Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals & How They Are Being Applied Today


Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

 

Many Conservatives who pay attention to how government and politics affects their lives are aware of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Those same Conservatives are aware of prominent Dems living the Rules for Radicals (cough ahem – Crooked Hillary, Deep State Obama, among others).

 

Alinsky’s Rules are a Socialist agenda to transform America AWAY from its Founding Principles and Christian heritage. Take from the Ocensor article cross posted here about how much the present Dem Agenda smacks of old uncle Saul.

 

JRH 9/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

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

Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals & How They Are Being Applied Today

 

Alinsky quote on Social Transformation

 

By Timothy Benton

Sep 23, 2019

Ocensor

 

Many of us have heard of Saul Alinsky, his rules for radicals, the left scoffs at our looking to this, but is there any truth that this is being applied to the US political landscape today, and if it is, who is applying it?

 

To understand what these rules are we have to look at what he asked for and what was his goal. Alinsky was a socialist who lived in the 1900s in the US, graduated from the University of Chicago with a Ph.D. in Psychology. He went on and worked for the State of Illinois for a short time, then went on to be a community organizer, writer, political activist.

 

Saul  Alinsky

 

He is looked to as a author of socialist ideology, something that many on the left aspire to follow, and much of his “Rules for Radicals,” published a year before his death is seen as a guideline of how to bring about a social change in America to set it up for socialist rule.

So what is this “Rules for Radicals” and what did it advocate? The whole document was set up to show how to bring a nation to its knees so a socialist change could come to the land and would bring about socialism to the state. Here are the items and what they were set up for:

 

1)   Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.

 

2)   Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3)   Debt  – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level.  That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4)   Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5)   Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Water, Electrical power, Housing and neighborhood demographics, and Income).

6)   Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.  (Common Core?)

7)   Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

8)   Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor.  This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take Tax from the wealthy with the support of the poor.

 

So how does this list apply today? I would say if you look at the actions of the last president, then of the left today, with people like AOC, Sanders, along with her squad and many from the left you see this in full effect today. So let’s look at each item and see if it is in workings today.

 

  • Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.

 

i. We saw two activists within the Democratic party, one that was very much of an activist in her school days, one that went from activist and community organizer to the White House, Clinton and Obama pushed from their times in the White House to put in place socialized medical care, Clinton failed when she was the first lady, Obama partially succeeded, but has much of what he pushed now being stripped by Trump.

ii. Even though Trump has pushed back on this, today you see the whole Democrat party pushing for universal healthcare, the more left-leaning or outright socialist the candidates are, who is running for president, we see idea’s being presented from strengthening of Obamacare to outright shutting down private healthcare insurance and putting in a Canadian style social healthcare, where the state controls all.

iii. We now hear that healthcare is a fundamental human right, this is used as a means of pushing that there should be no choice in this, the government, as a guarantor of our rights should be the one to take charge of our health care, it should never be in the hands of private business or individuals. The far-left socialist, Sanders and Warran are pushing this; when asked if our healthcare insurance will be taken, both are equal in their moves to deflect from the question and never answer.

iv. By demanding that universal healthcare is given to all, including illegals, the left is demanding that our nation be changed to what they demand, if you are not willing to change the structure of our government the left labels and then attacks, as they do with everything.

 

  • Poverty – with the way the economy is going under Trump this is getting harder and harder to exploit, so instead of trying to exploit poverty, instead the left pushes to scare people to think it is coming, or to openly wish for a great recession, such as Bill Mahr did.

 

VIDEO: Maher wishes for recession, worth it if Americans lose their homes.

 

 

1. We have seen that some within the left want to see a recession, turn to any paper, turn on the news, you are now bombarded with stories of a recession coming our way. The fact that our economy is the strongest it has been in years, that is a considerable inconvenience for the left, they know then the only way to push this today is not to say people are worse off, instead, bad times are coming, when they do, it is all Trump’s and the Right’s fault, so you need to come to us today so we can protect you against this when it happens.

2. The second thing you see is the left turning to very radical ideas that will radically transform our economy and is guaranteed to bring about complete and total poverty, thus you have the Green New Deal. When the left is unable to feed off the fear of people of things turning sour, they then look for ways to bring about an economic downturn. The dream of the left is to see our economy fail, the benefit for them is two-fold: First, they get rid of the arch-enemy who they see as standing in their way for the idea of a socialist paradise. That would be the conservative right and Trump.

 

Modern creative businessman illustration concept.

Debt Snowball

 

 

i. One of the ways to bring people and nation to poverty is to rack up their debt. We had two trillion dollar stimulus given to Obama, but instead of our economy thriving, unemployment going down with this, instead, our economy got worse, our unemployment figures continued to rise.

ii. Under Obama, we saw our deficit double, and one has to ask, what was accomplished? Our growth never exceeded 2%, he told us jobs were not coming back, he fell back on his socialist ideals when he demanded that more and more of our lives and our dependence be given to the state.

iii. While the debt is growing under Trump, and I would love to see a reverse of this, we also have to understand, with all these trillions that Obama was given, our national defense was left in shatters, Trump had little choice but to pick up the budget just to build back up a tattered force, many of our jets were unable to fly, it got so bad the Navy was raiding museums to get spare parts. Trump’s moves were never to set this nation in debt; he is moving to pick up the economy to cover spending, an increase in the economy means there are more funds available to be taxed.

 

Constitution-Gun – Second Amendment

 

  • Take Away Our 2nd Amendment – no party has done more to try to restrict our right to bear arms, something that is part of the American fabric in life, it is a right granted to all Americans, although I now see this right slowly being stripped frequently on almost a daily basis. The left knows a well-armed population is not so quickly forced to go with government programs and forced ideology, take away the guns you take away the ability to resist.

 

i. While I can’t say for certain that these school shootings are far too convenient, but I must ask if you are so concerned about school shootings, why aren’t you willing to secure the schools that house our children so this does not happen? As terrible as this sounds, I am at the point that I believe the left thinks these children being lost are worth the sacrifice if they can take our guns in the end. That is why the left refuses to act to protect our schools if we do that, then they will see no more shootings to use as a backdrop to press their taking of our guns.

