores. They were unarmed and determined to act like peaceful and law abiding citizens; they had taken care to ferret out and expel radicals preaching revolution and violence from their ranks. Despite their evident hunger they didn’t panhandle. To many observers they appeared too weak and pitiful to pose a menace; one reporter described them as “ragged, weary… with no hope on their faces.”
… It’s estimated that over one hundred thousand Washingtonians lined the streets as the veterans marched down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. …
… Their vigil became a test of endurance and heartbreak and was watched by the entire nation.
The President, his Attorney General William Mitchell, and most of Congress railed against the BEF as “dangerous insurgents” and “violent socialists.” The Hearst newspapers and other conservative organs decried them as radicals; many said there wasn’t a true veteran among their number, that they were fakes and frauds and criminals. Others took pity; truckloads of food arrived from goodhearted people all over the country. A hundred loaves of bread were shipped each day from a sympathetic baker and pies came from another. Many people worried about the women and children and a health inspector described the encampments spread around Washington as “extremely bad and unhealthful.” The men tried to raise money by staging boxing and wrestling bouts among themselves and charging the locals a small admission to watch; they willingly beat themselves into submission and raised about $2500.00 to buy food and small comforts.
… The police, under the supervision of a retired general named Pelham Glassford, tried to respond with a degree of kindness. After Hoover made it clear he was going to do absolutely nothing to alleviate their hardship, the police began to offer weak coffee, stale bread and watered down stew at six cents a day to the marchers. This enraged Hoover who said the police were pandering to criminals. Congress formally rebuked Glassford for ever allowing the marchers to enter the city in the first place. The police department’s small relief effort withered away under the glare of presidential and Congressional condemnation.
The BEF was a humiliation to the Administration and as summer wore on there was an overall hardening across the land against the BEF. The majority of the country’s newspapers took up the cause on behalf of Hoover, his Attorney General and those in Congress, all of whom continued to insist the marchers were dangerous socialists and anarchists, and that most had never served one day in service to their country. Typically, many Americans were persuaded by such official claims – but not all. Will Rogers said the BEF had the “record for being the best behaved” of any “hungry men assembled anywhere in the world” and some military leaders like General Billy Mitchell and Marine Corps General Smedley Butler had the courage to say the men should be paid their bonuses early.
… most military leaders agreed with Hoover. One of them, Brigadier General George Moseley, wanted the bonus marchers arrested and sent to “concentration camps on one of the sparsely inhabited islands of the Hawaiian group not suitable for growing sugar” so they could “stew in their own filth.” Moseley also thought that while the government was in the business of rounding up American citizens it might as well do it right and round up people of “inferior blood” (presumably to be handled in similar fashion). Remarkably, no one thought Moseley was a lunatic. Years later Dwight Eisenhower, who knew Moseley well, described him as “a brilliant” and “dynamic officer.”
On July 28th the Attorney General declared the BEF was “guilty of begging and other acts” and ordered police chief Glassford to evacuate all veterans encamped on any piece of government property. Police wielding nightsticks decided to first clear out abandoned buildings where some of the BEF squatted and their raid began peacefully enough because most of the marchers were taken by surprise and disorganized. Word spread quickly, however, and angry BEF reinforcements arrived from camps across town. They began to throw bricks and the police fired back; horrified, Glassford shouted orders for the police to hold their fire, but the skirmish cost two veterans their lives and several more were seriously wounded.
Hoover was appalled; he ordered Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley to deploy troops. Hoover also issued a communiqué announcing the military would “put an end to rioting and defiance of civil authority” and charging that the men who clashed with police were “entirely of the Communist element.”
Secretary of War Hurley gave the order to Four-Star General Douglas MacArthur. … A young career officer named Dwight D. Eisenhower was MacArthur’s aide and Ike strongly protested against military intervention; he warned his boss it was a “political matter for civilian authorities.” Specifically, he called the clash between the BEF and the police a “street corner brawl” and said it was inappropriate for a general to become involved in a local political issue.
MacArthur, of course, disagreed. “There is incipient revolution in the air!” he snapped. “We’re going to break the back of the BEF.”
On July 28, 1932, at 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. …
… The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was a Communist attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested. A veteran’s wife miscarried. When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas “didn’t do it any good.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945
He was elected President in November 1932, to the first of four terms. By March there were 13,000,000 unemployed, and almost every bank was closed. In his first “hundred days,” he proposed, and Congress enacted, a sweeping program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to the unemployed and to those in danger of losing farms and homes, and reform, especially through the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt’s New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed.
As the war [i.e. WWII] drew to a close, Roosevelt’s health deteriorated, and on April 12, 1945, while at Warm Springs, Georgia, he died of a cerebral hemorrhage. (Franklin D. Roosevelt; WhiteHouse.gov)
Gideon Money will decry the sources I use as information on FDR information. The reason being criticism of FDR is still considered a moral evil by Liberals-Leftists-Progressives just as criticism and exposés of Obama are considered a moral evil. So am going to share some FDR criticism from respected Conservatives. Trust me I can find some FDR criticism that has enough elements of truth to sound credible but the polemical style is so vindictive that the Progressive crowd can easily refute the vindictiveness as Right Wing propaganda. Really stabbing on FDR is the website WhatReallyHappened.com which takes some evidentiary facts and make them sound like pejorative pros. That website’s post of the FDR Scandal Page is full of info that I know Gideon will dismiss as unsubstantiated information. If you check out the full link there is the appearance that WhatReallyHappened.com did a little cross posting from a Geocites page. Progressives and Liberals alike can be somewhat critical of a Joe-American free website posting exposés. Hence in all honesty I used the FDR Scandal Page as a reference to search from more reputable Conservatives.
Recall when I was examining Herbert Hoover that I wrote my Grandmother and Mother grew up in during the Great Depression. I shared the family that raised me loathed Hoover in blame for this Depression and idolized FDR for fixing the roughly decade long Depression.
The program developed by the FDR Administration was called the New Deal. The problem I have with my family idolizing FDR was more the result of a very effective propaganda campaign that simply did not match the reality of the statistics.
For 70 years there has been a holy creed–spread by academia until accepted by media and most Americans–that Franklin D. Roosevelt cured the Great Depression. That belief spurred the growth of modern liberalism; conservatives are still on the defensive where modern historians are concerned.
Not so anymore when the facts are considered. Now a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute has demonstrated that (a) not only did Roosevelt not end the Depression, but (b) by incompetent measures, he prolonged it. But FDR’s myth has sold. Roosevelt, the master of the fireside chat, was powerful. His style has been equaled but not excelled.
Throughout the New Deal period, median unemployment was 17.2 percent. Joblessness never dipped below 14 percent, writes Jim Powell in a preview of his soon-to-be-published (by Crown Forum) FDR’s Folly: How Franklin Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. Powell argues that the major cause of the Depression was not stock market abuses but the Federal Reserve, which contracted the money supply by a third between 1929 and 1933. Then, the New Deal made it more expensive to hire people, adding to unemployment by concocting the National Industrial Recovery Act, which created some 700 cartels with codes mandating above-market wages. It made things worse, ”by doubling taxes, making it more expensive for employers to hire people, making it harder for entrepreneurs to raise capital, demonizing employers, destroying food . . . breaking up the strongest banks, forcing up the cost of living, channeling welfare away from the poorest people and enacting labor laws that hit poor African Americans especially hard,” Powell writes.
Taxes spiraled (as a percentage of gross national product), jumping from 3.5 percent in 1933 to 6.9 percent in 1940. An undistributed profits tax was introduced. Securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital. In ”an unprecedented crusade against big employers,” the Justice Department hired 300 lawyers, who filed 150 antitrust lawsuits. Winning few prosecutions, the antitrust crusade not only flopped, but wracked an already reeling economy. At the same time, a retail price maintenance act allowed manufacturers to jack up retail prices of branded merchandise, which blocked chain stores from discounting prices, hitting consumers.
Roosevelt’s central banking ”reform” broke up the strongest banks, those engaged in commercial investment banking, ”because New Dealers imagined that securities underwriting was a factor in all bank failures,” but didn’t touch the cause of 90 percent of the bank failures: state and federal unit banking laws. Canada, which allowed nationwide branch banking, had not a single bank failure during the Depression. The New Deal Fed hiked banks’ reserve requirement by 50 percent in July 1936, then increased it another 33.3 percent. This ”triggered a contraction of the money supply, which was one of the most important factors bringing on the Depression of 1938–the third most severe since World War I. Real GNP declined 18 percent and industrial production was down 32 percent.”
Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration hit the little guy worst of all, Powell writes. In 1934, Jacob Maged, a 49-year-old immigrant, was fined and jailed three months for charging 35 cents to press a suit rather rather (sic) than 40 cents mandated by the Fed’s dry cleaning code. The NRA was later ruled unconstitutional. To raise farm prices, Roosevelt’s farm policy plowed under 10 million acres of cultivated land, preventing wheat, corn and other crops from reaching the hungry. Hog farmers were paid to slaughter about 6 million young hogs, protested by John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath. New Deal relief programs were steered away from the South, the nation’s poorest region. ”A reported 15,654 people were forced from their homes to make way for dams,” Powell writes. ”Farm owners received cash settlements for their condemned property, but the thousands of black tenant farmers got nothing.”
In contrast, the first Depression of the 20th century, in 1920, lasted only a year after Warren Harding cut taxes, slashed spending and returned to the poker table. But with the Great Depression, the myth has grown that unemployment and economic hardship were ended by magical New Deal fiat. The truth: The Depression ended with the buildup to World War II. (FDR’s Raw Deal Exposed; Originally posted at Chicago Sun-Times [link dead]; By Thomas Roeser [Wikipedia bio] on 9/30/03; Posted at Free Republic by Cathryn Crawford; posted on 8/30/2003 1:59:46 PM [I know the dates don’t match up but that is how it is found on Free Republic])
In 2008 (2009 in paperback) Burton W. Folsom, Jr. wrote a book with a similar title Roeser’s review (entitled: FDR’s Raw Deal Exposed) of Jim Powell’s book written in 2003: “FDR’s Folly: How Franklin Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression” (similar PDF written for CATO Institute). Folsom’s book is entitled “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America”. I realize Folsom, Roeser and Powell are people that express a Conservative view on Economics. This means my critic Gideon Money would cry ‘these guys are Conservatives and hence Right Wing propagandists and unreliable.’
The problem I have with such a cop-out criticism is that if you click on the bios I linked to their names, you will see they well educated with MA’s and Ph.D.’s. These guys are Academics that paid their dues in acquiring their degrees. Just because they affiliate themselves with Conservative politics, history and/or Economics does not make them non-credentialed. So if Gideon’s maintains the inept line of Right Wing Propagandists then that exposes his prejudice more than validates his argument.
Here is another well respected Academic – Thomas Sowell – who is a Free Market Economist that praises Folsom’s book on FDR Folly written at the often dissed Conservative Internet news site WorldNetDaily:
Guess who said the following: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove?
Not even close. It was Henry Morgenthau, secretary of the treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR’s closest advisers. He added, “After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!”
This is just one of the remarkable and eye-opening facts in a must-read book titled “New Deal or Raw Deal?” by professor Burton W. Folsom Jr. of Hillsdale College.
Roosevelt blamed the country’s woes on the problems he inherited from his predecessor, much as Barack Obama does today. But unemployment was 20 percent in the spring of 1939, six long years after Herbert Hoover had left the White House.
Whole generations have been “educated” to believe that the Roosevelt administration is what got this country out of the Great Depression. History textbooks by famous scholars like Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. of Harvard and Henry Steele Commager of Columbia have enshrined FDR as a historic savior of this country, and lesser lights in the media and elsewhere have perpetuated the legend.
In more recent years, there have been both academic studies and popular books debunking some of the myths about the New Deal. Nevertheless, Professor Folsom’s book “New Deal or Raw Deal?” breaks new ground. Although written by an academic scholar and based on years of documented research, it is as readable as a newspaper – and a lot more informative than most.
Far from pulling the country out of the Great Depression by following Keynesian policies, FDR created policies that prolonged the Depression until it was more than twice as long as any other depression in American history. Moreover, Roosevelt’s ad hoc improvisations followed nothing as coherent as Keynesian economics. To the extent that FDR followed the ideas of any economist, it was an obscure economist at the University of Wisconsin, who was disdained by other economists and who was regarded with contempt by John Maynard Keynes.
… (FDR’S ‘RAW DEAL': Thomas Sowell recommends new book exposing true nature of Roosevelt’s policies: By Thomas Sowell; WND; 11/2/10 12:00 AM)
The very first task undertaken by Roosevelt upon taking office was saving the country’s banks, which had shut down the day of his inauguration. … And by saving the system they meant consolidating the hold of the biggest banks.
Once the system was saved from total meltdown, Roosevelt and his “Brain Trust” initiated a variety of programs to convince the country that they could end the Depression. One such was the public works program, most famous in its later WPA (Works Progress Administration) incarnation, but originally known as the Public Works Administration, and which was originally proposed by some FDR advisers to work in tandem with the National Recovery Administration. Together the two would hasten recovery: the former would put money in the pockets of workers so that they could spend them on businesses overseen by the latter.
