Leading Up To Leftist Groupthink


John R. Houk

© August 27, 2018

 

Have you ever heard the term Groupthink? Let’s look at some definitions:

 

Merriam Webster:

 

a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics

 

Wikipedia:

 

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

 

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the “ingroup” produces an “illusion of invulnerability” (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the “ingroup” significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the “outgroup“). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the “outgroup”.

 

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

 

Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studiespolitical sciencemanagement, and organizational theory,[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[2][3]

 

Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such as “conservatism” and “liberalism” in the U.S. political context [4]) or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude.[5] However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.

 

Most of the initial research on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University.[6] READ THE REST

 

Psychology Today:

 

What Is Groupthink?

 

Groupthink occurs when a group with a particular agenda makes irrational or problematic decisions because its members value harmony and coherence over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. Individual members of the group are strongly discouraged from any disagreement with the consensus and set aside their own thoughts and feelings to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and other group members. In a groupthink situation, group members refrain from expressing doubts, judgments or disagreement with the consensus and ignore any ethical or moral consequences of any group decision that furthers their cause. Risk-taking is common, and the lack of creativity and independent thinking have negative personal and political implications for both group members and outsiders. Groupthink decisions rarely have successful outcomes.

 

 

READ THE REST

 

In fairness, no individual or cohesive group is immune to the negative effects of groupthink. The situation today is America is nearly divided 50/50 between Conservatives and Liberals. The irony is politically Conservatives won the 2016 election cycle, BUT the traditional means of mass communication are dominated by Liberals (aka Leftists, Progressives, Socialists and various degrees of Communists). AND the Liberals are brainwashing their readers, listeners and viewers with Groupthink principles glorifying Liberal principles and values over traditional Conservative moral principles and values.

 

Elizabeth Vaughn tackles the Leftist Groupthink in this essay entitled, “The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil”.

 

JRH 8/27/18

Please Support NCCR

********************

The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil

 

The fact that the left has been able to thrust this farce upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook example of the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the meantime, the more obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and other governmental officials remain unscrutinized.

 

By ELIZABETH VAUGHN 

AUGUST 26, 2018

Freedom Outpost

 

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of people gets together and starts to think collectively with one mind. The group is more concerned with maintaining unity than with objectively evaluating their situation, alternatives and options. The group, as a whole, tends to take irrational actions or overestimate their positions or moral rightness.

 

There have been periods of history when large groups of people, so invested in a particular goal and so convinced of their own righteousness, have collectively lost sight of reality, often with tragic results.

 

The larger the group, the less responsibility individual members will shoulder for their own actions. Responsibility for individual wrongdoing is diffused or “shared” by the members of the group. Because “everyone” takes responsibility, no one ultimately takes responsibility.

 

America’s left, Democratic politicians, the mainstream media and those who receive their news from the mainstream media, have become radicalized over their hatred for Donald Trump. Their unwillingness to accept the result of a fair election directly clashes with the principles upon which America was founded.

 

In the wake of last week’s uproar over former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s plea deal, I would like to remind them of some of their own vulnerabilities.

 

1. Have you forgotten about the Obama campaign’s offer of $150,000 to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to shut him up during the 2008 campaign? Rev. Wright, whom Obama met in the late 1980s, preached a very incendiary form of Black Liberation Theology. How can we forget the clip of Rev. Wright’s sermon given the Sunday following 9/11 when he said the attacks were payback for all of America’s misdeeds?

 

Ed Klein, in his May 2012 book about Obama’s White House years, entitled “The Amateur,” details his interview with Rev. Wright. Wright revealed that he had received a bribe from a friend of Obama’s during the 2008 campaign.

 

Klein spoke to Sean Hannity when the book was published.

 

What happened is that after ABC’s Brian Ross broadcast the audiotapes –videotapes of the Rev. Wright God damning America and slamming whites and slamming Jews and America, he was contacted by one of Obama’s closest personal friends, a guy who travels on Obama’s plane, who plays basketball with him, who goes on vacations with him.

 

I didn’t name him in the book, but I can tell you who he is. His name is Dr. Eric Whitaker. Dr. Whitaker is the vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center and he’s a member of Obama’s very tight inner-circle. And he sent an email to a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ [Wright’s church].

 

Whitaker sent an email to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, offering him $150,000 to stay quiet and not do any public speeches until after the election in November 2008.

 

Chicago politics is one hand feeds the other, as you know. And Eric Whitaker, a very close friend of the Obamas, sent an email to a member of the church saying that the Rev. Wright could get $150,000 if he would shut up and not criticize Obama anymore.

 

Then, after Rev. Wright said, ‘no thank you,’ Obama himself paid a personal call on the Rev. Wright. The face-to-face meeting took place in March 2008, 10 days after Obama’s famous “race speech” took place.

 

Now, we know that this is true, not only because the Rev. Wright told me so, but also because the Secret Service logs, logged in this meeting. So we have confirmation that it actually took place.