 

Welfare

 

  • Welfare – no place is the dependence the left wants on display than in our inner cities. The grand experiment by Johnson has laid our cities to waste; families are not in multiple generations where not a soul has worked, their dependence of the state is total. When you create a whole class that is dependent on the state, you have an almost entire class of people who are easily controlled.

 

i. The inner cities in America, parts that are where the primary population of our African American demographic lives, you have a whole group that is told they need to vote as they are told, it is best for them, even though little can be shown to back this up.

ii. Today the growth of African American’s leaving the Democratic party is quickly bringing the far left to the point of panic, so what did they do? They moved on from these people, still demand that they support them, all while turning on them and moving their support for illegals that have no say in government affairs. This is why there is such a strong move now to give illegals the right to vote.

 

Systemic Evaluation Education

 

  • Education – the plan here was to use our school’s as a means not to teach, instead, indoctrinate. I must say, no place is it evident that this is being applied in America today than in our whole mess of an education system. We send our children to school to get an education so they can better their lives, yet starting now in grade schools are children are under a constant barrage of liberal ideology.

 

i. No place are these ideas in its entirety shown more than in schools. You have young people that are poor, they are going through school, so the concept of social handouts is very appealing to them, they care not about taxes, they aren’t paying any, instead they are living off the graces of the taxpayer, thus they feel in many cases they are entitled to these handouts.

ii. We also see the lack of freedom of speech, of different ideas, this is something these young people think is unacceptable. Thus you have riots and using the heckler’s veto when they wish to shut up opposing views. As was with Russia in their revolution, China too, the leaders or activist go for the youth, they are less able to see what this will lead to in the future, only care about the present.

 

Religion

 

  • Religion – Religion or faith, it gives hope to a people, that is why socialism, in every nation it has been implemented in, religion was either controlled by the state or was stomped out, or at least the effort was to do this. If you have a people without hope, they need to look to someone or something for hope; if you put the government in place to give this hope, they will turn to it.

 

i. The colleges, the stronghold of this movement are also moving to push this. If you look at the teachings of evolution, global warming, you don’t see a science, where all can be questioned, it is OK to challenge theories to see if they stand up to the questions presented. Instead, you are attacked by zealots, with every bit as much zeal as you see from other faiths when you question their core doctrines. The left has moved to replace religion with science, they seem to fail to understand, they are two separate things, but when you do this, you still accomplish what you were seeking to do, taking away hope outside of what socialist is trying to present.

 

Noam Chomsky Class War quote

 

  • Class Warfare – To control the masses, as was seen in Germany, Russia, China, and other nations, you need to create an enemy, for the socialist, it is the elites, the ones driving the economy. They push that somehow these people are gifted, they have earned nothing, gotten what they have due to their taking it from the less fortunate, but is this the case? Let’s look at that:

 

i. We have heard it said that people with too much money should be forced to hand it over to people that have little or none, this is the groundwork of socialism, but is really good practice. You have Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, and others, tech giants that have amassed unheard-of wealth, but did they steal? No, they created a product, one that had a need, they used this need to create wealth, no one was stolen from, people paid for this, this was passed on to these people that created these items.

ii. Socialist countries start off by stripping the wealthy of their wealth, this may seem like a good thing, but when this is the class creating jobs, handing down wealth to people under them due to this creation, what happens to jobs when they are taken out of the equation? Suggest you look to Venezuela and see what happens. A large oil producer, a wealthy nation, but the standards of the nations around it, now is in utter poverty, the people are in the streets looking for some means of survival. All they have done is stopped upwards mobility and made all people poor.

 

We may not think that Alinsky’s playbook is in play, sites like Snopes go out of their way to try to discredit where the practice of this is shown, but it is very much in play, it is just being done in secret. What they fail to state is that communism or socialism is exactly what Alinsky was pushing.

 

We are all in a big chest match, pieces are being moved, many times not in a way that we suspect, but the results will be the same, either we move to counter this or sit and watch it happen.

___________________________

Site owned and operated by Benton Media Corp.

 

Ocensor Homepage

 

A PEEK BEHIND THE CURTAIN


I usually don’t like sharing opinion pieces devoid of the sources of that opinion. I found a post contributed by Jonathan Moore posted on the MeWe Group MAGA – MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Directly after the post Moore included a video entitled, “SH0CKING BARACK OBAMA’S DIRTY SECRETS” dated 3/6/19. The entire post can be themed as the Leftist Deep State transforming America away from America’s roots. With Trump’s election this Deep State has been doing its utmost to overthrow the President with lies and false charges.

 

The title of the post is “A Peek Behind the Curtain”. I could not find such a title linked to Jonathan Moore. The title is a near cliché thanks to the movie The Wizard of Oz’s mysterious wizard location behind the curtain pretending to be the all-powerful Oz with the irony of being exposed by a little pooch. Trust me, if you Google “A Peek Behind the Curtain” you will discover a large amount of linked references. But again, I couldn’t find anything referenced to this MeWe post.

 

Yet you will undoubtedly recognize some of the referenced conspiracies if you get your info from other sources than the Mainstream Media

 

JRH 3/7/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

A PEEK BEHIND THE CURTAIN

 

Posted by Jonathan Moore

March 7, 2019 11:19 AM

From MeWe Group: MAGA – MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

 

What we all have to understand here is that if Hillary had won the election there would be no borders, illegals would be voting to decide the future of America, the military that was at its smallest level since WWI would be even smaller, Corporate taxes and Regulations would have continued and our American Companies and Corporations would still be heading for higher more profitable grounds in foreign countries which was Obama and the ‘Deep State’s’ way of redistributing the same Intellectual Property that China has been stealing for years, but doing it to redistribute American jobs, technology, and our free market know how to benefit not America or the American people, but the world!

President Trump has not thrown a ‘Huuuge’ wrench in the over plans of the world, but being attacked at every turn so when the 2020 elections come rolling around, that the Dems with the support of the Republican Leadership RINO’s use the same voter fraud strategy as they did in California that gave Pelosi the Gavel, and what I also have to believe is why the freshman House member’s outrageous proclamations of the way things will be that Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, would say no way, no how, and not in a million years, but when it does they have the perfect patsy to point their fingers at and say “I told you so,’ and point to every accusation that’s ever been made about this President whose given the American people that chance to glimpse behind that curtain to see whose controlling that ‘Great and Powerful Globalization OZ,’ and then declaring all of those fake reason for why they won the election, when we all know it was the constant trial and error that the Dems were experimenting with to fix the elections from as far back as Obama’s first term election back in 2007!