Says Schlesinger: “though the code authority exercised public powers, it was not a public body. It was, as [NRA administrator Hugh] Johnson put it, ‘an agency of the employers in an industry.’” The result was just enough renewed economic activity to keep the biggest corporations from going under. Thus Maurice Spector could write in the New International in 1938 that there had been no recovery in the sense of an expansion of capital, of increasing opportunities for accumulation, which is the norm for a recovering capitalist economy. Instead “capital secured its profits by restriction” of production, reviving existing production facilities to levels still below the 1920s peaks. In fact it’s universally acknowledged, even by the most ardent mainstream academic defenders of Roosevelt, that the system did not fully recover until the war and the associated meteoric expansion of production for war.
By his second term Roosevelt was facing a rising tide of dissatisfaction among workers and farmers, as well as demands from the ruling class that reforms be stopped now that the immediate crisis had passed. Roosevelt was more than happy to stop the family feud with the more conservative capitalists disgruntled at the “socialistic” nature of his early projects. But Roosevelt’s turn toward the War Deal wasn’t based solely on such narrow political calculations: he was in fundamental agreement with his ruling class colleagues that the country’s economic and social crises couldn’t be solved within the confines of its borders but required international economic expansion. And such expansion, given the worldwide extent of the Depression and the resulting manic search by all imperial powers for new markets and fields for capital investment both at home and abroad, could only be achieved by war.
Preis summarizes the switch thus: “The ‘New Deal’ proved to be a brief, ephemeral period of mild reforms granted under pressure of militant mass action by the organized workers, both employed and unemployed. By late 1937, Roosevelt had adopted the policy of propping up basic industry with government war orders, while cutting relief expenditures even though unemployment rose. The ‘New Deal’ became the ‘War Deal.’”
Once FDR had been elected, progressive-minded newspaper editorial boards, politicians, and pundits exhorted him to become a “dictator.” The revered reporter and political commentator Walter Lippmann, for instance, told Roosevelt in a private meeting: “The [economic] situation is critical, Franklin. You may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers.” Similarly, Eleanor Roosevelt mused that America might need the leadership of a “benevolent dictator.”
In FDR’s day, the term “dictator” did not carry the negative connotations with which it is currently freighted; rather, it signified the idea that a political “general” or “commander” was needed to take charge of the battle against the economic depression in a manner similar to how Woodrow Wilson and the progressives had fought World War I.
“The New Deal,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “was conceived at the climax of a worldwide fascist moment, a moment when socialists in many countries were increasingly becoming nationalists and nationalists could embrace nothing other than socialism.”
Many of Roosevelt’s ideas and policies were entirely indistinguishable from the fascism of Mussolini. In fact, writes Goldberg, there were “many common features among New Deal liberalism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism, all of which shared many of the same historical and intellectual forebears.” Like American progressives, many Italian Fascist and German Nazi intellectuals championed a “middle” or “Third Way” between capitalism and socialism. Goldberg explains:
“The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices—’I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity.”
The German and American New Deals — i.e., fascism and progressivism — also shared the bedrock belief that the state should be permitted to do whatever it wished, so long as it was for “good reasons.” …
Roosevelt used the FBI and other government agencies to spy on domestic critics. He also authorized the use of the American Legion to assist the FBI in monitoring American citizens.
The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was perhaps the most popular program of the New Deal, mobilizing some 2.5 million young men to work mostly as a “forestry army,” performing such tasks as clearing dead wood. …
Johnson and the NRA dispatched a large army of informants, represented by such diverse constituencies as union members and Boy Scouts, to monitor compliance with the Blue Eagle program in neighborhoods across the United States. “When every American housewife understands that the Blue Eagle on everything that she permits to come into her home is a symbol of its restoration to security, may God have mercy on the man or group of men who attempt to trifle with this bird,” Johnson said.
To further promote voluntary compliance with the Blue Eagle program, Johnson organized many military parades and Nuremberg-style rallies, where marchers donned the uniforms of their respective occupations.
The fascist mindset underlying the NRA’s authoritarian mandates was confirmed in the results of a study commissioned by the NRA’s own Research and Planning Division. Titled “Capitalism and Labor Under Fascism,” it concluded: “The fascist principles are very similar to those which have been evolving in America and so are of particular interest at this time.”
Soon after having taken his second Oath of Office in January 1937, President Roosevelt, in a conversation with a speechwriter, articulated his belief that the limits on governmental power that were enshrined in the U.S. Constitution were impediments to the transformative social and economic policies he wished to implement:
“When the chief justice read me the oath and came to the words ‘support the Constitution of the United States,’ I felt like saying: ‘Yes, but it’s the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy — not the kind of Constitution your court has raised up as a barrier to progress and democracy.'” READ ENTIRETY (THE PROGRESSIVE ERA’S LEGACY: FDR’S NEW DEAL; Source attributed to Jonah Goldberg; DTN)
FDR was elected to an unbeatable record four terms. A record due to blank Amendment inspired by those four terms. FDR barely got into his fourth term when he was taken down by a massive cerebral hemorrhage on April 12, 1945.
FDR also his share of personal scandals pertaining to mistresses and his wife Eleanor. I have run out of space and time to write about those here. Even in the 1940s Christian Morality was still central as cultural mainstay. In all probability if FDR’s tryst became proven public knowledge I suspect would have resigned. As I had written earlier I used the WhatReallyHappened.com article entitled, “FDR Scandal Page” as a template for looking up more scholastic articles. The first paragraph of that page begins the personal scandals as an exposé. A more even tempered of what is proven about FDR and Eleanor’s personal life can be found at the Scandalous Women blog entitled, “FDR and his Women”.
Tags: BEF, Bonus March, Burton Folsom JR, Calvin Coolidge, Eleanor Roosevelt, Fascism, FDR, Great Depression, Herbert Hoover, Jim Powell, Leftists, Nazism, New Deal, Posse Comitatus, Socialism, Thomas Roeser
Thanks to Coffee and Sleepless Nights here is an essay highlighting 22 reasons Barack Obama’s Presidency is transforming the USA into a North Korea-like nation.
John R. Houk
© February 1, 2013
Justin Smith has sent an important essay for all to read. Smith places the mind’s eye on the extra-constitutional transformative path President Barack Hussein Obama has taken the United States of America since his 2008 election. BHO has been deceptive along the whole way. He began by using the society changing legislation of enacting Obamacare. Obama propagandized his medical transformation for Americans would make medical needs available to the hereto for uninsured. Not only did this pull a heartstring on America’s lower working class citizens but healthcare reform actually did (and still does due to Obamacare) need reform in the USA.
I don’t care what any Democrat or BHO apologist will tell you, Obamacare at the very least is the beginning of socialized medicine in America. Healthcare reform should have been pushed toward a more compliant market solution with the government acting as a watchdog to prevent the dark side of Capitalism such as insurance companies not insuring pre-existing medical conditions as one example.
When the Dem Party controlled Congress passed Obama’s Affordable Care Act it was an acceleration of what Leftists have been doing in America since the 1960s. When prayer was removed from Public School and abortion on demand became available the moral dominance of Christianity began to be removed by force from American culture. A Leftist-Liberal Judiciary became the vehicle to begin the eradication of Christianity as the moral foundation for culture and law in the USA. It is now an okay thing to condemn Christian morals as evil as evidenced by the acceptance of homosexuality as normal in our culture. Obamacare enables the government to legally tell the people what is right and what is wrong AND the people must accept the government ruling or face some sort of penalty in fines, civil Judicial rulings and criminal legal action for practicing a Christian principle now made illegal.
This is Communism. It is not the kind of Communism America was taught would end American Civil Liberty and Civil Rights enshrined in our Constitution. That kind of Communism was the societal change ideology by violent revolution espoused by the Leninist/Stalinist interpretation of Communist founder Karl Marx. President Ronald Reagan repudiated the value of Lenin/Stalin Communism by burying the old USSR with our Free Market strength to innovate weaponry that the Soviet economy could not keep up with. Hence the fall of Soviet Communism and that agenda to force the people of the world to abandon godly morals and free thought by force of arms.
The kind of Communism that is succeeding in America is not the Marxist working class rising up to change society and culture. Rather it is kind of Communism taught by Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci Communism does not depend on the preferred instant results of violent revolution, rather Gramsci’s Communism was to find Left Wing allies and form a socio-political bloc to win people over to transformation by convincing them there is a better way economic “equality.” Unknown to the people is that better way is to persuade working class citizens to accept the government as the arbiter of right and wrong. This deceptive persuasion means infiltrating bastions of morality and changing minds from inside the local community. As aspects of the local community are brainwashed that equality is better than Liberty.
This brainwashing makes Secular Humanism superior to Biblical Morality. It influences Christians to abandon the Divine for diluted human philosophy. It makes personal responsibility subservient to collective responsibility. It forces the acceptance of any religion or ideology over Christianity to dilute America’s moral foundation into obscurity.
I think you get the idea.
Here is the thing about the deception of Gramsci Communism. No one knows what is happening until they are molded to acceptance or find it too late to regain Liberties terminated by Equality.
In November 2008 and November 2012 a majority of American voters elected the Gramsci deception of President Barack Hussein Obama unknowingly falling for the hidden Gramsci Communism of Obama’s promise of Change-Transformation in America.
Is it too late to regain the Liberty that Barack Hussein Obama is currently eroding before our very eyes? Many Conservatives are preparing for the worst assuming a coming economic collapse will transform America irreparably from the Founding Father axiom of ‘We the People.’
I have read a lot of predicted doom and gloom from cultural collapse from the demise of the American economy to a Clash of Civilizations war between the West (primarily America) and a resurging purist Islam. I am one of those that see the West vs. Islam as inevitable harbinger of global chaos. Seriously though, economic collapse and the Clash of Civilizations war will probably gel into one global problem that Biblical Christians know will end in one way. Nonetheless, it would not be the first time that the signs of an imminent Last Days scenario were off the mark. Last Days scenarios have occurred from generation to generation since the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I am in the ‘Last Days are imminent’ crowd; however it could be another test for humanity to turn around from evil to good giving more people the opportunity to turn to the risen Savior Jesus Christ and find Salvation and Oneness with God Almighty.
The future of ‘We the People’ may be that human test or the beginning of the times bringing Christ’s return to claim His Saints. Either way I am convinced dark days are ahead. The disappointment that draws within me is that my fellow Conservatives are correct in a future of gloom and doom. There is a failure of finding common ground with other Conservatives to win the hearts of Obama-Clinton Change duped people. The duped believe the lie that changing America’s Founding Principles into a Secular Humanist Socialist State will preserve a better future America. Conservatives need to learn an effective way to confront Leftist lies with proven truths of the success of our Founding Principles.
We must do more than just be satisfied that we are correct that catastrophe is imminent. We must provide alternative plans for the short term and long term scenarios. The short term involves using the Constitution while it is still functioning to reverse Obamunism. The Tea Party Movement has been a good example of rallying people to embrace the Constitution. The problem I see with the Tea Party Movement is a failure to expand from the grassroots level to a national unified front. A unified front on a national scale enables Americans to embrace Counter-Obamunism at the very least in the voting booth. Long term scenarios should be developed if America’s Left succeeds in terminating the U.S. Constitution by God knows what kind of legal trick or coup d’état. It is the long term scenarios that Americans must preserve the intent of the Second Amendment as long as possible:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (Bold Type Mine)
As insane as it might sound for ‘We the People’ to have assault weapons, the people deserve the right to own security level weaponry because it is necessary for a “free state”. Pea shooters will not protect Americans from criminals and government oppressors with their own sophisticated weaponry.
Does a long term scenario plan sound revolutionary? I am certain once upon a time long ago an oppressive government without representation caused disparate American colonials to unite willing to spill blood to begin a new experiment in Liberty. Perhaps disparate Americans will have to unite to retain Liberty until Christ returns.
The inspiration for these thoughts is Justin O. Smith. Smith asks, “How Far?”
Here are Justin O. Smith’s thoughts on the results of Election Day 2012.
What Price Freedom? – Or Our New Leviathan
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 11/13/2012 11:37 AM
A dark cloud of fascism surrounded the Beacon of Freedom on November 6th, as America’s ill-informed and ignorant electorate rejected the ideas of personal responsibility and fierce independence exhibited by the early pioneer as he or she rose each morning and asked for nothing more than one more day to work towards success and gave thanks to God for seeing that morning’s sun. By reelecting Obama, these neo-fascists have gladly embraced mindless open borders, the Welfare State, global warming/”green energy”, appeasement and surrender as a foreign policy, and $20 trillion plus deficits. They have sold their Freedom for “free” contraceptives and an Affordable Health Care Act that inflates the cost more than if they had bought their own private insurance policies, and in the bargain they have ensured the enslavement of their children and their children’s children to the Leviathan and those Statists who control it!
The job lay-offs and company cutbacks and closures (Walmart, Applebee’s, Krogers) have already begun in anticipation of the AHA becoming entrenched in U.S. law, especially since many small businesses are close to the 50 employee mark that forces them under its regulation, as it takes over an entire industry. Americans must not let their opposition to Obamacare wane, because its positive effects are few and its freedom killing regulations, such as imprisonment for anyone refusing to “buy” it, are vast and devastating both to the individual and the nation.
Obama’s “mandate” is a fiction. He only won by two million votes, and he received nine million fewer this time than in 2008. The Republicans retained control of the House of Representatives with a 233-201 margin; and yet, Obama is proceeding with his theme that “the wealthy need to pay their fair share”, as he prepares to raise taxes on all Americans by allowing the Bush tax rates to expire. He has suggested raising taxes on everyone making $250,000 or more and a return to the higher tax levels of the Clinton era.