 

There are no reports of a paper trail for this 2008 payment, but Rev. Wright did indeed shut up. Prior to this bribe, Obama’s association with the anti-American, anti-Semitic pastor nearly sank his campaign. Surely, this provided a benefit to Obama’s campaign.

 

2. It is well known that, when members of Congress are accused of sexual harassment by interns, staffers or anyone else, they can count on a taxpayer-funded “slush fund” to pay for non-disclosure agreements, “hush money,” from their victims.

 

Certainly, these payments provide a benefit to the campaigns of the accused. They also have probably saved several marriages.

 

The online fact-checking website, “Snopes,” considered this question: Did Congress Use a ‘Slush Fund’ to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed? They concluded this was false.

 

Their reasoning may surprise you. The statement is false because the fund is completely legal. It is not secret” or “utilized for illicit purposes.” So, as long as they are transparent about it, it’s fine.

 

Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a “slush fund” which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees.

 

Unlike a “slush fund” which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports.

 

The total amount paid out annually ($17M has been paid out over the last 20 years) is made public, but the specifics of individual transactions remain confidential.

 

Why aren’t taxpayers allowed access to the details? Why are members of Congress allowed privacy while the President is not?

 

3. Why wasn’t the money paid for the dossier by the Hillary Clinton campaign or the DNC that she controlled listed as a campaign contribution? To say that it provided a benefit to the campaign would be a gross understatement. Instead, they ran it through a law firm and billed it as a legal expense.

 

This bogus dossier has become the most consequential political document in recent memory. It has passed through many hands, not the least of which were Bruce Ohr’s. Inquiring minds want to know what role he played in this soap opera. Is it possible that he may have composed portions of it as it is rumored? Why doesn’t the Mueller team schedule a pre-dawn raid on his home and office so we can find out?

 

4. Michael Cohen was Trump’s attorney. When we retain the services of an attorney, an accountant, or any other professional, we state our goal and leave it to the attorney to execute the plan.

 

They are the trained professionals and we are the clients. Most of us don’t question their methods. We assume our lawyers know what they’re doing.

 

If a lawyer makes a mistake, intentionally or otherwise, it is his or her own responsibility. “Well, my client directed me to do it” is not a valid excuse for wrongdoing.

 

And also, because of such a thing as attorney/client privilege, we should feel we can speak frankly to our lawyers. Do we now have to worry that our conversations with lawyers might be recorded?

 

Why wasn’t the office and residence of Hillary Clinton’s attorney or her IT professional raided? Why don’t we try to prosecute some of Hillary’s closest aides? What about the IT employee who tried to bleach bit subpoenaed documents and destroy the hard drive? She was the subject of an FBI investigation. It would have been fair game.

 

Summing Up: 

 

The fact that the left has been able to thrust this farce upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook example of the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the meantime, the more obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and other governmental officials remain unscrutinized.

 

The only thing that will end it – declassifying the necessary DOJ/FBI documents, unredacted please – is the one thing that Trump has been, so far, reluctant to do. Perhaps he is simply waiting for the right time. Maybe he’s planning an October surprise to achieve maximum impact. I certainly hope so.

 

Elizabeth Vaughn is a conservative political blogger and mom of three residing in southern Connecticut. Following a career in the financial services industry, she is now a regular contributor to Freedom Outpost. Contact her at eliza.vaughn13@gmail.com

______________________

Leading Up To Leftist Groupthink

John R. Houk

© August 27, 2018

_________________________

The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil

 

Copyright © 2018 FreedomOutpost.com

 

About Freedom Outpost

 

Please! Quit Trusting the Lies from Obama


Lying to Believe in - Change U-Can Trust

 

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2014

 

President Barack Hussein Obama has lied to American voters before he was even elected to Office in 2008.

 

Jeremiah Wright went from mentor to I have not heard any White-hatred sermons.

 

BHO lied about barely knowing Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were Communist terrorists in their younger days (and remarkably used the very American laws they railed against to get away with their violence via some Court technicality). Dear God in Heaven BHO had election/Community Organizing meetings in the Ayers/Dohrn living room.

 

BHO lied about his connection to Tony Rezko – who committed fraud and extortion. In 2003 BHO was at a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi – a promoter of then State Department designated terrorist organization PLO and friend of Yasser Arafat – delivering vitriolic hate-speech toward Israel. The proof of Obama’s Israel-hatred was recorded on a mysterious tape procured by the LA Times. The LA Times only released enough info from the tape during the 2008 Presidential campaign to remind BHO to be more favorable toward Palestinians. The LA Times has steadfastly refused to make the entire tape available to the public. Why? It would prove Obama is a liar about public statements his Administration is a friend of Israel.