If you’ve been paying attention you would know it’s part of the intentional Obama and Hillary Alinsky and Cloward and Piven plans to convert America’s Constitutional Republic to a Karl Marx’s Socialist leading to Communist Nation with the end game being that long-awaited creation of a New World Order!

What we’re watching at our Southern Border plays right into Obama’s mentors at Ivy Leagues Columbia University Cloward and Piven, Alinsky’s disciples! We had testimony on the Hill yesterday of a slew of witnesses stating that the resources at the border to handle the onslaught of illegal immigrants that are invading our country is straining the capabilities of every agency involved!

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”. Does anybody see the parallels with what’s going on with illegals, the Democrats, and the Republicans quietly sitting on their hands in the shadows?

America’s version of the European Union known as the North American Union had already been on the drawing board for 5 years before Donald J. Trump came down that escalator to announce his Presidency, and then beating 16 other in the bag contenders who were also in line to inherit the next stage of the United Nations Agenda 21, the 100% funding by the American taxpayer of ‘Paris Accord,’ and just about everything else that have the same target date of ‘By 2030!’

The North American Union (NAU) is a theoretical economic and political continental union of Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America. The concept is loosely based on the European Union, occasionally including a common currency called the Amero or the North American Dollar.

the Obama administration a.k.a. ‘Deep State’ is pursuing a stealth bureaucratic methodology to establish a common North American border around the continent, encompassing the U.S., Canada and Mexico, while simultaneously moving to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico as well as between the U.S. and Canada. The dog and pony that’s going on at the border right now, and the attacks on President Trump, are all because if Hillary would had won none of this would be going on because the Borders would have been already wide open, and the real collusion and corruption that is being exposed by the first President in History to be living up to his Campaign promises would have been buried deep in the ‘Deep States’ basements along with our guaranteed Constitutional Individual rights which are now considered the ‘Cancer’ that needs to be eradicated from the World body so that the New World Order can finally rear its ugly head!

Under the Bush administration’s SPP, the U.S., Mexico and Canada organized some 20 different “shadow government” bureaucratic working groups composed of agency heads and undersecretaries in the three nations.

In our globalist existence, the authority for the US to initiate hostilities against another country comes from the UN, declared Obama and Panetta. If the executive branch can persuade or bribe the UN to give a war OK, Congress is no longer relevant.” – Paul Craig Roberts

 

VIDEO: SH0CKING BARACK OBAMA’S DIRTY SECRETS

 

Posted by EDWARD SNOWDEN

Published on Mar 6, 2019

 

Former CIA operative who has spoken out about the US deep state. Kevin Shipp is a retired CIA spook and whistleblower. He has exposed the US deep state and charged the CIA with systematically use of unconstitutional and illegal measures to terrorise employees to prevent them from becoming whistleblowers.

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor

This is the Crooked Hillary too Many Want to be POTUS


remember-hillary-is-crooked

John R. Houk

© October 9, 2016

 

The Left Stream Media, many Establishment Republicans and NeverTrumpers Conservatives have been hammering Donald Trump about his deplorable womanizing remarks back in 2005. The Left Stream Media reporting on Trump’s past is quite unsurprising.

 

I am very disappointed in Republicans and Conservatives that have decided to abandon Trump because of a past moral issue but have been quite feckless in going after Crooked Hillary and Sex-Predator Slick Willie – the Leftist wife/husband team – for way over a quarter century.

Marxist Saul Alinsky and a young Crooked Hillary

saul-alinsky-crooked-hillary-2

 

Below are two articles relating to Crooked Hillary’s political ideology (Marxism) and the obvious Teflon fix that publicly came FBI Director James Comey but was more than likely ordered by Leftist-in-Chief and filtered on down through the Attorney General lackey Loretta Lynch.

 

And trust me, these two articles are just the tip of the iceberg of the nefariousness of Crooked Hillary. The most recent exposé of documents linked directly to Hillary nefariousness are not mentioned in this post. Of course the Obama Administration and probably the Crooked Hillary campaign are doing the bait and switch tactic without evidence of proof that the Russians did the hack then rewrote the email dump to implicate the queen of corruption. Remember the Benghazi and Obamacare lies before you believe the accusations implicating the Russians.

 

JRH 10/9/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Hillary Clinton, A Communist?

 

By LEON PUISSEGUR

OCTOBER 7, 2016

Freedom Outpost

 

If one looks into her strange past, one finds that Hillary Rodham Clinton had a close relationship with a radical and Communist/Socialist by the name of Saul Alinsky.

 

We will present a lot to be digested and we hope people read this article all the way through and go to the sites shown so they will know the truth about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, both of which seem to be so closely aligned with the Communist Party that any lines that once divided them can no longer be found, and even their platforms are nearly identical.

 

We showed how Hillary Clinton had close ties to Saul Alinsky in previous articles here and here. Yes, Hillary wrote and sat with Saul Alinsky to not only study his Communist ideology, but also to use it in her quest for power and control, both of which give the Communist ideology roots to grow from.

 

Let us show the basic principles of Hillary Clinton’s idol, Saul Alinsky. Please take note of the 8 different ways that Communist Saul Alinsky wants to “Change” the way the United States operates. Let us look very closely at the ideas of Saul Alinsky and compare them to what both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama have done in relation to the 8 ideas of Saul Alinsky.

 

Saul Alinsky stated, “There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important!”

 

1)      Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.

2)      Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3)      Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4)      Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5)      Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

6)      Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.

7)      Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

8)      Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

 

Now let us take a look at what has already happened and what Hillary Clinton wants to do and what Obama and the Democratic Party has already done.  You have to remember that anytime words such as, but not limited to, “Racist,” “Feminist,” etc., are key words used by the Saul Alinsky model to destroy your enemy and keep them fighting to disconnect those ideas from them while those making the statements continue on with their ideas, which, in most cases, do not help the poor or the United States.