Obama supporters echo his theme, even though the top 15% earners in the U.S. already pay 90% of the taxes. Steny Hoyer, the number two Democrat from Maryland, suggests that working families should not have to bear the burden of deficit reduction. Mary Kay Henry, Pres of SEIU, wrote in a letter to the ‘Tennessee-Tribune': “We need a country where the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share. We need good jobs, we need to need to protect the vital services that millions of Americans rely on and we need to provide a pathway to citizenship for immigrants”, signed with the American Communist Party slogan “In Solidarity”!
Steny Hoyer and others who voted for Obama are not only morally bankrupt, but they are economics illiterate. They do not understand… or even want to understand… that most of America’s jobs are found in small businesses. They do not understand that more taxes on the wealthy tend to place brakes on new business, business expansions and the jobs that are created, thus burdening families further once the lay-offs start; fewer regulations and taxes have historically enabled and created a stimulated and vibrant national economy.
Mary Henry must not realize that current U.S. law already provides a path to citizenship for immigrants, but of course, she really meant illegal aliens, who all the Far Left liberals think souls be given amnesty, which did not work in 1986 and will not solve the situation now; legal Hispanic immigrants, who filed their paperwork and paid the fees, don’t like the fact that the illegals claim their “right” to be here, expect to go to the head of the line and essentially be rewarded for their criminal behavior. However, Heather McDonald (Manhattan Institute) uses statistics to illustrate that, by and large, Hispanics did not vote for Obama due to his immigration stance, but rather they voted for him due to their own propensity towards large centralized government.
America had the chance to elect a potentially good President, Mitt Romney, who would have made the nation energy independent, but they stuck with the Fascist, who is once again preparing to tax carbon emissions by the metric ton and is positioned to close 200-400 coal plants by 2014; just this week a coal plant in Utah laid off 160 workers. So, when gas prices keep rising and people can barely pay their electric bills (projected to soon increase by 30%), Americans need only to look in the damned mirror, because they created the situation by reelecting the most radical President in American history!
While Speaker of the House John Boehner has not been specific on what goals he might set for raising new federal tax dollars, his lack of spine is apparent, as he makes conciliatory noises and once again kisses their President’s backside by suggesting that compromise on the debt ceiling and tax rate is possible. Boehner did, however, recently attempt to sound tough, as he stated that he supported continuing President Bush’s tax rates for all income levels.
Now that the debt ceiling “crisis”, automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to occur at the end of the year have set the stage for going over the “fiscal cliff,” Obama speaks of reaching across the aisle in the spirit of compromise; however, he has shown himself in his first term as an intransigent, secretive pathological LIAR…and now we’re supposed to take him at his word and join him? Not just “No”, but “Hell No!” No deals should be cut with Obama…Let the Democrats be the ones to shut the government down if they will!
Obama’s and Harry Reid’s annual $1.5 trillion deficits have done their damage, and our economy may collapse no matter what saving steps are taken. Obama could take every penny from all of our millionaires and billionaires and still not make a dent in the nation’s debt. The only chance we can give America is to 1) cut government bureaucracies 2) halt deficit spending 3) limit all spending 4) keep the current tax rates; an economic and financial collapse knows no party or race, and you on the Left are damaging the nation and everyone’s future!
Obama, the Divider, and his neo-fascist supporters declare that Americans do not have the right and duty to preserve the society that so many fought and bled for centuries to build; their Utopian lust for a multicultural and transnational society is certain to destroy America if they aren’t stopped, because no nation can survive long if its immigrants are not integrating into the culture and learning the common language or if its borders are not secured and its laws enforced. Obama has pitted women against the Church, unions against Wall Street and local governments, the poor against the rich, homosexuals (3% of the pop.) against the Church and the military (military cadre are retiring in droves due to the military’s “gay marriage” acceptance) and race against race on many issues. His Marxist call for “social justice” is a farce, and his policies make American life insecure and unsafe, as he also ignores the Constitution, loots the U.S. Treasury, downgrades our Armed Forces and consolidates power.
There are those in America who have chosen tyranny over Liberty, but we must resist, obstruct and sabotage Obama’s and the Democrats’ anti-American agendas at every turn in order to save our nation, because redistribution of the wealth is not a legitimate function of the government. The sober and resolute citizens can stop this out of control government…we can stop the liberal whores who bow at the altar of government servitude; we will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude, or abandon our children to a dark and bleak future, or allow Obama to create a new order founded in ideas foreign to our culture historically and an anathema in every way. And, they do not get to dictate to us under Our U.S. Constitution, as we remain defiant in our demise, if it comes to pass. To quote the great Mark Levin, “We’re not good losers, you better believe we’re sore losers! A good loser is a loser forever.” With Freedom for All and Our Beloved America’s future at stake, no options exist except for resistance … no surrender!
“We have petitioned, we have remonstrated, we have supplicated, we have prostrated ourselves at the foot of the throne, and it has all been in vain. We must fight… We must fight!” -Patrick Henry
By Justin O Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
Determine The Networks has put together a profile President Barack Hussein Obama that extends through the Benghazigate scandal. It is roughly a 150 page report. I am going to format Chapter to a Word Document then cross post at SlantRight 2.0. I encourage you to read the whole document entitled, “This is Barack Obama”.
Obama’s Socialist Roots and Worldview Chapter 2
From DTN’s This is Barack Obama
§ Is Barack Obama a socialist? Many observers, from points all along the ideological spectrum, have been exceedingly reticent to describe him as such, as though there were insufficient evidence to make the case for a charge so impolite.
§ In February 2012, a Business Week headline stated bluntly that “it’s dumb to call Obama a socialist.”
§ In June 2012, the Associated Press published an article depicting the president merely as “a pragmatist within the Democratic Party mainstream,” and suggesting that “the persistent claim that Obama is a socialist lacks credence.”
§ In July 2012, a New York Times op-ed piece by film director Milos Forman said that Obama is “not even close” to being a socialist.
§ Ezra Klein of the Washington Post casts Obama as no more radical than “a moderate Republican of the early 1990s.”
§ Leftist commentator Alan Colmes impugns those who “mischaracterize what Obama is doing as socialism, when there’s no government takeover” of the private sector.
§ And Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly—noting that he has seen “no evidence that the president wants to seize private property, which is what communists do”—concludes that Obama “is not a socialist, he’s not a communist, he’s a social-justice anti-capitalist.”
But a careful look at Barack Obama’s life story, his actions, his closest alliances, his long-term objectives, and his words, shows that he has long been, quite demonstrably, a genuine socialist. In the final analysis, Americans are, and indeed should be, free to vote for a socialist president if that is what they want. But if they choose that road, they ought to at least be aware that that is in fact what they are doing—rather than be misled into thinking they are merely supporting a “liberal,” a “progressive,” or a big-hearted advocate of “social justice.” They are supporting a man who is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a lifelong, committed socialist.
Frank Marshall Davis
The early groundwork for Obama’s socialist worldview was laid during his teen years, when he was mentored by the writer/poet Frank Marshall Davis, a longtime member of the Communist Party and the subject of a 601-page FBI file.” The co-founder of a Communist-controlled newspaper that consistently echoed the Soviet party line, Davis had previously been involved with the American Peace Mobilization, described by Congress as not only “one of the most notorious and blatantly communist fronts ever organized in this country,” but also “one of the most seditious organizations which ever operated in the United States.” When Obama in 1979 headed off to Occidental College in California, Davis cautioned him not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh–.”
Obama’s Socialism During His College Years
§ In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama recounts that he chose his friends “carefully” at Occidental, so as “to avoid being mistaken for a sellout.” Among those friends were all manner of radicals, including “the more politically active black students,” “the Chicanos,” “the Marxist Professors and the structural feminists.” Further, Obama writes that he and his similarly “alienated” college friends regularly discussed such topics as “neocolonialism, Franz Fanon [the socialist revolutionary], Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.”
§ David Remnick’s highly sympathetic biography of Obama—The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama—confirms that the future president and many of his closest friends at Occidental were unquestionably socialists.
§ John C. Drew, an Occidental College graduate who knew Obama personally in the early 1980s, reports that the young Obama of that period was “already an ardent socialist Marxist revolutionary”; was highly “passionate” about “Marxist theory”; embraced an “uncompromising, Marxist socialist ideology”; harbored a “sincere commitment to Marxist revolutionary thought”; and was, in the final analysis, a “pure Marxist socialist” who “sincerely believed a Marxist socialist revolution was coming.”
Obama Embraces “Incremental” Socialism
§ In the early 1980s, something profoundly important happened to Barack Obama. He was drawn into the powerful orbit of a strand of socialism that had resolved, as the revolutionary communist Van Jones would later put it, “to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”American socialists of that period, pained by the recent ascendancy of a conservative and popular presidential administration (Reagan), understood that no anti-capitalist revolution was going to take place in the United States anytime soon.
§ Consequently, many socialists in the U.S. put on a new face and pursued a new approach. As Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, explains, these socialists no longer advocated an immediate government takeover of the private economy. Their aim now was to gain influence through the work of community organizers dedicated to gradually infiltrating every conceivable American institution: schools and universities, churches, labor unions, the banking industry, the media, and a major political party.
§ Toward that end, the renowned socialist Michael Harrington established the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to serve as a force that would work within the existing American political system—specifically, within the Democratic Party. Figuring that a move too far or too quick to the left would alienate moderate Democrats, the DSA sought to push the party leftward in a slow and gradual manner, on the theory that, over time, ever-increasing numbers of Democrats would become comfortable with socialism and would espouse it as their preferred ideology.
§ In Radical-in-Chief, Stanley Kurtz points out that this incrementalism became the modus operandi of the “democratic socialists” who embraced the ideals of Karl Marx but were convinced that a “peaceful” and gradual path represented “the only route to socialism that makes sense in America’s thoroughly democratic context.” They believed that “government ownership of the means of production”—the standard definition of socialism—could best be achieved by way of protracted evolution, not sudden revolution.
§ Kurtz explains that socialists, far from agreeing unanimously on tactics and strategies, have always engaged in “never-ending factional disputes” about whether they ought to “eschew capitalist-tainted politics and foment revolution,” or instead “dive into America’s electoral system and try to turn its political currents” toward “a piecemeal transition to a socialist world.”
§ At this point in his life, the twenty-something Obama made a calculated decision to embrace the DSA’s gradualist approach—under the deceptive banners of “liberalism,” “progressivism,” and “social justice.”
§ By no means, however, did this approach represent a rejection of Marx and his socialist doctrines. Kurtz notes that Marx himself, who “expected to see capitalism overthrown by a violent socialist revolution,” was nonetheless “willing to compromise his long-term goals in pursuit of short-term gains, particularly when he thought this democratic maneuvering would position the communist movement for more radical breakthroughs in the future”; that Marx himself “recognized that not only his enemies, but even potential followers could be put off by his most radical plans”; and that, “depending on context, Marx [himself] withheld the full truth of who he was and what he hoped to achieve.”
Obama Attends the Socialist Scholars Conferences
In the early 1980s, Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University in New York. During his time in the Big Apple, he attended at least two Socialist Scholars Conferences, DSA-sponsored events that quickly grew into the largest annual gatherings of socialists in all of North America. It is particularly noteworthy that Obama attended the 1983 Socialist Scholars Conference, which was promoted as a celebration to “honor” the 100th anniversary of Karl Marx’s death.
Obama’s Community Organizing Is Funded By an Organization with Marxist Ideals
§ In June 1985, Obama moved to Chicago and took a community-organizing job with the Developing Communities Project, funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Viewing capitalism as a system steeped in injustice, CCHD states that “the causes of poverty are understood to be an aspect of ‘social sin’ rooted in our social and economic structures and institutions.” To address the problems allegedly spawned by capitalism, CCHD promotes transformative institutional change in the form of “alternative economic structures” that will “broaden the sharing of economic power.” The Catholic magazine Crisis observes that the way the CCHD educates others about transformative change and empowerment” is very much “in line with the socialist and Marxist ideals so prevalent in community organizing.”
Community Organizing As a Socialist Enterprise
§ What, exactly, is “community organizing”? Dr. Thomas Sowell, the eminent Hoover Institution Fellow, offers this concise explanation: “For ‘community organizers’ … racial resentments are a stock in trade…. What [they] organiz[e] are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.” The 2012 Obama campaign’s incessant emphasis on identity politics—seeking to divide the American people along lines of race, ethnicity, class, and gender—bears all the corrosive hallmarks of precisely the mindset that Dr. Sowell describes.
§ Stanley Kurtz provides additional vital insights into the striking parallels that exist between the world of community organizing and the DSA’s gradualist approach toward socialism: “Community organizing is a largely socialist profession. Particularly at the highest levels, America’s community organizers have adopted a deliberately stealthy posture—hiding their socialism behind a ‘populist’ front. These organizers strive to push America toward socialism in unobtrusive, incremental steps, calling themselves ‘pragmatic problem-solvers’ all the while.”
Obama’s Ties to Saul Alinsky, Godfather of Community Organizing
§ It is highly significant that three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Industrial Areas Foundation, established by the famed godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, who advocated mankind’s “advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization … [to] a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful”—in other words, socialism. In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution”—where the ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent and moral confusion to spark social upheaval.
§ But Alinsky’s brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As author Richard Poe explains, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” Promoting a strategy that was wholly consistent with the DSA approach discussed above, Alinsky advised radical organizers and their disciples to [q]uietly, unobtrusively gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to then introduce changes from those platforms.
§ Obama himself went on to teach workshops on the Alinsky method for several years.
§ In 1990, eighteen years after Alinsky’s death, an essay penned by Obama was reprinted as a chapter in a book titled After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.