 

Father Michael Pfleger is in the same mold as Jeremiah Wright except he is a Roman Catholic White man. Pfleger’s Chicago parish is mostly Black and rather than show the nature of Christ or even the official line of the Roman Catholic Church Pfleger has embraced the same White-hatred Left Wing ideology of the Black Liberation Movement as has the racist Reverend Wright. Prior to Obama’s 2008 election Pfleger publically stated he had known Obama for over 20 years. Pfleger is one of a number of Chicago religious leaders (Protestant – Wright, Islam – Farrakhan and Catholic – Pfleger) that cooperated with then State Senator Obama to use racial profiling that Illinois law enforcement picked on Black people for the reason of a higher rate of Black incarceration.

 

As a young man Barack Obama had a great affinity to the man known as the founder and/or godfather of Critical Racial Theory (CRT) in Derrick Bell. The simple explanation of CRT is that Whites are permanent oppressors and Blacks are permanently oppressed – err unless changes occur in society. Bell himself proclaims that CRT is highly influenced by Marxist ideology – rich Capitalists vs. oppressed proletariat-worker class. Obama’s ideological affection for race baiting Marxist Bell is evidenced by the young Obama introduction of Bell at a Left Wing protest while Obama was at Harvard:

 

VIDEO: EXCLUSIVE Unedited Obama Race Video Unveiled

 

The Left Stream Media (aka MSM) had gone to great lengths to brandish Obama’s connection to Bell as a non-starter; however BHO’s past radical associations’ show the Bell-connection is more of additional info of the current President hatred of America as it is under the U.S. Constitution.

 

Marshall Davis a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA was a mentor of the young Obama thus shaping our current President’s world view. Respected Conservative journalist Trevor Louden excerpts an American Spectator article showing Obama’s most trusted advisors David Axelrod (Left Obama’s Administration just before 2012 election) and Valerie Jarrett ALSO had a close connection to the Davis-Communist admiration society. Louden speculates at the end of his post, “Manchurian Candidate, anyone?

 

Undoubtedly this is not an exhaustive look at the picture that President Barack Hussein Obama is a lying deceiver to American voters due to the building up his anti-American and anti-Jewish world view.

 

To drive the point home that Obama is a calculated liar to fool voters is this page that has linked documentation of the President’s lies from campaign promises for 2008 through his fifth year in Office:

 

http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

 

Also you can check out title from InvestmentWatch Blog dated September 17, 2013:

 

The Complete List of Barack Obama’s Scandals, Misdeeds, Crimes and Blunders

This list is huge and I make sure to post the date Obama’s lies, scandals and crimes seems to grow longer and longer each month. Which begs the question: When will the Left oriented MSM finally admit their transform America Leftist utopian President is more about destroying the foundations of America rather than preserving the American way of life that makes America good?

 

Now Leftists and Conservatives alike (if they made down this far) are probably wondering, “Why should I care about this rehash of facts – head buried in the sand if you are an American Leftist and ‘forget about it’ Conservatives who look to the next two election cycles to reverse the curse of Obamunism (or the blessing of Obama transformation for the Left)?”

 

Here is why – and I am really just picking one reason for my train of thought: Americans on the Left and the Right still support the right for Israel’s existence apart from the Muslim Jew-hatred ingrained into Islamic society via their holy writings and journalistic commentaries. The one difference between Left Wing and Right Wing Americans is the path to maintain Israel’s existence. The Left has fallen for the ‘Land for Peace’ idiocy. Center-Right Paleoconservatives and Establishment Republicans have also fallen for the idiocy of ‘Land for Peace,’ but perhaps not quite as much land as the Left believes their fallacy would solve. Then there are the Conservatives and the Christian Zionists (yep, I’m one of those) that either see that ‘Land for Peace’ is an equation that will lead to Israel’s demise and probable the next genocidal Holocaust of Jews or we Christian Zionists concurring but adding that the Land of Israel is a God-given paradigm right out of the Word of God. Regardless of the perceived viable path to preserve Israel’s existence the Left (for the most part) and the Right agree Israel’s right to exist should be a global guarantee.

 

Overwhelmingly American voters’ support Israel’s right to exist as opposed the Arab and Muslim desire to destroy the Jewish State of Israel. Thus at a time when a significant amount of voters may be watching President Obama speak because of the prime time nature of the coverage of the State of the Union Address the Leftist messiah told Americans:

 

President Obama also spoke about the peace process between Israel and Palestinians. The president openly declared Israel as a Jewish state, a point that the Palestinians refuse to acknowledge and that has led to numerous failures of past peace talks.

 

As we speak, American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and lasting peace and security for the State of Israel – a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side,” Obama told Congress. This statement received a standing ovation from both Democrat and Republican legislatures. (Bold Italics MineState of the Union Address: Obama Takes Soft Stance on Middle Eastern Policy; By Lea Speyer; Conservative Musings; 1/29/14 12:57 pm)

 

Just in case you missed the Obama promise: “… a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side”.