 

Here is the connection between Hillary Clinton and her idol, Saul Alinsky:

 

Healthcare – We see the first idea to be pushed by the Alinsky Communist idea is to “Control Healthcare.” Remember, when Hillary Clinton was First Lady, she pushed for a nationwide Healthcare system, exactly what Alinsky outlined to begin the creation of the Socialist/Communist state. We should make a strong note: President Obama was also a strong advocate of the Alinsky model. Today, we have the Obamacare joke of healthcare, but it does follow the Saul Alinsky ideology.

 

Poverty – Today, we see that more people live in poverty in the United States, and this has increased since Obama took office, so here we can clearly see that the second action in the Alinsky model is being pursued by Obama and we can rest assured that Hillary Clinton will push this even higher if she is elected; after all, she supports the Alinsky ideology.

 

Debt – The debt of our nation has moved into territory that has never been seen before during the entire history of the United States.  Hillary Clinton wants to continue on this same line of action by increasing the burden by keeping the debt rising so she can control all of our lives. Hillary Clinton also shouted very loudly on the stage; “We will raise the taxes on the middle class.” Strangely, the people cheered!

 

Gun Control – This is so far the hardest to complete, but Obama has done all he can, including coming up with illegal Executive Actions that stifle the ownership of guns because of his actions. But Hillary Clinton stated that she would like to see “common sense” gun control, which is code for taking all the guns from the people. Hillary Clinton has stated that, “… I would like to see gun control actions like the Australians have.” That would mean total confiscation of guns and jail time for anyone who does not comply with the government demand to turn your guns in. Hillary Clinton can do this by placing Supreme Court Justices that will say the Second Amendment does not apply to the average citizen – check out the people she will consider for Supreme Court Justices: they all are AGAINST guns.

 

Welfare – This will and has been growing since Obama has been president. Under Hillary Clinton, it will continue to grow, since she has stated this in many ways and will increase the welfare rolls, just like Alinsky states. Hillary Clinton will bring in many more people from the Middle East and place them all on the welfare rolls, giving them no opportunity to find jobs and by giving them food, housing, and income, just like her idol Saul Alinsky outlines in his 8 levels of control.

 

Education – Hillary Clinton has clearly stated in her book, It Take A Village“I believe the primary role of the state is to teach, train and raise the children. Parents have a secondary role.”

 

Here Hillary Clinton shows very plainly that she will use the Communist/Socialist Saul Alinsky ideology to “educate” the children, which is actually brainwashing the children to think that they have to work for the Government to pay for their education. This alone should make many parents consider not to vote for this lady who only wants the parents to have a secondary role to their children and allow the government to have the primary role. This is not the “American” way to Freedom and pursuit of happiness.

 

Religion – This is the most profound act of hatred by the current administration, and Hillary Clinton will follow through with this ideology, just like Obama is doing now.  Before 2009, our nation could pray at football games, we could place a cross on public property, we could worship our beliefs, which are, of the majority, Christian. Today, our nation has moved away from the old phrase “God and Country.” Today, it is “Politics and country.” Our nation was founded on the belief that God is our creator, and that is clearly displayed through the Declaration of Independence.  Some will come out and say that is not right because the Constitution says the government cannot support any religion.  That would be a very false statement, since the very idea was that the Government cannot say we have only one religion, and that is the one the government says it is.  Freedom of religion was developed to make sure the government did not dictate what religion the people had to abide by: that is what England did, and the founding fathers did not want the government to dictate what religion to force upon the people.  It also did not mean that the government would make religion be evil and not accepted by the government, as it has done under the Obama administration. This would be even worse under a Hillary Clinton administration.

 

Class warfare – We can already see this one from Obama and Hillary Clinton doubling down and saying that the rich have to pay their fair share, meaning, as did Saul Alinsky, that they have to pay more until they become poor. The fact that Hillary Clinton is going to continue on with the “Class Warfare” is not to be doubted for one minute as she does not hide this at all, saying those who make the most should pay the most. Hillary Clinton will most assuredly divide the nation even more than Obama has, and this will never be settled until the United States is so divided that the government will have to intervene to “separate” what they created: a police state.

 

Showing and comparing these 8 items and breaking them down shows that, without a doubt, Obama, who also studied Saul Alinsky, began the division needed to make the Communist ideology work, and Hillary Clinton will continue it.  If you wish to see our nation coming together like it did before Obama got into office, do not vote for Hillary Clinton.

 

How much does the Communist Party of America support Hillary Clinton?  That is perhaps the most interesting question we could ask. Let us look at an article exposing the fact that the Communist Party supports Hillary Clinton.

 

This article describes what the Communist Party USA likes about her and why it supports her entirely.

 

“The Communist Party USA may not control many actual votes, but what they lack in support is made up for in enthusiasm.

 

That passion was in full display with a seven-person team of “reporters” covering their national political convention last month. And their convention was the Democratic National Convention that nominated Hillary Rodham Clinton as their undisputed candidate for president of the United States.”

 

Some of the Communist Party USA’s talking points sound an awful lot like Hillary Clinton’s talking points…or is that the other way around? In either case, the points are eerily similar. Let’s check some excerpts from the Communist Party’s article on that.

 

“Donald Trump steals wages. He’d pick your pocket in a New York minute. He lies and spreads hate. He’s a racist and a bully.”

 

“Do not underestimate Trump and the Republicans. While the establishment GOP was surprised by the successful insurgency of so-called outsider Trump, they are united in purpose: delivering more inequality, more misery, more instability and violence against working-class people of all races, genders, religions and sexual orientations. They are united with giant corporations and the billionaire class in their drive to lower wages and living conditions and increase their profits and power.”

 

“With Senator Bernie Sanders endorsing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the message was loud and clear, “We’re stronger together.” That is what it will take to win in November.”

 

“The union movement, communities of color, students, women, progressives and the newborn “political revolution” can help generate voter enthusiasm by talking and tweeting about Clinton and the issues. Challenging sexism is a must as well as racism, which has been a coded (and overt) staple of presidential elections for decades.”

 

“Winning in a landslide” is needed now more than ever, and that landslide for Clinton could swing control of the Senate to Democrats, and other potential positive effects could be felt on the ‘down ballot’ congressional and state races.”