§ In 1998 at the Terrapin Theater in Chicago, Obama attended a performance of the play The [L]ove Song of Saul Alinsky, which glorified the late radical. Following that performance, Obama took the stage and participated in a panel discussion about the show, along with several other socialists and communists such as Quentin Young and Heather Booth.
§ During the 2008 presidential campaign, Saul Alinsky’s son David wrote the following: “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we his approach 100th birthday.”
Obama and the Midwest Academy, a “Crypto-Socialist” Organization
§ As a young community organizer, Obama had close connections to the Midwest Academy, a radical training ground for activists of his political ilk. Probably the most influential community-organizing-related entity in America at that time, the Midwest Academy worked closely with the DSA and synthesized Saul Alinsky’s organizing techniques with the practical considerations of electoral politics. Emphasizing “class consciousness” and “movement history,” the Academy’s training programs exposed students to the efforts and achievements of veteran activists from earlier decades. Recurring “socialism sessions” encompassed everything from Marx and Engels through Michael Harrington’s democratic socialism and the factional struggles of the Students for a Democratic Society, a radical organization that aspired to remake America’s government in a Marxist image.
§ Knowing that many Americans would be unreceptive to straightforward, hard-left advocacy, the Midwest Academy in its formative years was careful not to explicitly articulate its socialist ideals in its organizing and training activities. The group’s inner circle was wholly committed to building a socialist mass movement, but stealthily rather than overtly. As Midwest Academy trainer Steve Max and the prominent socialist Harry Boyte agreed in a private correspondence: “Every social proposal that we make must be [deceptively] couched in terms of how it will strengthen capitalism.” This strategy of hiding its own socialist agendas below the proverbial radar, earned the Academy the designation “crypto-socialist organization” from Stanley Kurtz.
§ “Nearly every thread of Obama’s career runs directly or indirectly through the Midwest Academy,” says Kurtz, and, as such, it represents “the hidden key to Barack Obama’s political career.” Kurtz elaborates: “Obama’s organizing mentors had ties to [the Midwest Academy]; Obama’s early funding was indirectly controlled by it; evidence strongly suggests that Obama himself received training there; both Barack and Michelle Obama ran a project called ‘Public Allies’ that was effectively an extension of the Midwest Academy; Obama’s first run for public office was sponsored by Academy veteran Alice Palmer; and Obama worked closely at two foundations for years with yet another veteran organizer from the Midwest Academy, Ken Rolling. Perhaps more important, Barack Obama’s approach to politics is clearly inspired by that of the Midwest Academy.”
Obama’s Socialist Pastor, Jeremiah Wright
§ Obama’s next major encounter with socialism took place within the sanctuary of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, pastored by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Best known for his undiluted contempt for the United States and its traditions, Wright has long been a proud prophet of black liberation theology, a movement that seeks to foment Marxist revolutionary fervor founded on racial solidarity, as opposed to the traditional Marxist emphasis on class solidarity. According to black liberation theology, the New Testament gospels can be properly understood only as calls for racial activism and revolution aimed at overturning the existing, white-dominated, capitalist order, and installing, in its stead, a socialist utopia wherein blacks will unseat their white “oppressors” and become liberated from their deprivations—material and spiritual alike.
§ Beginning in the late 1980s, Obama spent fully 20 years attending Wright’s church, which openly promoted a “10-point vision” calling for “economic parity” and warning that “God … is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!” Impugning capitalism as a system whose inequities force “Third World people” to “live in grinding poverty,” Wright derides the United States as the “land of the greed and home of the slave.” Moreover, he has praised the socialist magazine Monthly Review for its “no-nonsense Marxism,” congratulating that publication for “dispel[ling] all the negative images we have been programmed to conjure up with just the mention of that word ‘socialism’ or ‘Marxism.’”
§ This same Jeremiah Wright served as a mentor to Barack Obama for two decades. So great was Obama’s regard for Wright, that Obama selected him not only to perform his wedding to Michelle Robinson in 1992, but also to baptize his two daughters later on. Perhaps Obama’s most significant show of support for Wright’s ministry was his donation of some $27,500 to Trinity Church during 2005-06.Another report indicates that from 2005-07, Obama gave a total of $53,770 to Trinity. People simply do not give such large sums of money to causes in which they do not deeply believe. There is no reason in the world to suspect that Obama rejected any part of Wright’s message at any time between 1988 and early 2008. He disavowed Wright only when the latter’s radicalism threatened to become a political liability to Obama’s ambition for the White House.
Obama and ACORN, a Socialist Organization
§ In the early to mid-1990s, Obama worked with the (now defunct) community organization ACORN and its voter-mobilization arm, Project Vote. Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern explains that ACORN, professing a dedication to “the poor and powerless,” in fact promoted “a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor.” ACORN, Stern elaborates, organized people “to push for ever more government control of the economy” and to pursue “the ultra-Left’s familiar anti-capitalist redistributionism.”
§ In 2010, former ACORN insider Anita MonCrief confirmed the organization’s unmistakably socialist orientation: “As an ACORN insider my indoctrination as a socialist was a slow but steady progression from radical liberalism to embracing the stealth socialist methods that had made ACORN a powerful force in American electoral politics…. Inside ACORN offices across the country, young, idealistic liberals were being ingrained with the Saul Alinsky style of Organizing. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was never mentioned by name, but Alinsky’s tactics were used on employees and ACORN members. ACORN’s strategy of stealth socialism was aimed at gaining power through duplicity and somewhat assimilating into society…. I once asked Marcel Reid, former ACORN national board member and President of DC ACORN, how it was possible for ACORN to push its agenda and she replied, ‘We never use the word Socialism.’ ACORN’s appeal was to simply implement a Socialist agenda without ever saying the word.”
§ Smitten with Obama’s political and ideological makeup, ACORN in the early 1990s invited him to help train its staff in the tactics of community organizing. In 1995, Obama was one of a team of attorneys who sued, on ACORN’s behalf, for the implementation of a “Motor Voter” law in Illinois. Because Motor Voter laws allow people to register by mail without requiring that they provide any form of identification, they are, quite understandably, breeding grounds for voter-registration fraud. Thus, Jim Edgar, Illinois’ Republican governor, opposed the law.
§ In a 2007 interview with ACORN representatives, then-presidential candidate Obama said enthusiastically: “You know you’ve got a friend in me. And I definitely welcome ACORN’s input…. Since I have been in the United States Senate I’ve been always a partner with ACORN as well…. I’ve been fighting with ACORN, alongside ACORN, on issues you care about my entire career.”
§ During Obama’s 2008 presidential run, his campaign gave more than $800,000 to the ACORN front group Citizens’ Services, Inc., to fund voter-registration efforts.
§ Obama’s relationship with ACORN remained rock-solid right up until the organization’s dissolution amid immense scandal (involving voter-registration fraud, among other matters) in 2010.
Marxists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Former Weather Underground Terrorists, Launch Obama’s Political Career
§ It was in the mid-1990s that Obama first decided to try his hand at electoral politics, setting his sights initially on a state senate seat in Illinois. Remarkably, Obama launched his political career in the home of two well-connected Chicagoans, longtime activists who would help the fledgling politician make important contacts and enlarge his public profile. These two allies were the infamous Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, lifelong Marxists who in the 1960s and ’70s had been revolutionary leaders of the Weather Underground Organization, a domestic terror group (described by Ayers as “an American Red Army”) that aspired to transform the U.S., by means of violence and even mass murder, into a Communist country. In 1974, while they were on the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list, Ayers and Dohrn co-authored a book that openly advocated “revolutionary war” as “the only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism”; called for “a revolutionary communist party … to lead the struggle [to] seize power and build the new society”; and lauded socialism as the key to “the eradication of the social system based on profit.” Now, they were the key figures ushering Barack Obama into a political career.
§ Obama’s ties to Ayers and Dohrn are extensive. In 1995, Ayers appointed Obama as the first chairman of his newly created “school reform organization,” the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, whose stated educational objective was to “teach against oppression” as embodied in “America’s history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.”
§ In December 1997, Obama wrote a blurb praising Ayers’ recently published book, A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court, calling it “a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.”
Ayers and Dohrn Have Never Abandoned Their Marxist, Anti-American Views
§ Ayers has never changed his Marxist, anti-American worldview. In 2001 he said [SlantRight Editor: as of this writing this cache link did not work so I am providing three links that possibly convey the thoughts of DTN: Here, Here and Here]: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Contemplating whether or not he might again use bombs against the U.S. sometime in the future, he wrote: “I can’t imagine entirely dismissing the possibility.” Also in 2001, Ayers expressed his enduring hatred for the United States: “What a country. It makes me want to puke.”
§ At a 2007 reunion of former members of the Weather Underground and Students for a Democratic Society, Ayers reemphasized his contempt for the U.S., asserting that the nation’s chief hallmarks included “oppression,” “authoritarianism,” and “a kind of rising incipient American form of fascism.” Moreover, he claimed that the U.S. was guilty of pursuing “empire unapologetic[ally]”; waging “war without end” against “an undefined enemy that’s supposed to be a rallying point for a new kind of energized jingoistic patriotism”; engaging in “unprecedented and unapologetic military expansion”; oppressing brown- and black-skinned people with “white supremacy”; perpetrating “violent attacks” against “women and girls”; expanding “surveillance in every sphere of our lives”; and “targeting … gay and lesbian people as a kind of a scapegoating gesture …”
§ In March 2008 Ayers became vice president for curriculum studies at the left-wing American Educational Research Association, thereby putting himself in a position to exert great influence over what is taught in America’s teacher-training colleges and its public schools. Specifically, Ayers seeks to inculcate teachers-in-training with a “social commitment” to the values of “Marx,” and with a desire to become agents of social change in K-12 classrooms. Whereas “capitalism promotes racism and militarism,” Ayers explains, “teaching invites transformations” and is “the motor-force of revolution.”
§ Ayers also created, in collaboration with longtime communist Mike Klonsky, the so-called “Small Schools Movement” (SSM), where individual schools committed themselves to the promotion of specific political themes and pushed students to “confront issues of inequity, war, and violence.” A chief goal of SSM is to teach students that American capitalism is a racist, materialistic doctrine that has done incalculable harm to societies all over the world.
§ Dohrn. Likewise, has never changed her Marxist, anti-American orientation. In November 2007, she spoke at a 40th anniversary celebration of the Students for a Democratic Society. In her remarks, she praised her fellow radicals for their long-term efforts aimed at “overthrowing everything hateful about this government and corporate structure that we live in, capitalism itself.” Further, Dohrn lamented “the whole structural implications of white supremacy and the ways in which race and class and gender are just so intertwined in the United States.”
Obama Tries to Downplay His Close Aliance with Ayers
§ During the 2008 presidential campaign, when Obama was asked about his relationship with Bill Ayers, he said that Ayers was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” who happened to have done some bad things “forty years ago when I was six or seven years old.” He implied that to even raise a question about that relationship was a mean-spirited, guilt-by-association political tactic.
§ Obama’s closest advisor, David Axelrod, said: “Bill Ayers lives in his [Obama's] neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school. They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.” But at the time of Axelrod’s statement, Ayers’ three children were in their late twenties and early thirties, whereas Obama’s two daughters, Sasha and Malia, were aged six and nine, respectively. But the enduring nature of Obama’s friendly relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn was evidenced by the fact that he attended a July Fourth barbecue at the couple’s home in 2005, even as the former terrorists continued to hold America—and capitalism—in utmost contempt.
Obama Gets Support from Alice Palmer, a Pro-Soviet Radical
§ Another key supporter of Obama’s 1996 entry into politics was Democratic state senator Alice Palmer of Illinois, who, as she prepared to run for Congress, hand-picked Obama as the person she hoped would fill her newly vacated state-senate seat. Toward that end, Palmer introduced Obama to party elders and donors as her preferred successor, and helped him gather the signatures required for getting his name placed on the ballot.
§ Palmer’s background is highly noteworthy: A veteran of the Midwest Academy, she consistently supported the Soviet Union and spoke out against the United States during the Cold War. In the 1980s she served as an official of the U.S. Peace Council, which the FBI identified as a Communist front group. In 1986 she attended the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and expressed a high regard for the USSR’s system of “central planning.” And she applauded the Soviets for “carrying out a policy to resolve the inequalities between nationalities, inequalities that they say were inherited from capitalist and czarist rule.”
Obama Joins the Socialist “New Party”
§ During his Illinois state senate campaign in 1996, Obama actively sought the endorsement of the so-called New Party, a socialist political coalition whose objective was to promote the election of left-wing public officials—most often Democrats. The New Party’s short-term goal was to gradually, incrementally move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of a new socialist third party. As Stanley Kurtz puts it, the New Party “is best understood as an attempt to build a mass-based political front for a largely socialist party leadership.”
§ New Party co-founder Joel Rogers once penned a piece in the Marxist journal New Left Review, wherein he made it clear that the organization was a socialist enterprise at its core. Not only was Obama successful in obtaining the New Party’s endorsement, but he also used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers, and by 1996 Obama himself had become a New Party member.
Support from Carl Davidson, Marxist
§ Yet another important Obama ally in 1996 was Carl Davidson, a major player in the Chicago branch of the New Party. Davidson is a lifelong Marxist who in the 1960s served as a national secretary of the Students for a Democratic Society. In 1969 Davidson helped launch the Venceremos Brigades, which covertly transported hundreds of young Americans to Cuba to help harvest sugar cane and learn guerrilla warfare techniques from the communist government of Fidel Castro. In 1988 Davidson founded Networking for Democracy, a program that encouraged American high-school students to engage in “mass action” aimed at “tearing down the old structures of race and class privilege” in the United States “and around the world.” And in 1992 Davidson became a leader of the newly formed Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an outgrowth of the Communist Party USA.