 

Here comes the Obama threat that makes that a lie:

 

‘Bibi’, the President all but said, ‘if you don’t accept the peace plan that my Secretary of State hasn’t even released yet, you will ruin your country.’ The interview was released for publication almost the very moment as Netanyahu’s plane departed to meet with Obama in Washington.

 

In addition to droning on about the growing dangers posed by increasing Israeli settlement ‘expansion’, the “rights” of Palestinian refugees, the historic “moderation” of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and the reasonableness of the Iranian regime, President Obama used the interview with Goldberg to issue ominous new threats and dire warnings against the Jewish state if it did not agree to accept his plan to shrink Israel back inside the 1949 armistice lines.

 

Obama tells Goldberg that it isn’t really the Palestinians who need to change. It is Israel. Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians is essentially the result of steps Israel takes to prevent such terrorism. The best way to change the Palestinian Authority’s incitement to – and celebration of blood curdling violence against Jews – is for Israel to change its housing policy.

 

Nothing new here. This has been the President Obama’s basic position since long before he ever ran for public office; and a position shared by most of the international community.

 

What is new about Obama’s latest interview are his threats. If Israel doesn’t do what Obama decides Israel should do, then Israel should no longer expect the U.S. to support it: “If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction – and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the past couple of years – if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguously sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the fallout is going to be limited.” (Bold and Italics are mine – AS WORLD ORDER IMPLODES, OBAMA PROMISES TO ACT… AGAINST ISRAEL; By THOMAS ROSE; Breitbart; 3/3/14)

 

Not surprisingly this Obama lie is not getting a lot of American press. Rather the press is focused on the goings on in Ukraine. Ukraine is a crisis but selling out Israel to a potential Muslim executed Holocaust of Jews is a disaster of huge moral dimensions. The above Breitbart quote was discovered like on page 5 of a Bing Search. I had gone through 20 pages of a Google Search and found zero. I was alerted to this Obama threat of betrayal to Israel from being on the email list of the Times of Israel that had two titles relating to the Obama threat:

 

Obama: US won’t be able to defend Israel if peace talks fail

Israel can expect to face international isolation and possible sanctions from countries and companies across the world if Benjamin Netanyahu fails to endorse a framework agreement with the Palestinians, US President Barack Obama cautioned on Sunday ahead of a meeting with the Israeli prime minister

 

But if Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach,” Obama said.

 

“There comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices,” he said.

 

The president went on to stress that he would convey to Netanyahu, in the spirit of the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder, that the prime minister could lead Israel toward peace if he chose to do so.

“If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?” Obama said.

 

The president went on to condemn in no uncertain terms Israel’s settlement activities in …

 

“If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction — and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time — if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited,” Obama said.

 

The president added that Israel must come to a decision over its future character and weigh whether its current policies are conducive to achieving its true aspirations.

 

“Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank?” he inquired of the Israeli public.

 

“Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place restrictions on Arab Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions?” he asked.

 

Obama further stated that in his opinion, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve” the conflict.

 

Asked whether he felt Abbas was sincere about his willingness to recognize Israel and its right to exist, the president replied that he was sure that was the case. (Obama: US won’t be able to defend Israel if peace talks fail; By ADIV STERMAN; Times of Israel; 3/2/14 11:51 pm)  

 

What a load of – Left Wing hate Israel – love Arabs that call themselves Palestinians – load of disinformation crap this is from the Liar-in-Chief.

 

Obama presumed to tell the public if Netanyahu had a better plan the Prime Minister should “articulate an alternative approach”. Netanyahu has been very publically upfront about an alternative approach and it is simple; viz. that PA President needs to agree that Israel is a Jewish State, all of Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and Israel’s borders are defensible when Arabs – cough – like psycho-Palestinians decide to invade Israel to drive Jews into the sea.

 

Imagine the look down at your nose of hubris as a Left Wing Gentile saying publically he would tell Prime Minister Netanyahu, “…in the spirit of the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder, that the prime minister could lead Israel toward peace if he chose to do so.”

 

Also in light of the very simple defined acknowledgments from PA President Abbas, Obama has the hutzpah to say, “…Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas ‘has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve’ the conflict”.  Here is a 1/22/14 refutation to the lie to Obama’s statement that Abbas is committed to nonviolence:

 

Mahmoud Abbas’ Party Threatens to ‘Bomb Tel Aviv’

The Fatah party of Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has posted threats to bomb Tel Aviv on its official Facebook page.

 

The threats came in the form of a video by Fatah’s armed wing – the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade – which threatened to turn Tel Aviv “into a ball of fire”, as well as escalated rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

 

Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has been declared a terrorist group by the US, EU, Israel and Canada, among others.

 

The post was spotted on Tuesday and translated by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), which regularly monitors PA media for incitement and anti-Semitism. Excerpts from the eight-minute video can be seen below:

 

VIDEO: Fatah publicizes threats to bomb Tel Aviv on its official Facebook page

 

The threats come despite the fact that the Palestinian Authority is engaged in “peace negotiations” with Israel, and bolster claims by Israeli leaders that the PA is not really serious about finding a peaceful political solution to the conflict.