 

Wait, isn’t that what the Democratic Party said – well maybe in different words?  It does look like Hillary Clinton has taken advice from the Communist Party of the USA with her lines. All this time and the people have been led to believe that Hillary Clinton was the first to use the words “racism,” “sexism,” and so on. Please just look at what the Communist Party states: if it were not on their web site, one would think it had been written by the Clinton Campaign.

 

Let us look at a direct quote of the Communist Party USA paper that describes Hillary Clinton’s pick for her running mate, Tim Kaine: this is where it gets weird, as the Communist Party not only fully supports and maybe helps Hillary Clinton, but also seems to accept her VP, Tim Kaine, with open arms.

 

“Joseph Farah, the founder of WND.com and a former revolutionary communist himself in his youth, said the CPUSA’s coverage was so effusive in its enthusiasm it put MSNBC to shame.

 

“Back in the day when Stalinists Gus Hall and Angela Davis were regularly nominated by the party as presidential and vice presidential candidates every four years, the U.S. Communists actually had beefs with the Democrats,” he said. “But, in recent years, the party ceased those efforts in favor of a united front with the Democrats, with whom they have very few differences, if any.”

 

It would seem that Hillary Clinton is either working with the Communist Party USA, or they are working with her. No one can really distinguish the lines between them, as they are so close to each other that lines between Democrats and Communists have seemingly vanished since, in 2009, they pushed voters toward Obama and keep pushing the Democrats into the now very blurred lines between the old Democratic Party and the current Communist/Democratic Party today. But check it out for yourself below.

 

“The Communists, who for decades ran their own candidates for president and vice president but supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, don’t just like Hillary and Bernie. The party also gave a big thumbs-up to Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine.

 

“He’s a great choice,” wrote staffer Larry Rubin on the first day of the convention. “Kaine pushed the political envelope of Virginia, an erstwhile red southern state, in a progressive direction – and won! He was elected mayor of Richmond, then governor of the state and then senator. Everyone agrees: he’s a sincere, nice guy.”

 

No this should be enough to show that our nation would become totally Socialist leaning heavily towards Communism under Hillary Rodham Clinton, due to Democrats continuing on with their ideas from 1856 when they were the party of slavery. Wait, maybe they really want to bring slavery back, but in the form of government hand outs! Just check out someone else’s comments on how the Democrats have moved more toward the Communist side than to the Freedom side.

 

“David Kupelian, managing editor of WND.com, had this to say earlier this year in a commentary on the shrinking divide between the two parties: “Amazing as it may seem, Barack Obama has dragged the entire Democratic Party so far leftward over the past seven-plus years that today’s Democratic Party has become almost indistinguishable from the Communist Party.

 

“If that sounds hyperbolic to you, just stop reading right now and pull up the CPUSA’s website,” he added. “Spend some time reading and digesting it. Try to discern any major differences between the Communist Party’s concerns, sensibilities and solutions – on issues from ‘gay’ rights, to unfettered immigration, to renewable energy, to wealth redistribution, to condemning cops as racist, to universal health care – and those of today’s Democratic Party.”

 

The interest has been largely fueled by Clinton’s suppressed and later released 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College offering an extensive, largely positive critique of Alinsky and his work.

 

Hillary Clinton’s association with radical thought dates back to at least 1969, when Obama was just 8 years old, himself a protégé early on of Frank Marshall Davis, a loyal Communist Party activist.

 

Clinton’s 1969 Wellesley College senior thesis was titled “There Is Only the Fight … : An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” The thesis received attention when it was released after the Bill Clinton presidency. According to reports, in early 1993, the White House requested that Wellesley keep the thesis on “Rules for Radicals” author Saul Alinsky confidential and not release any copies.”

 

This covers a lot, but it has to be shown in order to link it all together to illustrate the closeness of the Communist and Democratic Party and how it may also link Hillary Clinton to being a communist simply by allowing this type of hyperbole to be stated. We show just what has to be shown, and it makes a good connection to the Hillary Clinton campaign, which follows the Communist Party USA ideology almost to a tee.  That in and of itself should create a firewall between the White House and Hillary Clinton.  If she is elected, the nation built by our forefathers will have failed, due to the ignorance of seeing what is near the tip of our noses. If you believe in the Freedom, the Constitution, and our United States, then you will pass this on to all you know and make it go viral to show facts that have to be shown here because the Lame Stream Media will never show, it as they are part of the problem.

 

“Clinton was said to have met with Alinsky several times in 1968, when she was writing her thesis. In her most recent memoir, Clinton wrote that she rejected a job offer from Alinsky to instead attend law school.

 

Last year, WND found that long after Alinsky’s death in June 1972, a group Clinton co-chaired maintained a working relationship with Alinsky’s main community organizing outfit, the Industrial Areas Foundation, or IAF. The partnership extended into the 1990s and yielded influence over the education policy of the Bill Clinton presidency, it can now be disclosed. Founded by Alinsky in 1940 and run by him until his death, the IAF is a national community-organizing network established to implement Alinsky’s expansive organizing agenda. After Alinsky’s death, the IAF was taken over by his longtime associate and designated successor, Ed Chambers, who became the group’s executive director.

 

Dick Morris, a former top political adviser to Bill Clinton both as governor of Arkansas and as president, noted to WND that education reform “is the key issue Hillary Clinton used to propel herself independently to the forefront of Arkansas politics during Bill’s governorship.”

 

“The revelation of how closely linked her efforts were back in the 80s – and have been since – to an Alinsky radical front group is deeply disturbing and expands our understanding of Hillary’s fundamental radicalism and commitment to the new left of Saul Alinsky,” Morris said.

 

David Horowitz, whose parents were members of the Communist Party and who himself became a leader in the new left movement of the 1960s and 1970s before rejecting it, said the revelation is significant though not surprising.

 

“When radicals set out to fundamentally transform a society, the first institution they attack is the educational system which under their influence becomes a system of indoctrination in radical ideas,” he told WND.

 

Interestingly, the Communist Party USA has not changed its stripes in any significant way. It hasn’t walked back its 100 percent commitment to Communism. What has changed is the Democratic Party.