Obama and the Democratic Socialists of America
§ On February 25, 1996, Obama (who was then a candidate for the 13th Illinois Senate District) was a guest panelist at a “townhall meeting on economic insecurity,” sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). His fellow panelists included William Julius Wilson (a longtime DSA activist from the Center for the Study of Urban Inequality) and DSA National Political Committee member Joseph Schwartz. In his remarks, Obama discussed how government could play a “constructive” role in improving society.
“I Actually Believe in Redistribution”
§ Obama’s commitment to the redistribution of wealth—an unmistakable hallmark of socialism—is deep, longstanding, and well-documented. At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, he said: “There has been a systematic … propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved…. The trick is, how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”
Viewing the Constitution As an Impediment to “Redistributive Change”
§ Obama again clearly articulated his commitment to wealth redistribution during a guest appearance on Chicago’s WBEZ public radio in 2001, when he was an Illinois state senator. In that interview, Obama lauded the ability of community organizations “to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” He lamented, however, that the Supreme Court had “never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society”; that the Court had not been able to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution,” a document that unfortunately “doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf”; and that he himself was “not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts,” even though he found it easy to “come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”
§ In a penetrating analysis of Obama’s remarks, Bill Whittle of National Review Online writes: “The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population. Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw.”
Depicting the Free Market As a Heartless Agent of “Social Darwinism”
§ In a 2005 commencement address , Obama described the conservative philosophy of government as one that promises “to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.” “In Washington,” said Obama, “they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or her self. It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity.”
Obama Names the Socialist Cornel West to His Black Advisory Council
§ When Obama ran for president in 2008, he formed a Black Advisory Council that included Professor Cornel West—a longtime member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a former supporter of the now-defunct (socialist) New Party, and an avid admirer of (the socialist) Jeremiah Wright. Identifying himself as a “progressive socialist,” West contends that “Marxist thought is an indispensable tradition for freedom fighters.” Viewing capitalism as the root cause of America’s “unbridled grasp at power, wealth and status,” West warns: “Free-market fundamentalism trivializes the concern for public interest. It puts fear and insecurity in the hearts of anxiety-ridden workers. It also makes money-driven, poll-obsessed elected officials deferential to corporate goals of profit—often at the cost of the common good.”
§ When Obama appeared with Professor West at a Harlem, New York campaign fundraiser, West introduced him as “my brother and my companion and comrade.” Obama, in response, called West “a genius, a public intellectual, a preacher, [and] an oracle.”
Advocating Massive Redistribution of Wealth on a Global Scale
§ As the Democratic primaries were winding down in May 2008, Obama quietly steered his Global Poverty Act (GPA), known as S. 2433, through the U.S. Senate. He characterized the bill as one that required “the president to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs (non-governmental organizations).” According to Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid, the GPA would make America’s foreign-aid spending decisions “subservient to the dictates of the United Nations” and, over a 13-year period, would cost the U.S. roughly $845 billion “over and above what [it] already spends.”
Global Wealth Redistribution via Skyrocketing Foreign Aid
§ From fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2012, with the U.S. economy mired in a deep recession, the Obama administration increased federal spending on foreign aid by at least 80%. In fiscal 2008, the government spent a total of $11.427 billion in international assistance programs. During Obama’s presidency, the corresponding totals have been $14.827 billion in 2009; $20.038 billion in 2010; $20.599 billion in 2011; and $20.058 billion through the first 11 months of fiscal 2012.
Obama Says that Only Government Can Rescue Ailing Economy
§ On February 6, 2009, President Obama held his first prime-time press conference, where, in reference to the economic downturn that was afflicting the U.S., he said: “It is only government that can break the vicious cycle.”
Support from the Leader of the Communist Party USA
§ In early February 2009, it was reported that Communist Party USA leader Sam Webb had recently delivered a major speech [SlantRight Editor: At the time of this post the DTN link redirects to Facebook with the message “… requested not found”. Here is the same story on Free Republic.] about President Obama, titled “Off and Running: Opportunity of a Lifetime.” Said Webb: “We now have not simply a friend, but a people’s advocate in the White House…. An era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream. Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House.”
Venezuela’s Communist President Hugo Chavez Praises Obama’s Socialist Mindset
§ In a nationally televised, June 2, 2009 speech on the “curse” of capitalism, Venezuela’s Communist President Hugo Chavez made an approving reference to Obama’s recent move to nationalize General Motors. In a related remark directed to Chavez’s longtime friend and ally Fidel Castro, the Venezuelan President suggested that Obama’s brand of socialism was perhaps more extreme than that of any other world leader. Said Chavez: “Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his [Obama's] right.”
Obama’s Radical Appointees (Revolutionary Communist Van Jones, etc.)
Obama’s socialist orientation is further manifest in a number of the political appointments he has made as President. For example:
§ He named Van Jones—a longtime revolutionary communist who famously declared that “we [are] gonna change the whole [economic] system”—as his “green jobs czar” in 2009.
§ He appointed Carol Browner, a former “commissioner” of the Socialist International, as his “environment czar.”
§ He appointed John Holdren—who not only views capitalism as a system that is inherently destructive of the environment, but strongly favors the redistribution of wealth, both within the U.S. and across international borders—as his “science czar.”
§ He chose Anita Dunn—a woman who has cited the late Mao Zedong, China’s longtime Communist dictator and the killer of some 60 million people, as one of her “favorite political philosophers”—to serve as White House communications director.
The Communist Ties of Obama’s Two Closest Political Advisors
§ Valerie Jarrett , the daughter-in-law of a journalist with ties to the Communist Party, was largely responsible for persuading the communist Van Jones, whom she admired tremendously, to join the Obama administration in 2009.
§ David Axelrod , the chief architect of Obama’s presidential campaigns, was mentored, as a young man, by the lifelong communist David Canter. Axelrod’s other mentor, Don Rose, was a member of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, an organization replete with communists and Sixties radicals. Rose also belonged to the Alliance to End Repression—a suspected Communist Party front—and he did some press work for the Students for a Democratic Society.
Obama Awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom to an Avowed Socialist
§ In May 2012, Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor a civilian can receive, to the iconic union activist Dolores Huerta. A longtime member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Huerta had previously won a Eugene Debs Award, named after the man who founded the Socialist Party of America. On at least one occasion, she was a guest speaker at a gathering of the Socialist Scholars Conference. And she is an open admirer of Venezuela’s communist president, Hugo Chavez.
Communist Party USA Backs Obama’s Re-election
§ In June 2012, Marxist John Case, who writes for various Communist Party USA publications, wrote a piece titled “The Danger of a Romney Election,” which stated that: “Re-electing Obama is not sufficient to bring economic recovery or even relief to our people. Only a different class configuration in political power can do necessary minimum reforms to give us a chance. But re-electing Obama is absolutely essential. Now is not the time for hand washing the complexities and tactics away—or failing to triage the most critical questions from those that are less critical. We cannot win everything at once!”
Obama’s Striking Ideological Resemblance to the Party of European Socialists
§ In January 2012, a Forbes magazine piece documented the striking similarities between President Obama’s political agendas and those of the Party of European Socialists—particularly as regards the expansion of the welfare state; government-funded universal access to education and health care; a progressive taxation system designed to redistribute income and wealth on a massive scale; a belief that state control is necessary to rein in the “greed” that underlies market forces which benefit only “the privileged few”; a reliance on “international institutions” and “international consensus” as the basis of foreign-policy decisions; and environmental policies that favor “carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restricted drilling and refining, and subsidies of green technology … even at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs.”
§ Concluded Forbes: “If the Party of European Socialists were to rate Obama, he would get a near-perfect score. The political views and programs that Obama is prepared to reveal to the public are consistent with those of European socialists. He is clearly a socialist in the European sense of the term.”
“The President of the United States Is a Socialist”
§ Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, points out that Obama, from his teenage years to the present, “has lived in a thoroughly socialist world”; that Obama “never abandoned his early socialist convictions but instead discreetly retained them, on the model of his colleagues and mentors in the world of community organizing.” The final sentence of Kurtz’s book is its most powerful: “The president of the United States is a socialist.”
Important Quotes that Reveal President Obama’s Socialist Mindset
Though Obama—in the tradition of the Democratic Socialists of America, ACORN, and the Midwest Academy—has carefully avoided openly referring to himself as a socialist, he gives us a glimpse of his mindset every now and then, particularly when he is busy fomenting class envy, demonizing financial prosperity, and advocating wholesale wealth redistribution. Recall, for instance:
§ when Obama famously told Joe Wurzelbacher (“Joe the Plumber”), during the 2008 campaign, that a tax increase on small businesses would be justified because “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”;
§ when he told an Illinois audience in April 2010, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”;
§ when he made any one of his innumerable disparaging references to “the top 1 percent,” the “millionaires and billionaires,” the “fat-cat bankers,” and the “corporate jet owners” who are “sitting pretty” as they live lavishly at the expense of “the bottom 90 percent”;
§ when he flatly rejected “this brand of ‘you’re-on-your-own’ economics” in January 2012;
§ when he condemned the “ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else”;
§ when he advocated “a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared”;
§ when he congratulated the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street radicals for “inspir[ing]” him, reminding him “what we are still fighting for,” and being “the reason why I ran for this office in the first place”;
§ when he claimed: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”—a reference to the government-funded “roads and bridges” that presumably made it possible for the business to thrive;
§ and when he said, during the closing statement of his October 3, 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney, that he sought to create an America where “everybody’s getting a fair shot, and everybody’s getting a fair share.” He then quickly corrected himself: “[E]verybody’s doing a fair share, and everybody’s playing by the same rules.”
The Quest to “Fundamentally Transform” America, “Brick by Brick, Block by Block”
§ Five days before the 2008 presidential election, again Obama articulated his intent to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Earlier in the campaign, he had pledged to “remake the world as it should be,” and to “change this country, brick by brick, block by block.” Earlier still, he had told an audience of supporters that “we’re not just going to win an election but more importantly we’re going to transform this nation.” These ominous proclamations sit at the very heart of the socialist mindset, the grandiose quest to tear down the status quo and erect a new, utopian world upon the scattered rubble of its despised ruins.
§ Those quotes echo what Obama had said many years earlier, in an interview published by the Daily Herald on March 3, 1990: “I feel good when I’m engaged in what I think are the core issues of the society, and those core issues to me are what’s happening to poor folks in this society…. Hopefully, more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we’re going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous. I mean, I really hope to be part of a transformation of this country.”
An Illustration of Obama’s Embrace of Incremental Socialism
§ The strategy of settling for incrementalism rather than sudden, sweeping revolution was displayed with vivid clarity during the healthcare debates of 2009-10. Obama was already on record as having stated emphatically, in a 2003 speech at an AFL-CIO event: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan”—i.e., a government-run system.
§ But by 2007, with the White House clearly within his reach, Obama began to make allowances for the increasingly evident fact that a single-payer plan was not politically palatable to a large enough number of American voters. “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” he said in May 2007. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”
§ He made similar references to a “transition step” and “a transitional system” on other occasions during the campaign. In the summer of 2008, Obama declared that “if I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” but acknowledged that from a practical standpoint, such a result could only come about “over time.”
§ Obamacare, then, was deliberately designed to be a stepping stone toward total government control of healthcare—a mere way station along the road toward the “radical ends” that the president ultimately sought to achieve.
A Successful Businessman Expresses His Resentment of Obama’s Class-Warfare Rhetoric
§ In October 2012, Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts told political commentator/TV host Jon Ralston: “I’ve created about 250,000 direct and indirect jobs according to the state of Nevada’s measurement. If the number is 250,000, that’s exactly 250,000 more than this president, who I’ll be damned if I want to have him lecture me about small business and jobs. I’m a job creator. Guys like me are job creators and we don’t like having a bulls-eye painted on our back. The president is trying to put himself between me and my employees. By class warfare, by deprecating and calling a group that makes money ‘billionaires and millionaires who don’t pay their share.’ I gave 120% of my salary and bonus away last year to charities, as I do most years. I can’t stand the idea of being demagogued, that is put down, by a president who has never created any jobs and who doesn’t even understand how the economy works.”
John R. Houk
© August 18, 2012
I don’t have to be a prophet to predict that a war will explode in the Middle East soon. The Muslim nations surrounding Israel have been trying to destroy the Jewish State ever since their modern independence in 1948. For some Islamic Supremacist jealousy cannot court the concept of a sliver of land that a religion other than Islam sets the parameters for governance in the region.
Couple this with the old Arab League set up of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which has been legitimized by Western Powers by linking the PLO to a Western created Palestinian Authority (PA). Western reasoning for the PA is idiotically attempting to set up Israeli-Arab peace by grabbing Israeli land by forcing Israel to accept a Jew-hating sovereign Palestine to Israel’s East. Of course there is PLO-independent Hamas to the southwest of Israel which is a tool of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and there is Iranian client terrorists Hezbollah to the north of Israel. Iran has been rattling swords against Israel for over half a decade. Egypt is becoming a Radical Muslim State as the Muslim Brotherhood tentacles spread through its government. Muslim Brotherhood Clerics have been voicing a call for unity among Muslim-Arabs for a pan-Islamic State with Jerusalem as its capital city. Syria directly north and east of Israel has been an Iranian client rattling swords against Israel ever since 1948 but they are having a problem with a civil war currently. I look to Syria to continue hostility with Israel no matter who wins that civil war. And there is Lebanon to the north which has become a client of the Shia dominated Hezbollah. Lebanon essentially has become a State within a State.