 

The Israeli government only recently released its annual “Palestinian Incitement Index“, which showed that incitement against Israel and the Jewish people is continuing on official media channels including – inter alia – by bodies that are very close to the PA Chairman and in educational and religious networks.

 

The findings also show that during the period of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, not only did incitement not lessen, in certain areas it even increased, and that recently, the use of prominent Nazi elements – such as the image of Hitler – has also increased.

 

 

Such incitement ranges from the glorification of Nazism and the lionization of Adolf Hitler, to programs on official PA television featuring heavily-stereotyped Jews as villains (and encouraging violence against them), and various TV and radio shows which literally wipe the Jewish state off the map.

 

In at least one case, a terrorist who went on to murder an off-duty Israeli soldier used official PA TV to send a coded message of his plan to his jailed brother.

 

But the involvement by the PA in diplomatic talks and the simultaneous calls for continued violence by its official organs may not be as contradictory as it seems.

 

Another video exposed earlier this month by PMW revealed – not for the first time – how PA officials view negotiations, and subsequent Israeli concessions, merely as a “first stage” in the ultimate destruction of Israel, after which terrorism can be resumed “more effectively”. (Mahmoud Abbas’ Party Threatens to ‘Bomb Tel Aviv’; By Ari Soffer; Arutz Sheva 7 – IsraelNationalNews; 1/22/2014, 8:20 PM)

 

So much for Obama’s Foreign Policy acumen and veracity.

 

Since Obama stabbed Netanyahu in the back – AGAIN, the Israeli Prime Minister responded to the Obama threat to throw Israel under the bus:

 

Netanyahu on Obama’s critique: I won’t give in to pressure

Blame for the morass in the Middle East peace process lies squarely with the Palestinians, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said late Sunday, hours after US President Barack Obama was quoted saying that Washington would be hard-pressed to defend Israel should talks fail.

 

Netanyahu made the remarks upon landing in Washington, where he was to meet Monday with Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, who is managing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Netanyahu and Kerry will also speak at the conference of the AIPAC pro-Israel lobby in the capital.

 

Before boarding his plane to the US, the prime minister said he had rejected pressures in the past and would continue to do so.

 

… (Netanyahu on Obama’s critique: I won’t give in to pressure; By ARON DÓNZIS; Arutz Sheva 7 – IsraelNationalNews; 3/3/14 8:30 am)

 

JRH 3/4/14

Please Support NCCR

 

Obama’s Socialist Roots and Worldview Chapter 2


Obama-Lenin - Workers Unite

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”.

 

JRH 11/2/12

Please Support NCCR

*************************

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 Obamaconfirms 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.”

 

§  From 1993-2001, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which funded a host of left-wing groups and causes. From 1998-2001, Ayers served alongside him on that board.

 

§  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 named Hilda Solis, a former officer of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (the socialist wing of the House of Representatives), as his labor secretary.

 

§  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.”

 

An Examination of Klein Book ‘The Amateur’


The Amateur bk jk

John R. Houk

© May 19, 2012

 

I received an email from AC2C friend CJ pertaining to Reverend Jeremiah Wright being interviewed by Edward Klein. Wright had told Klein in that interview that Barack Hussein Obama had offered him $150,000 to hold back from any incendiary preaching until after the 2008 election.

 

I have already listened to Liberal pundits that have brushed of these revelations as insignificant. I have heard Left Wing pundits say things ranging from Americans don’t care about the Obama-Wright relationship to Conservatives should keep their hands off of Obama’s personal faith.

 

As to Americans “don’t care,” this is an insinuation that American voters are stupid and wouldn’t care that Obama was deceptive in his 2008 campaign to win the Presidency. As to keep your hands off of Obama’s personal faith, that is a load of crap as Leftist are attacking Mormonism’s Family Values track record which for example would be against abortion and homosexual sin. It is a load of crap to talk about Romney’s Mormonism and ignore Obama’s association with Jew-hating Black Supremacists like Wright, Farrakhan and Pro-Palestinian Israel-haters.

 

Now I am not a big fan of Romney’s Mormonism; however my disdain of Mormonism has nothing to do with Family Values. My disdain is due to my belief that Mormonism is a Gnostic-Christian cult spin-off from legitimate Christianity. Criticizing Romney’s faith but giving Obama’s odd secrecy of his personal faith is the height of Leftist hypocrisy!

 

CJ points to a Sean Hannity radio interview with Edward Klein and to an American Thinker article by Ed Lasky. The Hannity-Klein interview focused on the bribe issue between Obama representatives and Jeremiah Wright. Lasky’s book review focused on some of the damning personality traits of Obama exposed in Klein’s book “The Amateur”.