 

The drift leftward hit warp speed beginning in the 1990s, according to Farah. That’s the year Bernie Sanders was first elected to Congress and founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

 

“One of his first actions in Congress was to found the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which was partnered with the Democratic Socialists of America,” recounts Farah. “No surprise there, because most Americans have no idea of what the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Democratic Socialists of America are really all about.”

 

Farah reported on the antics of the caucus in 1998.

 

“Back then the Congressional Progressive Caucus shared a website with the DSA,” he wrote. “In other words, these two organizations, one government-funded and the other a tax-exempt nonprofit, were of like mind and on the same page politically. What I found back then was astonishing – even for me. On this shared website, that was quickly scrubbed after I exposed it, was a collection of songs I can almost hear Bernie, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus singing in harmony. One of my favorites back then – – was “Red Revolution” sung to the tune of “Red, Red Robbin.”

 

“For those not trained in the lingo of communism, the dictionary definition of ‘bourgeoisie,’ is, and I quote: ‘(in Marxist theory) the class that, in contrast to the proletariat or wage-earning class, is primarily concerned with property values,’” wrote Farah. “If you’ve got property, if you’re part of the middle class, these people not only want to raise your taxes, they want to kill you with knives and guns!”

 

Meanwhile, an email sent out by the Communist Party USA over the weekend had this to say: “The 2016 elections are in full swing. Many of our districts and clubs and members are actively participating in the campaign to strike a blow to the extreme right and defeat Donald Trump and other down ballot GOP extremists. If you’re not yet involved, there are many ways to get connected with labor and our allies, especially in the key battleground states and in targeted congressional and state legislative races. But no matter where you live you can be part of this exciting election. We can defeat Trump, oust right-wing majorities in Congress and statehouses while also building powerful labor-led people’s movements, advancing a progressive agenda and political independence at the grassroots. We have some great tools, beginning with People’s World daily (sic) Marxist analysis.”

 

(Source)

__________________

FBI agents are ready to revolt over the cozy Clinton probe

 

hillary-clinton-and-fbi-director-james-comey-photo-getty-images

Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey Photo: Getty Images

 

By Paul Sperry

October 6, 2016

The Counter Jihad Report

Originally New York Post

 

Veteran FBI agents say FBI Director James Comey has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his “cowardly” whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private e-mail server.

 

Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, “So if I blew it, they blew it, too.”

 

But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

 

“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer-investigations unit.

 

Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.

 

The immunity agreements came with outrageous side deals, including preventing agents from searching for any documents on a Dell laptop owned by former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills generated after Jan. 31, 2015, when she communicated with the server administrator who destroyed subpoenaed e-mails.

 

Comey also agreed to have Mills’ laptop destroyed after the restricted search, denying Congress the chance to look at it and making the FBI an accomplice to the destruction of evidence.

 

Comey’s immunized witnesses nonetheless suffered chronic lapses in memory, made unsubstantiated claims of attorney-client privilege upon tougher questioning and at least two gave demonstrably false statements. And yet Comey indulged it all.

 

What’s more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a “voluntary” witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.

 

Clinton’s interview, the culmination of a yearlong investigation, lasted just 3 ½ hours. Despite some 40 bouts of amnesia, she wasn’t called back for questioning; and three days later, Comey cleared her of criminal wrongdoing.

 

“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time,” Hughes said. “I hold director Comey responsible.”

 

Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”

 

The accommodations afforded Clinton and her aides are “unprecedented,” Biasello added, “which is another way of saying this outcome was by design.” He called Comey’s decision not to seek charges “cowardly.”

 

“Each month for 27 years, I received oral and computer admonishments concerning the proper protocol for handling top secret and other classified material, and was informed of the harsh penalties, to include prosecution and incarceration” for mishandling such material, he pointed out. “Had myself or my colleagues engaged in behavior of the magnitude of Hillary Clinton, as described by Comey, we would be serving time in Leavenworth.”

 

Former FBI official I.C. Smith knows a thing or two about Clinton corruption. After working at FBI headquarters as a section chief in the National Security Division, he retired as special agent in charge of the Little Rock, Ark., field office, where he investigated top Clinton fund-raisers for public corruption and even Chinese espionage.

 

“FBI agents upset with Comey’s decision have every reason to feel that way,” Smith said. “Clearly there was a different standard applied to Clinton.”

 

“I have no doubt resourceful prosecutors and FBI agents could have come up with some charge that she would have been subject to prosecution,” the 25-year veteran added. “What she did is absolutely abhorrent for anyone who has access to classified information.”

 

Smith said Congress should subpoena the case’s agents to testify about the direction they received from Comey and their supervisors: “It would be interesting to see what the results would be if those involved with the investigation were questioned under oath.”

 

Comey made the 25 agents who worked on the case sign nondisclosure agreements. But others say morale has sunk inside the bureau.

 

“The director is giving the bureau a bad rap with all the gaps in the investigation,” one agent in the Washington field office said. “There’s a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country.”

 

Comey has turned a once-proud institution known for its independence into one that bows to election pressure, hands out political immunity to candidates and effectively pardons their co-conspirators. He’s turned the FBI into the Federal Bureau of Immunity and lost the trust and respect of not only his agents but the country at large. He ought to step down.

 

Paul Sperry, formerly Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, is author of “Infiltration.”

 

Also see:

 

 

______________

This is the Crooked Hillary too Many Want to be POTUS

John R. Houk

© October 9, 2016

_______________

Hillary Clinton, A Communist?

 

Copyright © 2016 FreedomOutpost.com

_____________

FBI agents are ready to revolt over the cozy Clinton probe

 

About Counter Jihad Report

 

There is an urgent need for the public to become informed about the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. We must demand from our leaders that they become familiar with Islamic Law and jihadist ideology so that our counterterrorism policies can better protect us from this growing threat.

 

This blog is mainly a news aggregating site but also includes an extensive library of resources for studying Islam and networking with other Counter Jihad activists. My goal has been to pull from a variety of the most trusted and reliable sources to educate the public on the counter jihad movement. The many RSS feeds and counterjihad twitter feed in the sidebar are meant to provide a time saving jumping off point to access all the headlines and breaking news.