This report from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and written by Christopher Harmer will give you an idea what an all out war in the Middle Eastern region will look like. And by all out war I mean more than the USA and any coalition of the willing trying to use Western concepts in rebuilding a nation-state.
This war will have the appearance initially of multiple Muslim nations and Islamic terrorists attacking tiny Israel. If America honors its treaty with Israel will enter into the fray. If America enters the fray I have little doubt that Russia and Communist China will at first join in the Muslim side because of oil. America’s NATO allies will have to join on our side because an increasingly militant Russia will be a little scary for Europe that has diverted most of its money to Socialist programs that are barely staying afloat PLUS the issue of oil will force Europe to join USA-Israel so they are not cut off by a potential Russia-China-Iran victory.
I might point out the allegiance of nations I am pointing out here is conditional only our Treaty allies honor the military treaty terms. It could go bad for the USA if other variables take place in which treaties are broken.
The first broken treaty that would make a lot of nations very pleased is if America fails to honor our military treaty with Israel. If Obama is around when this war breaks out Obama could very easily throw Israel under the bus to see if another 1948 miracle occurs with Israel surviving multiple fronts of invasion.
Another scenario is that various European nations break away from NATO to join the Russia-China-Iran axis for petroleum and petro-Dollars/petro-Euros with the hope of abandoning America would ease the socio-economic pain that will occur if the NATO is honored on the European side.
When all out war breaks out globally this time it will make the ugliness of WWII look like a picnic.
JRH 8/18/12 (You can also read the ISW text version of “Threat and Response: Israeli Missile Defense” directly below these thoughts at SlantRight 2.0.)
John R. Houk
© June 4, 2012
CJ from America Conservative 2 Conservative sent me a personal message asking to check out a couple of AC2C links. The first link is humongous and is a PDF file that represents two Websites:
CJ’s rendition is kind of mangled I suspect due to copying and pasting from the PDF document.
I truly admire the effort to mobilize Americans on a grassroots level to such a mass of people that the Federal Government (Executive, Congressional and Judicial) would have to either listen to demands of Constitution believing American or create law ex nihilo to forcefully shut down the right to peaceful assembly and free speech.
A lot of people envision the U.S. Government under the Obama Administration will choose repression to shut down opposition even to the point creating a crisis to suspend the 2012 election and/or institute an unconstitutional Martial Law which would be a rule by fiat Marxist style.
I for one would rather envision a Gandhi-style massive grassroots mobilization to confront America’s Left of the their manipulation of the Constitution to the so-called living document that can be molded to the vision of a carved out manipulated society that is slipping into moral deviancy and the slow restriction of American innovation and Liberty.
If the repression follows to the point that slaughter begins to occur then and only then should a Declaration of Independence style proclamation be issued to free American from ruling despots.
Below is the comment I made according to the conversation of the previous comments and the reading of the posted PDF document:
I am afraid I am not really a member of this club so I am unaware of the inside knowledge that seems to be the conversation of the comments. This is an extremely long post, has anyone read it all the way to the end? I got about half way through and began skimming through the post instead of carefully reading it.
It seems the goals of the “Call to Action” are quite laudable. However, there is a hint of using unconstitutional methods in an effort to restore our Republic back to the Original Intent of the Constitution. If I am incorrect, forgive me.
However by using the auspices of the First Amendment it would be awesome for a massive grassroots movement to arise in the streets utilizing our right to peaceful assembly and to free speech to inundate the government of the Leftist Dems and the Establishment Republicans.
If such a scenario emerges, let me know. I will be in. I will participate on a local basis. If such a scenario is not imminent, then keep me posted on the how leaders are trying to unite and overcome the minor disagreements that impede a full grassroots movement that attracts Americans to preserve America.
If I missed the point I truly want to be set straight. If I didn’t miss the point, I stand by my thoughts.
Below I am going to make the valiant effort to clean up CJ’s version of the PDF document. As she mentions at the end there are links inherent in the document that she did not capture for posting. You can go HERE to search out those links.
Emails sent: 5/21/12 to 5/22/12
The theme of these emails is a mixture of Barack Obama, Socialism and Eco-Marxism.
The Obama Party of Hope in 4 years became the Party of EPA Nope …….
By Tony Newbill
Sent: 5/21/2012 7:58 AM
They became a Party that says NOPE to anything Business related because of the Earth being more Important than mankind.
They said NOPE to all the resource development that gives Humans a Quality of Life above the standard Caveman approach.
They said NOPE to the Hope that we the people were better off supplying our own needs rather than a Government Mandated rationed Life style and Proved it with the Forced Passage of Obamacare.
They said NOPE you can’t build your dream home, your dream business , your dream life style because its Killing the Earth.
So basically they are saying NOPE to your LIFE, instead of Hope for all of mankind . How can Peace come from this kind of Leadership???
It’s time for a New HOPE approach to how we find solutions to what a Sustainable Future looks like.
Young Obama “Communist Revolution Inevitable”
Sent by Tony Newbill
By Steve Cooper
Sent: 5/21/2012 8:33 AM
Posted: 5/21/2012 7:56:08 AM
I was watching a video of Dr. Drew giving a speech about his first meeting with a young Obama at Occidental College. It is chilling that the media is hiding the fact that Obama stated to Drew that “A Communist revolution in the USA is inevitable”.
Obama is painted by the Elitist controlled media as a ‘moderate’, because they are part of the Communist deception to keep the American people in the dark about the coming dictatorship. We are living in dangerous time of lies and deception. Why do you think super wealthy people are throwing cash at Obama? They want to give him absolute power and then be on his “A list” for generously donating to the Marxist cause.
The ‘super rich far left’ are growing restless with ‘Obama the Moderate’, because they didn’t donate their money with the purpose to fund a ‘moderate’. They donated their money with the purpose to fund a Marxist revolutionary that will give the Elite more status and smash the rest of us. These people are power hungry and greedy.
Raising the status of the poor is too expensive and it is NOT going to happen. It is much easier to smash the middle and upper middle class until they are almost equal to the poor people in society. After all, the Elite want to pay lower wages since they always brag about the “Chinese Economic Model’ in the NY Times. The unions have a hard lesson coming.
Dr Drew brought up an excellent point during his speech when he mentioned that “Communist revolutions only take place in countries that have a ‘weak’ middle class”. Well folks, they are working on that as we speak. It sickens me to write this.
Please check out these two articles by Dr. Drew
Meeting Young Obama
My first meeting with young Barack Obama raised strong feelings and left me with a positive first impression. At the time, I felt I’d persuaded a young man anticipating a Marxist-Leninist revolution to appreciate the more practical alternative of conventional politics as a channel for his socialist views.
I met Obama in December of 1980, a couple of days after Christmas, in Portola Valley — a small town near Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA. I was a 23 year old second-year graduate student in Cornell’s Government Department, and had flown to California to visit a 21 year old girlfriend, Caroline Boss. Boss was a senior at Occidental College, where she had taken a class in the fall of 1980 with political theorist Roger Boesche. She met and befriended Obama in that class.
The taller of the two was Obama, then only 19, who towered over his five-foot-five companion, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo – a wealthy, 21 year old Pakistani student. Chandoo had a full dark black, neatly trimmed moustache, and was dressed in expensive clothes. Nevertheless, Obama was the more handsome of the two. At six foot two, Obama carried himself with the dignity and poise of a model. The diminutive Chandoo, in contrast, came across as more of a practical, businessman type. Obama displayed a visible deference to Chandoo when they were standing together at the vehicle.
… Boss, I remember, wanted to make sure I understood that young Obama was not merely an attractive socialite dabbling in Marxist theory. “You’ve worked with us,” she observed. “You’ve been at our DSA meetings. You’ve been active in the anti-apartheid movement.”
Boss and Obama, however, had a starkly different view. They believed that the economic stresses of the Carter years meant revolution was still imminent. The election of Reagan was simply a minor set-back in terms of the coming revolution. As I recall, Obama repeatedly used the phrase “When the revolution comes….” In my mind, I remember thinking that Obama was blindly sticking to the simple Marxist theory that had characterized my own views while I was an undergraduate at Occidental College. “There’s going to be a revolution,” Obama said, “we need to be organized and grow the movement.” In Obama’s view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable revolution.
… Boss and Obama seemed to think their ideological purity was a persuasive argument in predicting that a coming revolution would end capitalism. While I felt I was doing them a favor by providing them with the latest research, I saw I was in danger of being cast as a reactionary who did not grasp the nuances of international Marxist theory.
Since I was a Marxist myself at the time, and had studied variations in Marxist theory, I can state that everything I heard Obama argue that evening was consistent with Marxist philosophy, including the ideas that class struggle was leading to an inevitable revolution and that an elite group of revolutionaries was needed to lead the effort. If he had not been a true Marxist-Leninist, I would have noticed and remembered. I can still, with some degree of ideological precision, identify which students at Occidental College were radicals and which ones were not. I can do the same thing for the Occidental College professors at that time.
Whatever impact our encounter might have had on him, I know something about what Barack Obama believed in 1980. At that time, the future president was a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary, although perhaps — for the first time — considering conventional politics as a more practical road to socialism. Knowing this, I think I have a responsibility to place on the public record my account of this incident from our president’s past. (SlantRight Editor: Excerpted from “Meeting Young Obama” by John Drew – Read Entirety)
Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama’s Past
What would you do if you knew that the top Democrat running for president was lying about his past?
That is the question I was faced with in 2008. I had met the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College, and I knew that his commitment to socialism was deep, genuine, and longstanding. See my earlier article on American Thinker.
I had been a leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College myself, starting in 1976 when I founded the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus. The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer.
The Obama I knew was nothing like the lifelong pragmatic centrist that he was pretending to be in the 2008 presidential campaign. When I talked politics with the young Obama, he expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S. — completely divorced from the profit motive — which would occur, in his lifetime, through a potentially violent, Communist-style revolution. In this context, I saw my report on young Obama as a key piece of evidence suggesting a profound continuity in his belief system.
Although I was surprised by Barack Obama’s insistence on his mainstream ideological credentials, I was shocked that my attempts to spread the news about young Obama’s Marxism failed to gain any media traction with reporters, activists, or campaign staffs during the 2008 presidential campaign. (Read more)
Dr. John Drew’s Speech on Young Obama
Uploaded by mmunzing on Apr 21, 2011
Dr. John Drew (http://twitter.com/augustine25) speaks to the ladies at the Capistrano Valley Womens Republican Federated meeting, on April 20th, 2011, about his personal meetings with the young Barak Obama. John shares the Marxist & revolutionary beliefs that young Obama was advocating, in 1980, at the age of 19, and the continued Marxist relationships that he has maintained throughout his life. John also explains the importance of defeating Barak Obama in the 2012 election.
Follow John Drew on Twitter
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a blogger at David Horowitz’s NewsReal Blog Dr. Drew earned his Ph.D. from Cornell and has taught political science and economics at Williams College. Today, Dr. Drew makes his living as an author, trainer, and consultant in the field of non-profit grant writing, fund raising and program evaluation. To book Dr. Drew for your event, please go here.
15 Facts That Even Obama’s Biggest Supporters Should Be Able To Admit Are True
Sent by Tony Newbill
Sent: 5/21/2012 3:59 PM
By John Hawkins
Posted: May 18, 2012
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” — Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Conservatives and liberals may disagree on reasons, motivations, and excuses for Barack Obama’s performance, but the facts are still facts. There may be many reasons that a pro football coach goes 1-15, but everyone can agree that his record is still 1-15, right? Well, here are some basic facts about how the country is faring with Barack Obama in the White House. Take a look at the numbers, sans commentary, and make your own judgment about whether Barack Obama deserves another term in office.
1) Real median household income is down $4300 since Obama took office.
2) The percentage of unemployed workers who’ve been out of a job for more than a year is over 30%.
3) The country has had the longest streak of +8% unemployment since the Depression under Obama: 39 months and counting.
4) In 2011 under Barack Obama, nearly one out of every seven Americans was on food stamps. That’s a 70 percent increase from 2007.
5) Fifty percent of new college graduates are underemployed or unemployed.
7) Barack Obama ended NASA’s manned space program.
8) Going into this election cycle, Barack Obama had raised more money from Wall Street than any President in history. He has also raised more money from Wall Street than all of the GOP presidential contenders combined in this election cycle.
9) Under Barack Obama’s leadership, the last time Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats passed a budget was April 9, 2009.
10) Barack Obama’s budget was defeated 414-0 in the House and 99-0 in the Senate.
11) When he was running for President in 2008, Barack Obama pledged not to raise taxes on families making less than 250,000 dollars per year. He broke that promise with the tanning salon tax and with Obamacare, which raises almost 500 billion dollars in new taxes, a significant portion of which would be paid by people making less than 250,000 dollars per year.
12) When Barack Obama took office, gas was $1.95 per gallon. Today gas is $3.72 per gallon.
13) In February of this year, the federal government had a 229 billion dollar deficit. That was the largest deficit in the history of the United States.
14) America lost its AAA credit rating (which it had held since 1917) on Obama’s watch despite the fact that Timothy Geithner publicly said there was “no risk” of that happening.
15) Barack Obama added more to the debt in just 38 months than George Bush did in two full terms as President.
How much do Americans know about Obama?