 

Here is some of the Jeremiah Wright wording courtesy of Hot Air:

 

 In his on-the-record interview with Klein, Wright claims that an Obama ally offered him $150,000 to keep his mouth shut and stop preaching until after the election, in excerpts published by the New York Post today:

 

‘Man, the media ate me alive,” Wright told me when we met in his office at Chicago’s Kwame Nkrumah Academy. “After the media went ballistic on me, I received an e-mail offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election.”

 

“Who sent the e-mail?” I asked Wright.

 

“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”

 

“He offered you money?”

 

“Not directly,” Wright said. “He sent the offer to one of the members of the church, who sent it to me.”

 

“How much money did he offer you?”

 

“One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.

 

According to Wright, Obama met personally with his then-pastor to ask him to do the same, although Obama apparently didn’t offer money for his silence.  Wright’s version of the conversation makes it clear that Obama knew very well what his pastor had preached from the pulpit, and what he was likely to do once attention focused on him:

 

“And one of the first things Barack said was, ‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election.’ He knew I had some speaking engagements lined up, and he said, ‘I wish you wouldn’t speak. It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’

 

“And what did you say?” I asked. “I said, ‘I don’t see it that way. And anyway, how am I supposed to support my family?’ And he said, ‘Well, I wish you wouldn’t speak in public. The press is gonna eat you alive.’

 

“Barack said, ‘I’m sorry you don’t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is?’ And I said, ‘No, what’s my problem?’ And he said, ‘You have to tell the truth.’ I said, ‘That’s a good problem to have. That’s a good problem for all preachers to have. That’s why I could never be a politician.’ (Jeremiah Wright claims Obama ally offered $150,000 bribe in 2008 to shut up; by Ed Morrissey; Hot Air, 5/13/12 – READ ENTIRE POST)

 

The big question is: Will the mainstream media step in to report this legitimate news story and force Obama to do more than call Wright a liar? I am certain Obama will paint Wright as bathing in sour grapes. What I want to know is Obama willing to sue Wright for defamation? If not, then Obama is the liar. BUT we all know Obama is a liar.

 

Below is CJ’s post at AC2C which is an amalgamation a Theodore’s World post of the Hannity-Klein radio interview and Ed Lasky’s American Thinker article. I am to going to take the editorial liberty to also include Wild Thing’s Theodore’s World comment not included in CJ’s post.

 

JRH 5/19/12

Please Support NCCR

****************************

“The Amateur”…Revealing book based on a 3 hour taped interview with the Rev. Wright…and naughty Michelle

 

Posted by CJ

Posted May 17, 2012 at 1:00 am

America Conservative 2 Conservative

 

May 16, 2012

Rev. Jeremiah Wright Says of Obama, “I made it Comfortable for Him to Accept Christianity without having to Renounce His Islamic Background”

 

VIDEO: Ed Klein Wright on Obamas Christianity

 

 

Rev. Jeremiah Wright Says of Obama, “I made it Comfortable for Him to Accept Christianity without having to Renounce His Islamic Background”

 

Here is audio of Edward Klein, author of “The Amateur,” talking with Sean Hannity about his new book and his interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Klein interviewed Wright for more than three hours for the book, and says he has much of it on tape.

 

Among other things, he said Wright is “fulminating” at Obama for having “thrown him under the bus” back in 2008 when Wright’s “Godd*mn America” sermon came out. Klein reports that Wright told him that he could not say he “converted” Obama to Christianity, but that “I made it comfortable for him to accept Christianity without having to renounce his Islamic background.” http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2012/05/rev_jeremiah_wright_says_of_ob.html

 

[Wild Thing’s comment…….

 

Like Tom says OBama is a Muslim.

The thing is we have learned that with Isalm (sic) Obama or anyone would be threatened and very possibly taken out if they were Muslim and turned away from their beliefs. They have done it enough times that we should believe them.

IMO Obama would have a very tuff time if he was ever really vetted to prove he was NOT a Muslim. His actions, associations, his administration that is heavy with Muslims and so many things prove it along with what this Rev. Wright has said…imo. ]

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

 

May 14, 2012

 

The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House

 

By Ed Lasky

 

Edward Klein’s new book on Barack Obama, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, is a withering portrayal of a radical adrift, in over his head, drowning in his own incompetency — while being weighed down by a small circle of “advisers” who are compounding the problem of the Amateur in the White House.

 

Klein’s book begins with a talisman-like quote uttered by Barack Obama when his recently appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tried to boost Obama’s ego by telling him, “Your legacy is going to be preventing the second Great Depression.”  To which Barack Obama responded, “That’s not enough for me.”

 

As all of America knows by now, Obama has aggressively sought to “fundamentally transform” America — one of the few promises he has kept from the days of 2008.  Five trillion dollars of borrowing, ObamaCare passed over the objections of the majority of Americans through legislative legerdemain and special deals made with resistant politicians, failed stimulus, green programs failing left and right as taxpayers are left holding the bag, a recovery that is the most anemic on record, an America that has been sundered by the man who promises to unite us, America weaker abroad and at home — yes, America has been fundamentally transformed.  Mission Accomplished.