 

My Interest in Islamic Jihad stems from the 1983 Hezbollah truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in which my cousin, Ken Haas, was killed. Ken left a career as a philosophy professor to work for the CIA and was the Station Chief in Beirut. He and his wife of one year had just finished lunch in Ken’s office at the Embassy and kissed good-bye. She had driven back to their apartment where she heard the explosion. After several agonizing days of waiting while rescuers sifted through the wreckage it was finally revealed that Ken had died instantly at his desk.

 

In all, 63 people were killed, 17 of whom were Americans. The entire U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Middle Eastern contingent was killed setting our intelligence back for years. Hezbollah had READ THE REST 

 

So … Conservatives are an Outside Group among Republicans


RINO Republican caricature

John R. Houk

© January 9, 2014

 

In the Republican Party the GOP Elitists wield the power and the Tea Party Conservatives get out the grassroots urging voters to vote favorably for pro-Republican issues. A marvelous revelation is beginning to emerge among Conservative activists and voters active within the Republican Party. That revelation is that Republican Elitists are only on board with Conservative principles of limited government and fair taxes only when it suits the Elitists to gain political power.

 

Let’s be honest in the USA political power is attained by eligible voters participating in America’s constitutional process in selecting candidates for Office in the Legislative Branch and in the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch on a Federal Level pertains to the Office of President of the United States (POTUS) and on a State and Local Level for such Offices as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, perhaps a few State-level Cabinet positions, County Commissioners, Sheriffs and Mayors.

 

The goal of political power to achieve political ends is for a Political Party to control the Office of POTUS primarily. The political ends are attainable when a Political Party controls both Houses of Congress. AND supposedly the political power dream is for a Political Party to control POTUS, the Senate and the House. AND it is considered favorable if the Political Party controlling the Office of POTUS is able to select Judiciary Branch Judges that favor a Political Party’s political agenda especially the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

 

Here is the political reality of 21st century American politics. There is a Left and Right agenda. This two-sided coin of agendas is all about how to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The 21st century American Left desires to interpret the Constitution under the reasoning of a Living Constitution.

 

In general a Living Constitution is interprets law on the basis of the greater good of society’s overall belief system. What is good for society uses the Constitution as a template to launch legal change to conform to society’s perceived norm.

 

In general the Right agenda is to interpret the U.S. Constitution under the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers as a foundation for law that is changed by the will of the voters rather than imposed by government to remold society’s belief system.

 

The Left-Right political ideals have roughly been translated in America’s development of a Two-Party political system in which neither extreme view attains absolute political power constitutionally but through the vision of the Founding Fathers’ vision of protecting American citizens from oppressive and/or corrupt government Checks and Balances were to be the hallmark of governing in the American Republic.

 

In the first 100 years or so of the American Republic a Left-Right political gap was nearly non-existent. The emerging political struggle in the USA seemed to center on the economic principles Big Business urbanization and the disparity with the one-time backbone of early America the economy centered upon rural industry such as family farms. People of property were the original enfranchised voters of the American Republic. The un-propertied citizens were not considered capable of participating as a political influence in government on a Local, State and especially a Federal level. The Civil War was as much about the rural political Elites of the South sensing a threat to their economic base from the Big Business urban Elites of the North. And within the North those Elites of power were centered in the North East (New York, Pennsylvania and the New England States). The backbone of the rural Southern economy was slave labor. The abolition of Slavery became the spark that ignited conflict between the agendas of Northern Elites and Southern Elites. Thank God the immorality of slavery was abolished even though the actual struggle was with Northern and Southern economics and power control. It is my opinion that President Lincoln’s obstinacy in preserving the Union of all the States in the American Republic is what led to the possibility of the USA becoming a super power today.

 

Thanks to a godless German Karl Marx and urbanized labor producing even Bigger Business in the Western World a new political disparity began to emerge between the working class and Industries’ Wealthy Elites. As the working class replaced the family farm as the backbone of the economy in Western Society, voting enfranchisement began to be extended to all voting age males and by early 20th century to include all voting age females. This began the change of the political dynamics in Western nations in which moral consciences began to enforce better living conditions and labor safety issues that affected the new backbone of the Western Economy. BUT still the wealthy Elites were the actual power brokers politically with votes becoming a restraint upon excesses of political Elitist agendas.

 

Marx’s bitter vision of the less wealthy working class rising up to forcefully appropriate industrial control the utopian dream of spreading the wealth caught emotions of the Western World’s better educated people which ironically ultimately influenced a significant people from the wealthy class to begin spreading the power in better equity among voting citizens. And those that became dedicated to the Marxist vision adopted an activism to change society by force. Hence the success of Vladimir Lenin and his cadre of followers that infected Russia’s poorest of the poor in the still existing Russian Serfs of the early 20th century. The successes of Lenin to instill a new power Elite in Russia replacing the Boyer (Nobles) led Monarchist Elites would soon lead to Russian disillusionment. The Serfs that indeed experienced a better living circumstance had to yield to the all-pervasive power structure of the top-down Soviet-Communist State. Eventually the Soviet vision of Communism was adopted by China’s Mao Zedong who adopted Leninist-Marxism to conform to Chinese culture but still making utopian promises to China’s extreme have-nots.

 

Before the 21st century came to be it became clear that Soviet Communism was just another form of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The USSR incentiveless economy could not bring the kind of economic liberation that the more Capitalistic Economies of the Western World brought to an entrenched Middle Class that had a better life than Marx’s so-called oppressed working class would be doomed to experience. Thanks to a Reagan-led revolution of an emphasis of a Market Economy and the incentives that prospered American ingenuity, the USA was able to outspend the Soviet economy. In the 1960s Khrushchev threatened to bury America. In reality Reagan’s America buried the Soviet Union forcing its collapse without a single actual military confrontation.

 

But the call of Communist utopianism and the elusive promise of an egalitarian society in which people attain a humanistic equality absent the restraining instruments of religious (in my case Biblical) morality has reared its head in stealth. Since forced Marxist-Communism has been demonstrated to be a failure with the demise of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), how can these lovers of a Communist society transform the world?