By Tony Newbill
Sent: 5/22/2012 8:56 AM
How much do Americans know about Obama? Is He really for a Free World when he gets advice from Henry Kissinger?
Michelle Fields: How much do Americans know about Obama?
Is Obama really for a Free World when he gets advice from Henry Kissinger?
As The Elite Fences Itself In, Kissinger Announces Order Out Of Chaos
In a recent statement Henry Kissinger admitted that social upheaval and mass civil unrest are to be used as a means of merging the US into an “international system”.
“The United States has to be part of an international system that we create domestically”, he told The Harvard Crimson in the beginning of this month. When asked what the most important problems are facing American society today, Kissinger answered:
“Internationally, the problem is that there are upheavals going on in every part of the world, but these upheavals don’t follow the same basic causes, and so the United States has to be part of an international system that we create domestically.”
What the old man is saying here ties neatly into statements he made in the past concerning the concept of seizing crises and upheavals, the causes of which may differ from nation to nation, in order to bring about an international order- thereby following the elite’s golden rule that order is best brought about by chaos. Furthermore, he provides us with a glimpse of the underlying intent he and his fellow-bilderbergers have in mind, stating in so many words that civil unrest- be it economically, politically or socially motivated- must be seized upon in order to merge nations into the desired “international system.” (Read More)
A New World Order | Obama – Kissinger | Charlie Rose
New Kissinger NWO : New World Order & Obama Worship
Kissinger is at the Whitehouse so the fact that he is advising the President is obvious
Obama, Hu toast ‘strategic mutual trust’ at state dinner
By Christina Wilkie
01/19/11 11:30 PM ET
President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao toasted U.S. and Chinese collaboration and mutual interests on Wednesday night at a festive state dinner for 225 guests at the White House.
Their toasts marked the high point of an evening notable for its strict adherence to the protocol and symbolism valued in Chinese culture, but which, at the same time, managed to fulfill the Chinese delegation’s request for a thoroughly American dinner party.
Speaking after Obama, Hu alluded more directly to bilateral discussions that have taken place over the past two days, noting through a translator that the U.S. and China had reached an “important agreement” earlier in the day to “increase contacts at the top … levels, strengthen strategic mutual trust … and step up communication and coordination on international and regional issues.”
In a reference to some of the more contentious issues addressed during his visit, Hu said that both nations agreed that “we should respect each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and the development interests,” and “properly handle differences and frictions.”
The guest list represented a broad array of distinguished Chinese Americans, as well as statesmen, lawmakers, business leaders and key members of Obama’s administration.
In addition to former Presidents Carter and Clinton, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz were in attendance, as was actor Jackie Chan, cellist Yo-Yo Ma and designer Vera Wang. Also on the guest list were legendary performer Barbra Streisand; Vogue editor Anna Wintour; philanthropist Wendi Murdoch, the wife of News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R); House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.); and Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.). Members of Obama’s administration in attendance at the dinner included Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and newly appointed White House Chief of Staff William Daley.
Notably absent were Republican House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), all of whom declined to attend.
First lady Michelle Obama’s choice of a red, one-shouldered gown was viewed by many as an homage to the symbolism of the color red in Chinese culture, as well as a nod to the late British designer Alexander McQueen, whose label designed it. (Read Entirety)
Kissinger: Obama primed to create ‘New World Order’
Conflicts across the globe and an international respect for Barack Obama have created the perfect setting for establishment of “a New World Order,” according to Henry Kissinger, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former secretary of state under President Nixon.
Kissinger has long been an integral figure in U.S. foreign policy, holding positions in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. Author of over a dozen books on foreign policy, Kissinger was also named by President Bush as the chairman of the Sept. 11 investigatory commission.
Kissinger made the remark in an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” hosts Mark Haines and Erin Burnett at the New York Stock Exchange, after Burnett asked him what international conflict would define the Obama administration’s foreign policy.
“The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously,” Kissinger responded. “You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can’t really say there is one problem, that it’s the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”
Kissinger’s comments are captured at roughly the two-minute mark of the following video:
Read this Kissinger statement – http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger:
Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world. “Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.”
THEY PLANNED THIS 40 YEARS AGO ………. Is Obama carrying out the Plan???
[SlantRight Editor: Below Newbill wonders if Obama is a next generation depopulation agenda kind-of-guy.]
So today we have our father time of Eugenics and you can bet he is here to see his Plan come to fruition with the prediction of the NSSM 200 study that is the basis for all we see going on today:
And they are still pushing the NSSM200 as recently as 2003 so you know this is Obama’s agenda as he is carrying the water for The CFR and TRILATERAL COMMISSION:
[SlantRight Editor: This is actually a criticism of the NSSM200]
On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.
In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.
According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.
While the CIA and Departments of State and Defense have issued hundreds of papers on population control and national security, the U.S. government has never renounced NSSM-200, but has only amended certain portions of its policy. NSSM-200, therefore, remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government.
NSSM-200’s strategies have resulted in regional population growth rates decelerating so fast that they are already causing severe economic and social problems in Europe, the former Soviet Union, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Many developing nations are now aging even more rapidly than the developed world, which foretells of even more severe problem for their relatively underdeveloped economies.
Over the past 40 years, there has been much disagreement over whether or not population control programs are necessary for those nations with the most rapidly growing populations. There can be no disagreement now, however, except among those organizations whose incomes depend upon it. The time for population control has come and gone. It is now necessary to plan ahead. We have successfully averted a “population explosion,” and now we must work just as hard to avoid a “population implosion.”
On the eve of the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of NSSM-200, therefore, Human Life International calls on the Bush administration to repudiate this document, which advocates violating the most precious freedoms and autonomy of the individual through coercive family planning programs.
Governments do not belong in the business of telling families how many children they should or should not have. NSSM-200 represents the epitome of interference in this most intimate decision.
NSSM-200 does not emphasize the rights or welfare of individuals or of nations, just the “right” of the United States to have unfettered access to the natural resources of developing nations. Instead of the United States positioning itself to take advantage of the natural resources of other nations, it should be supporting and guiding authentic economic development that allows the people of each nation to use their resources for their own benefit, which would lead to an enhancement of human rights worldwide and healthier economies for all. (Read Entirety)
President Obama and the Environmentalist Marxist Revolutionaries
Sent by Tony Newbill
Sent: 5/22/2012 5:34 PM
President Obama and the Environmentalist Marxist revolutionaries have succeeded.
There Is No Recovery. Capitalism is about to die from the lack of growth and rate of consumption that drives GDP!!!
Here’s the proof: http://www.economicnoise.com/2012/05/21/there-is-no-recovery/
There Is No Recovery
By Monty Pelerin’s World
John Williams of Shadowstats.com produces his own statistics based on government data. Most of what he does is merely adjust government data to make it consistent with prior methodology. He has a fascinating website which I encourage you to visit. His is a subscription service, but much information is available to non-subscribers.
Mr. Williams appeared at the Casey Research Recovery Reality Check where he presented information as to why there is no recovery. An interview with Mr. Williams is available here. If you want his thoughts on where we are and where we are headed, take a look. The charts may surprise you. Here, for example, is a chart of GDP:
Edited by John R. Houk
Tony Newbill begins with Eco-Marxist info and finishes with Russia being trained on American soil. Russians I might add that still have a love affair with Marxism.
Green Agenda a Leftist Revolution of an Elite Internationalism on USA Resources
By Tony Newbill
Sent: 5/9/2012 8:06 AM
Have you ever read this guy’s stuff? He covers Russian influences and the link between the Left, the Green Movement and the Russians. It’s quite interesting.
Snapping up, locking down the land, so is the Green Agenda a Leftist Revolution of an Elite Internationalism on USA Resources??
Author warns Obama agenda to deliberately seal off assets
The author of “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America” warns that the federal government has been collecting properties across the country for years, even now is working to control more and ultimately wants to block off any use by the American people.
In a commentary published in Forbes, author Brian Sussman argues that every American is heir to an “unfathomable fortune” in natural resources on nationally owned land but is condemned to bankruptcy by a government that won’t let them use it.
Sussman says it’s the deliberate policy of a government “beholden to the green agenda.”
He reports that “the feds now own nearly 700 million acres of property” that contain huge amounts of natural resources the country could use in difficult economic times, including oil, natural gas, minerals, timber and water.
Instead, the federal government has permanently removed these lands from economic development, deliberately harming the interests of the country to please environmentalists.
Now, Sussman reports, “the Obama administration … seeks to sell low-valued federal land, void of natural resources, and purchase more lucrative private property to cobble together a colossal new federal estate, which will not only be off-limits to development of natural resources, but off-limits to you.” (READ MORE)
Talk Show Host Sounds Warning About Russian & U.S. Military Joint Anti-Terrorist Drills
TheConservativeMonster.com (Newbill provided no link for this story)
Talk show host John Moore claims that “his sources” from CIA headquarters told him that there will be 200 Russian Special Forces ‘Spetsnaz’ troops participating in the anti-terror drills at Ft. Carson. I do believe this to be true.
These anti-terror drills will take place May 21st – May 31st, 2012 crossing over Memorial Day weekend. For U.S. Troops to be doing military drills with Russians troops on U.S. soil over Memorial Day weekend is even shocking to me (that is not easy to do).
Where are the U.S. Military leaders? You have failed the American people for allowing this to even take place. Don’t give me that crap that the ‘Cold War’ ended. Tell that to the morons that watch MSNBC.
John Moore also claims that up to 30,000-100,000 might be on U.S. Soil by the end of the year. This I can’t confirm, but anything is possible judging by the direction that we are heading.
If these soldiers disappeared into the American population it could be a danger to National Security like never seen before. John Moore clearly knows about Russian Spetsnaz soldiers and how deadly they are. They are well trained in everything that you could imagine.
These Spetsnaz soldiers could assist Al Qaeda terrorists in attacking crucial U.S. targets (Pink Terror). This will be done to further soften up the U.S. infrastructure. The Spetsnaz troops could also just commit the terrorist acts themselves (Red Terror).
I believe that these Spetsnaz soldiers are coming for only one purpose and that is to eventually commit sabotage against the USA prior to a massive ‘staged’ war. Whether it is this summer, before the 2012 elections or after the elections will not matter. What will matter is that they are going to be on U.S. Soil and that is huge.
The next stage is pink terror, “when active military operations have not yet begun and there is still peace, but when some of the best spetsnaz units have already gone into action.” This leads directly to “red terror” – which is open warfare between major powers. – JR Nyquist – http://www.financialsense.com/node/277
By JR Nyquist
It is generally believed that Mohammed Atta was the leader of the 9/11 strikes against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Atta was an Egyptian, a student of architecture in Cairo and Hamburg, born on Sept. 1, 1968. His studies continued to the end of the 1990s. We are told that he was seriously religious, though he was seen drinking alcohol and playing video games at a sports bar the week before 9/11.
In May 2003, Capt. Vladimir Hucin, formerly with Czech intelligence (BIS), made a curious statement in front of Petr Cibulka, the head of the Right Bloc (Pravy Blok) in response to a question about Atta: “I had information that Mohammed Atta was trained in the Zastavka terrorist training camp in 1988, by Czechoslovak Communists and STB.”
Cibulka was not surprised by Hucin’s claim regarding Atta. According to Cibulka, al Qaeda is the child of the Communist Bloc and its rogue state allies. “[Al Qaeda] is supplied and trained by Iraq,” said Cibulka in a 2003 interview. “But the real brains behind this global terrorist campaign against the free world … is in fact the Russian GRU. Moscow fights against the United States with a hidden hand.”
There is no question that the FBI and the CIA, in their infinite wisdom, would dismiss Cibulka’s statement and the allegations of Capt. Hucin. The reasoning of the FBI and CIA goes something like this: People who have fought communism their whole lives are deeply committed to their views, even when communism has collapsed. Those who hate communism do not stop hating it, and their judgment is distorted by this hatred. Therefore, statements connecting today’s terrorism with “International Communism” are not to be taken seriously.
Perhaps the prevailing wisdom of the FBI and CIA deserves the honored place it now enjoys. On the other hand, an admission that anti-Communism can become an obsession does not automatically discredit everything anti-Communists have to say. Soviet Communism invented modern terrorism. The Communists trained Arafat, Mandela, Carlos the Jackal and others. To what end was this training?
There is an old book by a GRU defector who wrote under the pen name Viktor Suvorov. The book’s title is Spetsnaz: The Inside Story of the Soviet Special Forces. Chapter 15 in this book is about Spetsnaz’s role at the outset of World War III. It makes very interesting reading.
Russian Spetsnaz commandos are trained as paratroopers, explosives experts, terrorists and assassins. According to Suvorov, World War III will not begin with conventional military operations, or even with massed nuclear missile strikes. On page 196 he describes “a series of large and small [terrorist] operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy’s morale, create an atmosphere of suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert attention of the enemy’s armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets….” According to Suvorov: “The principle method employed at this stage is ‘grey terror.'” This is a kind of terror that is carried out “in the name of already existing extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, or in the name of fictitious organizations.”
Suvorov claimed that “grey terror” would have a psychological warfare component. The Russian special services, he wrote, would launch a scandal parade. Dirt would be invented, created or dug up on America’s leaders, on America’s defense establishment and on America’s friends abroad. According to Suvorov, various nations would begin to distrust their leaders. The peace movement, he wrote, would make use of these scandals. “In many countries there are continual demands to make the country neutral and not to support American foreign policy, which has been discredited.” When America’s international support erodes away, explained Suvorov, the “grey terror” gathers in scope and “reaches its peak.” The next stage is pink terror, “when active military operations have not yet begun and there is still peace, but when some of the best spetsnaz units have already gone into action.” This leads directly to “red terror” – which is open warfare between major powers.