 

But how and why did Obama succeed in such a catastrophic way?  That is the question that Klein successfully answers in his extremely readable and enjoyable book, with enough spicy details to satisfy the craving of anyone interested in how President Obama and those closest to him have driven us to the condition we find ourselves in as we approach November.

 

One of the motifs that runs throughout the book is Barack Obama’s sheer level of incompetency.  He has the fatal conceit of many politicians: an overweening ego.  That may be a prerequisite for politicians and leaders, but when it is unleavened by a willingness to consider the views of others, it becomes a fatal conceit.  And Obama has that trait in abundance.

 

Stories tumble out that reveal a man who believes he is all but omniscient — unwilling to give any credence to the views of others (especially but not limited to those across the aisle).  Experts in management are interviewed who point out that he lacks essential qualities of leadership.  Indeed, the book gets its title from an outburst from Bill Clinton, who was trying to encourage Hillary to take on Obama in the Democratic primary of 2012:

 

Obama doesn’t know how to be president. He doesn’t know how the world works. He’s incompetent. He’s…he’s…Barack Obama’s an amateur.

 

But Klein does not rest there.  He delves into associates from Obama’s career in Cook County politics, his stint as a state senator, and his rise to the United States Senate.  There is a common pattern: Obama likes to campaign, but once he is elected and actually starts working, his interest flags, and he starts looking for the next “big thing” — electorally speaking.  He had few if any accomplishments or professional standing in any of his previous positions.  Even when he served as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, he avoided any encounters with other faculty who enjoyed discussing the law.  His reluctance to engage them is revealing in and of itself, suggesting he had a reason for his lack of confidence.

 

His disdain toward working with others is manifest.  He has gained a reputation over the last few years as being cold and distant, refusing to engage, as have other presidents, in the give-and-take of politics, in the social niceties that help grease the wheels in Washington.  Liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen recently advised him to read Robert Caro’s newest volume on the life of Lyndon Johnson as a primer on how to be president.  Johnson, of course, was a master at pulling levers of power, but he also knew how to persuade individual politicians on both sides of the aisle to work with him on legislation.  But, of course, LBJ also had the common touch and, having risen from humble beginnings, never considered it beneath him to work with those underneath him.  Not so Barack Obama.  He complained to foreign leaders that he had to waste time talking with “congressmen from Palookaville.”  At another time, he switched locales and said he was tired of dealing with people from “Podunk.”

 

His campaign trail comments regarding small-town America as being populated by “bitter” people who cling to guns and Bibles was not a one-off.  They are reflective of his views.

 

But the high and the mighty also come in for the Obama treatment.  Klein reveals dismay among former Obama supporters who feel they have been mistreated, maligned, and thrown under the bus.  Obama’s most generous early donors have been all but ignored; early mentors in the black business community have been sidelined if not completely ditched; people don’t hear from him or his staff unless a fundraiser is coming up.  But there is more: Caroline Kennedy is angry at the way she and her family were used for campaign purposes in 2008 and then summarily dismissed and stored away like so many movie props have been (the latter is my description).

 

Even Oprah Winfrey has been stiff-armed by the Obamas.  According to the book, Oprah took a big risk in supporting Obama in 2008 and campaigning for Obama in Iowa, being a big boost in his campaign.  The ratings for her show weakened significantly (and her new network has been a huge disappointment).  But when she has tried to visit the White House, she has been all but treated as persona non grata.  Apparently, Michelle Obama is a possessive person who fears the influence Oprah may have over Barack Obama (more on this below).  Oprah blames it on Michelle’s anti-obesity campaign.  She is quoted as saying, “Michelle hates fat people and doesn’t want me waddling around the White House.”  Klein digs up a quotation of Michelle Obama’s from a White House source that seems to confirm Oprah’s suspicion:

 

Oprah only wants to cash in using the White House as a backdrop for her show to perk up ratings. Oprah with her yo-yo dieting and huge girth, is a terrible role model. Kids will look at Oprah, who’s rich and famous and huge, and figure it’s okay to be fat.

 

Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Pastor Jeremiah Wright (who merits a chapter), and Obama’s former long-time doctor (who feels Obama is distant and lacks feeling, passion, and humanity) all join a long list of people whom the Obamas have used, abused, and then cast aside once they moved into the White House.

 

A few have survived the winnowing process, of course.  There is Michelle, who might be described as the living and real-life descendant of Lady Macbeth.  The book provides some history of the early days between Barack and Michelle: marked by some tempests, yet also marked by Michelle’s overwhelming push for Barack to win power and wealth.  Insiders are reluctant to tangle with the First Lady, and with good reason.  Michelle, like her husband, has a proclivity to blame others for her husband’s failures.  Former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs felt her sting when it was revealed that Michelle had complained about life in the White House to the then-first lady of France, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.  Gibbs acted to control the damage by arranging for the Élysée Palace to issue a denial.