Perhaps it is crazy to make this suggestion: But is it possible the “grey terror” of Viktor Suvorov has begun? Are key leaders in al Qaeda paid agents of the old Communist Bloc, paving the way for “pink terror” and the “red terror” that logically follows?
One hesitates to accept, at face value, the statements of anti-Communists in Eastern Europe (since their statements are so grim). And yet, there is something strange about the terrorists and their war against America. What do these terrorists hope to achieve for themselves? Islam is not going to take over the United States. The Islamists have no army. They don’t even have a country that dares to openly embrace their cause.
Last Sunday night I received a call from an American businessman recently returned from South America. He had a strange encounter. He’d met a Russian down below the equator. This Russian thought South America was safe place to be at the moment. The businessman talked about life in South America. “Life is better in the United States,” he said. The Russian answered. “Yes, but the United States is not going to be there much longer.”
The Russian refused to elaborate. Perhaps he doesn’t need to.
Audio from the John Moore Radio Show
Published on May 3, 2012 by wakeupyt
RUSSIA is not part of NATO! So, why are they coming here with theirdrills at the Denver Airport? This is not good news people!
John Moore said on Wednesday’s broadcast, that he got news from the CIA Headquarters a report that says within the next 7 months, there will be between 30,000 – 100,000 Russian Troops coming to America to stay. First wave of troops begins on May 21st.
Please note this video contains edited parts from the John Moore show on May 2, 2012. I have been given permission to use the audio form John’s shows for my videos.
The John Moore Show is on RBN, Monday – Friday 7-8AM CST: http://republicbroadcasting.org/shou…shoutcast.html
RBN’s Archives: http://18.104.22.168/archives32/Mo…212_070000.mp3
I originally posted about this last week.
Russian and American Airborne Forces Unite for Drills in the USA
The Conservative Monster.com
U.S. Military leaders are sworn to defend against enemies both ‘foreign and domestic’. Are they living up to their oaths?
The U.S. Government is riddled with overt Communists that are openly preaching Communist propaganda daily as they hide behind the label Progressive. These Progressives know that they are untouchable at this point. Now, American and Russian troops will be doing ‘terrorist drills’ together ON U.S. SOIL.
Terrorist drills with the Russians? That is interesting since terrorists around the world seem to be running around with Russian made weapons in their hands. The State Dept. claimed that the War on Terror is over. So, why are these terrorist drills needed? The March Towards Socialism is Ending the ‘War on Terror’
Our military leaders should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this charade to happen. I am still against these ‘joint drills’, even if this is some type of deception for the Russians to lower their guard. Russia sells weapons via proxies to terrorists that have killed U.S. Soldiers since the Vietnam War. Someone with some guts needs to open their mouth. Allen West and Sarah Palin seem to be the only ones that have the guts to say anything.
The new #1 man from Al Qaeda, Ayman Zawahiri was trained by the Russian FSB. Notice that the War on Terror has ended now according to the State Department? So, I guess Zawahiri gets a free pass for helping to orchestrate 9/11 for Iran and Russia? The Democrats benefited very much from 9/11 as well. Think about it….
Russian warships to get NATO Communications Equipment
The Russians are coming! First joint ‘Top Gun’ drills to be held in US
Sent by Tony Newbill
Sent: 5/10/2012 9:46 AM
This is in response to Economic collapse and default of the Dollar trade currency status due to a rejection by the BRIC nations as they cut off export supplies to the USA while we go down in a heap due to a lack of Industrial manufacturing capacity, and so we will end up after this transition period BEGGING for a supply line from the BRIC nations and that will come with a Whole New meaning for the USA. This was all planned out carefully with the 1990s WTO Free Trade Agreements.
Internment and Resettlement Operations Manual
HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Distribution authorized to the DOD and DOD contractors only to protect technical or operational information from automatic dissemination under the International Exchange Program or by other means. This determination was made on 8 December 2008. Other requests for this document must be referred to the Commandant, U.S. Army Military Police School, ATTN: ATZT-TDD-M, 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 270, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.
DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………. xi
Chapter 1 INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT AND THE OPERATIONAL
Conduct ……………………………………………………………………………….. 1-1
Principles ……………………………………………………………………………… 1-3
Personnel Categories ……………………………………………………………………………… 1-5
Status Determination ………………………………………………………………………………. 1-7
Article 5 Tribunals …………………………………………………………………………………… 1-8
Appeals and Periodic Reviews of Civilian Internees ……………………………………. 1-9
General Protection and Care of Detainees, U.S. Military Prisoners, and
Dislocated Civilians …………………………………………………………….. 1-10
Agencies Concerned With Internment and Resettlement …………………………… 1-12
Protecting Power ………………………………………………………………1-13
Planning Considerations for Internment and Resettlement Operations ………… 1-14
Military Police Capabilities ………………………………………………………………..1-16
Chapter 2 INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE SPECTRUM OF OPERATIONS ………………………………………………………………..2-1
Support to Combat Operations ………………………………………………………………… 2-1
Support to Stability Operations ………………………………………………………………… 2-3
Support to Civil Support Operations ………………………………………………………….2-8
Army Command and Support Relationships ………………………………………………. 2-8
Considerations Within the Operational Area and the Area of Operations ………. 2-9
Chapter 3 COMMAND AND STAFF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ……………………… 3-1
National and Theater Reporting Agencies …………………………………………………. 3-1
Roles and Responsibilities ………………………………………………………………………. 3-2
Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center Commander/Military Intelligence
Intelligence Analysts ………………………………………………………………………………. 3-8
Human Intelligence Collectors …………………………………………………………………. 3-8
Interpreters and Translators…………………………………………………………………….. 3-9
Military Police Organizations in Support of Internment and Resettlement
Operations …………………………………………………………………………. 3-10
Staff Duties and Responsibilities in Support of Internment and Resettlement. 3-12
Guard Force …………………………………………………………………………. 3-18
Chapter 4 CAPTURE, INITIAL DETENTION, AND SCREENING……………………………….. 4-1
Detainee Flow ……………………………………………………………….4-1
Detainee Processing ………………………………………………………………………………. 4-5
Custody and Accountability of Property, Evidence, and Intelligence
Detainee Movement ……………………………………………………………………………… 4-15
Methods of Transportation ……………………………………………………..4-16
Detainee Release …………………………………………………………………………………. 4-19
Chapter 5 DETAINEE OPERATIONS ……………………………………………………………………… 5-1
Command and Control ……………………………………………………………………………. 5-1
Planning Considerations …………………………………………………………………………. 5-2
Intelligence and Interrogation…………………………………………………………………… 5-3
Medical Support ………………………………………………………………5-6
Dental Support ………………………………………………………………………………………. 5-8
Specific Detainee Support Requirements………………………………………………….. 5-9
Detainee Deaths ……………………………………………………………….5-13
Legal Considerations ……………………………………………………………………………. 5-14
Chapter 6 DETAINEE FACILITIES …………………………………………………………………………. 6-1
General Considerations …………………………………………………………….6-1
Detainee Collection Point ………………………………………………………………………… 6-4
Detainee Holding Area ………………………………………………………………..6-10
Fixed Detainee Internment Facilities……………………………………………………….. 6-14
Theater Internment Facility ……………………………………………………………………. 6-17
Strategic Internment Facility ………………………………………………………………..6-37
Transfers or Releases …………………………………………………………………………… 6-38
Chapter 7 CONFINEMENT OF U.S. MILITARY
PRISONERS ……………………………………. 7-1
U.S. Battlefield Confinement Operations Principles ……………………………………. 7-1
Planning Process for U.S. Military Prisoners ……………………………………………… 7-1
Battlefield Facilities ………………………………………………………………………………… 7-2
Processing, Classification, and Identification Requirements ………………………… 7-3
Clothing, Meals, and Dining Facilities……………………………………………………….. 7-4
Medical Care and Sanitation ……………………………………………………………………. 7-5
Discipline, Control, and Administration ……………………………………………………… 7-6
Emergency Planning and Investigations………………………………………………….. 7-11
Rules of Interaction ………………………………………………………………………………. 7-12
Use of Force ……………………………………………………………………………. 7-12
Transportation ……………………………………………………………………….. 7-13
Transfer and Disposition of U.S. Military Prisoners …………………………………… 7-13
[SlantRight Editor: You get the picture, right? There are a total of ten chapters and 326 pages which includes appendixes and figure illustrations.]
Re-Education Camp Manual Includes Rules On Isolating Political Prisoners
Document also describes forced labor
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, May 7, 2012
A shocking U.S. Army manual that describes how “political activists,” including American citizens, are to be indoctrinated in re-education camps also includes rules on forced labor and separating political prisoners by confining them in isolation.
Aside from detailing how PSYOP teams will use “indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes,” as well as targeting “political activists” with indoctrination programs to provide “understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions,” the manual directs political prisoners to be separated from the rest of the camp population.
On page 284, the manual (PDF) describes how “Malcontents, rabble-rousers, trained agitators, and political officers who may attempt to organize resistance or create disturbances within the I/R facility,” are to be confined “in isolated enclosures to deny them access to the general population.”
The document also makes clear that the internment facility is not only a re-education camp but also a forced labor camp. Page 277 of the manual states, “Detainees constitute a significant labor force of skilled and unskilled individuals. These individuals should be employed to the fullest extent possible in work that is needed to construct, manage, perform administrative functions for, and maintain the internment facility.” (THERE IS MORE!)
The Russians are coming! First joint ‘Top Gun’ drills to be held in US
For the first time in history, Russian and American airborne forces will hold joint drills in the US. The anti-terror exercises scheduled for May 2012 will get off to a flying start with a tactical landing operation and “terrorist” camp raid.
“This is the first time such an event is being held,” Russian Airborne Forces spokesperson Col. Aleksandr Kucherenko stressed, announcing the plan. “The Russian airborne will contribute a special task group that will exercise with US special service weapons.”
The drills were arranged by the Russian Airborne Command and a US military delegation in Moscow last December.
Russian soldiers will receive preparatory training in Colorado’s Fort Carson with the US weaponry and equipment they are to use during the operation. The drills include parachuting, operation planning, reconnaissance, assault operations and evacuations by helicopter.
“According to the exercise scenario, soldiers of the two countries will hold a tactical airborne operation, including reconnaissance of an imaginary terrorists’ camp and a raid,” Colonel Kucherenko revealed.
The drills will take place between May 24 and 31. But it’s not all work: on May 27, the Russian paratroopers will get a chance to unwind at a baseball game in Colorado Springs.
It is funny Obama and NATO are equipping Russia with this equipment don’t you think????
Russian warships to get NATO Communications Equipment
Russian warships will be equipped with NATO navigation and communications systems to improve coordination in anti-piracy missions around the world, Chief of the Russian General Staff Nikolai Makarov said on Wednesday.
The issue has been discussed during a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in Brussels.
“We decided to install standard NATO navigation and communications systems on our warships,” Makarov said.
NATO warships have been patrolling the pirate-infested waters off the Somali coast since 2008, as part of Operation Ocean Shield. NATO has recently extended its mission in the Gulf of Aden and adjacent areas until 2014.
Russia joined the international anti-piracy mission in the region in 2008. Russian warships have successfully escorted more than 130 commercial vessels from various countries since then.
Task forces from the Russian Navy, usually led by Udaloy class destroyers, operate in the area on a rotating basis.
A task force from Russia’s Northern Fleet, led by the Udaloy class destroyer Vice Admiral Kulakov, will arrive in the Gulf of Aden in the beginning of May to join the anti-piracy mission. [BRUSSELS, April 25, 2012 (RIA Novosti)]
Russian soldiers burning flag of the United States
Sent by Tony Newbill
Sent: 5/13/2012 1:35 PM
Why are Russian and American airborne forces holding joint drills in the US this month when we have them Burning the US Flag???
Russian soldiers burning flag of the United States
Edited by John R. Houk
John R. Houk
© April 26, 2012
If President Obama is reelected will America as we know it or as intended by the Founding Fathers end?
Probably not; however it could be the beginning of the end. If a majority of voters choose Obama Election Day November 2012, it is unlikely there will be a reversal of the Socialist Obama agenda. If Obamacare survives the Supreme Court, the Administration will simply retool it to make it permanent as Social Security seems to be permanent. If SCOTUS strikes down part of Obamacare, again Congress will still have to retool it with some kind of Obama/Congress compromise in which funding is established in another way than forced premiums by insured and employers. If SCOTUS does completely away with Obamacare, there will be a huge legislative problem that will have to be addressed. If Congress remains a divided house in 2012 this could lead to a serious crisis in the medical world until legal uncertainties are handled. If Congress has a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House in 2012, Congress will still have to deal with the weapon of the Presidential veto; thus again a medical crisis will arise until legal uncertainties are resolved politically. I am assuming the Dems will not retake the House in 2012.
On the other hand if Obama is defeated in 2012 and Romney indeed is not a RINO tool, then Obamacare can be dismantled and medical reform can happen along the lines of a Free Market economy. Also the Big Government waste and intrusion can be reduced.
Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post writes about how the Left in America is diluted the U.S. Constitution to the point that Essential Liberty in America is threatened. Alexander frankly states the obvious. The American Left’s disdain for the Constitution is a violation of the very oath that government employees and Office holders take to uphold and support the Constitution.