 

But the response did not come quickly enough for Michelle, and she arranged for Valerie Jarrett — close to the Obamas for years, and who has an omnipresence in the White House that makes the unelected and unconfirmed czar issue seem trivial — to deliver a stern rebuke to Gibbs, who counter-attacked.  Anyone heard from Robert Gibbs lately?

 

The role of Valerie Jarrett has prompted much speculation.  As Edward Klein notes, she has a mouthful of a title —  senior adviser and assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs and public engagement — that “doesn’t begin to do justice to her unrivaled status in the White House.”  Valerie Jarrett apparently has a role in most major decisions: she often appears in meetings the president has with major political leaders from Capitol Hill and with foreign leaders as well.  She often stays behind to have private discussions with the president.  Obama admitted that he ran every decision by her.

 

That is worrying since, as Klein notes, Jarrett’s own career is not one that would prepare her to assume such a prominent role.  Hers is no rags-to-riches story that would give her the “chops” to have such a Svengali-like influence over the president of the United States.  She was blessed with a wonderful set of advantages — descended from a highly regarded political family in Chicago.  Jarrett was a force to be reckoned with in the Daley administration and then capitalized on her political connections to land a job heading up a real estate company in Chicago where she oversaw, among other developments, properties that under her company’s management degenerated into slums.  Business leaders are aghast that she has such a powerful role in the White House.  A donor is quoted as saying that not only is Valerie Jarrett a liability, but others in the White House concur with his views.  Jarrett has butted heads with Rahm Emanuel, who felt that it was wrong to focus on passing ObamaCare when the economy and jobs should have been higher priorities.

 

Who won that match?  Rahm returned to Chicago and became mayor in 2009.

 

The roles of Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett cannot be overstated.  They are symptomatic of a larger problem in the White House decision-making process (one that I noted in “How Obama Makes Decisions“).

 

Barack Obama, to a greater extent than any modern president, refuses to listen to the views of others or consult with experts and advisers outside his own tight and constricted circle from Cook County.  There are many revelations of his faulty decision making uncovered by Klein.  Indeed, one of Jarrett’s roles is to shield Obama from dealing with people who don’t agree with him or who may say something that deflates his ego.

 

When Bill Daley (the chief of staff) realized that the contraception and abortifacient mandates of ObamaCare might offend Catholics, he arranged a meeting without Jarrett’s knowledge between Obama and New York then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan to deal with an issue that would offend many as violating the principle of religious freedom (as well as Catholic beliefs).  Jarrett went to the president and vented her anger.

 

Anyone seen Bill Daley lately?

 

On issue after issue, President Obama remains his insular self, refusing to seek counsel or input from others with more experience.

 

Critics believe he has made a mess of foreign policy precisely because not only does he have a dearth of experience in this area, but because, under our system, foreign policy is one of the few areas where a president enjoys almost unlimited power.  Thus, he is free to formulate his own agenda regardless of the views of others and the damage these policies cause.

 

When pro-Israel Americans met with Obama to discuss his actions toward Israel (that many, including myself, view as being counterproductive) he dismissed the ideas of Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, with the statement “you are absolutely wrong.”  The president, who has no compunction telling people that they are not only wrong, but “absolutely wrong” in public, needs to start feeling some of the empathy he accuses Republicans of lacking.  According to veteran journalist Richard Chesnoff, quoted in the book, “Obama’s problem in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conundrum” comes “from his one-man style and his inflated view of his own leadership talents[.] … [P]erhaps, even more egregiously, he seems to have an exaggerated sense of his own depth of understanding of the Middle East, which is simply not borne out by his background or experience.”  There may be more to it than that to explain the pressure he has put on our one true ally in the Middle East, Israel.  American Thinker published numerous articles in 2008 covering not only Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Junior’s views of Israel as an apartheid state, but Obama’s associations with anti-Israel Palestinians in Chicago, his own suspect language regarding Israel, and his close relationship with Samantha Power (now playing a key role on his National Security Council), who not only has a long anti-Israel history but also made an anti-Semitic remark that was smothered by the media in 2008.  There were good reasons for the Los Angeles Times to run a column during the campaign that “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama.”

 

Readers will thoroughly enjoy Klein’s book on Obama.  There are substantive issues raised about Obama’s leadership abilities that are enhanced with interesting digressions regarding life inside ObamaWorld and how those dynamics effect decisions made from the Oval Office.

 

Klein concludes the book with doubt that Obama could ever change his approach toward governing and suspicion that his agenda is to impose a vast redistribution scheme upon America that has worked so well in the decaying and disintegrating European Union.  He wonders if Republicans are up to the task of pointing out to the public the truth about Obama’s agenda, given the overwhelming media bias in favor of Barack Obama.

 

Klein’s book could serve as a roadmap for Republicans.

Read more: American Thinker

______________________

America Conservative 2 Conservative Main Page for this Ning Social Network.