 

The stealth paradigm for the new Communist agenda to transform the world moves away from Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinist principle of armed revolution. The new Communism is societal infiltration on a cultural level. The prime mover of this new Communism (maybe neo-Communism) was an Italian who died just before the beginning of WWII. At one time this Italian was considered the father of Eurocommunism. In the 1970s and 80s Eurocommunism was making serious inroads politically in Western Europe. The various national Communist Parties of Western Europe were actually gaining electoral support on a national basis in European nations. The greatest inroads accomplished by Eurocommunism were primarily in Italy and France. Eurocommunism has since receded as a political force in Western Europe. Without further study my guess for the lack of electoral interest in Eurocommunism is largely due to Western Europe adopting a Socialist political paradigm separate from Marxist-Leninist revolution.

 

Even so the Western European Socialist paradigm is part and parcel of the Italian person considered the father of Eurocommunism – Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci died in 1937 after years of incarceration for his Marxist political beliefs. Gramsci’s Marxist theories essentially postulated that Communism triumphs over a Capitalist society more by slow a transformation than an instant armed revolution. It is good speculation that Gramsci’s slow transformation paradigm was influential on Obama-Hillary hero Saul Alinsky. Here is an excerpt from DTN that gives a snapshot of the Alinsky methodology:

 

After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop what are known today as the Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he earned a reputation as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential ethnic neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city, so named because it is near the site of the former Union Stockyards; this area had been made famous in Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom).

By the late 1960s, the Black Power movement would drive Alinsky and his organizing crusades out of the projects in African-American neighborhoods, leaving him no choice but to shift his focus to white communities. For this purpose, he established the Citizens Action Program (CAP), in 1970. As Stanley Kurtz writes in his 2010 book Radical in Chief: “Alinsky was … convinced that large-scale socialist transformation would require an alliance between the struggling middle class and the poor. The key to radical social change, Alinsky thought, was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations.”

In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose 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, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. (Saul Alinsky; By John Perazzo; Determine The Networks; April 2008)

 

Hillary Clinton’s 1969 College Essay on Saul Alinsky shows his influence on her. Alinsky’s influence on Obama was a bit more indirect than Hillary’s but perhaps also a bit more hands on in applying the Alinsky Method. Check this out from David Horowitz:

 

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama never personally met Saul Alinsky. But as a young man, he became an adept practitioner of Alinsky’s methods. In 1986, at the age of 23 and only three years out of Columbia University, Obama was hired by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side [of Chicago] “while learning and applying Alinsky’s philosophy of street-level democracy.”10 The group that Obama joined was part of a network that included the Gamaliel Foundation, a religious group that operated on Alinsky principles. Obama became director of the Developing Communities Project, an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, where he worked for the next three years on initiatives that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup.

 

 

Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation,12 and for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.13 One of the three, Gregory Galluzo, shared with Ryan Lizza the actual manual for training new organizers, which he said was little different from the version he used to train Obama in the 1980s. According to Lizza, “It is filled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: ‘power analysis,’ ‘elements of a power organization,’ ‘the path to power.’ … The Alinsky manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. ‘We are not virtuous by not wanting power,’ it says. ‘We are really cowards for not wanting power,’ because ‘power is good’ and ‘powerlessness is evil.’”14

 

According to Lizza, who interviewed both Galluzo and Obama, “the other fundamental lesson Obama was taught was Alinsky’s maxim that self- interest is the only principle around which to organize people. (Galluzzo’s manual goes so far as to advise trainees in block letters: ‘Get rid of do-gooders in your church and your organization.’) Obama was a fan of Alinsky’s realistic streak. ‘The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people’s self-interest was met,’ he told me, ‘and not just basing it on pie-in-the-sky idealism. So there were some basic principles that remained powerful then, and in fact I still believe in.’” On Barack Obama’s presidential campaign website, one could see a photo of Obama in a classroom “teaching students Alinskyan methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, ‘Power Analysis’ and ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,…’”15 (Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model; By David Horowitz; Discover The Networks; © 2009 – PDF Document)

 

Both Hillary and Obama had a Middle Class upbringing with Left oriented families. There is no surprise that Hillary and Obama radicalized toward the Left both being attracted to activism pointed toward the underprivileged. In the 1950s and 60s such activism typically led to an attraction to Marxist principles to transform America to an egalitarian utopia.

 

We Conservatives like to call Republicans with a diluted to nonexistent Conservatives as Republicans in Name Only (RINO). How much diluted Conservatism do we accept as Conservative before we bend our ears back and shout RINO? Let’s take Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and former GOP Vice Presidential Nominee in 2012. After perusing OnTheIssues.org Ryan definitely has a Conservative pedigree. And yet Tea Party Conservative express vitriol towards Ryan for coming up with a give-n-take Budget that obviously only places a dent in the Budget instead of putting a Budget together that exudes Less Government, Less Government Spending and better taxes. Frankly it will be impossible to pass a Budget that will make Conservatives happy with a Socialist minded President and a Dem Party Senate dominated by the principles of Marxist-Socialism. Regardless of the criticism some movement is better than zero. My concern about Paul Ryan rather than defending his Conservative pedigree he may be joining the Republican Establishment to vacate Tea Party Conservatives from the GOP.

 

Tea Party Conservatives believe the GOP Establishment should excised from the Republican. Obama’s Left Wing fringe is praying (to whoever the ungodly pray to) the Republican Establishment ejects Tea Party Conservatives, Social Conservatives and those known as the Religious Right. I found a guy that is a homosexual Leftist that actually the Conservative Wing of the GOP as the Fringe Right. The reality this ungodly dude exemplifies the Fringe Left dominating the Democratic Party. Check out this support for the Republican Establishment:

 

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) finally told Tea Party extremists to jump in a lake. He was incensed by reflexive criticism from outside pressure groups that bitterly opposed a new budget deal negotiated by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) and Sen. Patty Murray, (D-Wash). The Ohio Republican realized that these implacable “conservatives” had their own agenda that did not include what was best for the American people. So radical was their position, that they would risk another government shutdown, which would be a calamity for the Republican Party.

 

 

In my view, the Republican brain trust should abandon its reliance on social conservatives and Tea Party activists. They haven’t already done so out of fear that it would be political suicide that would cost them their base. However, by dumping these extremists, the GOP would almost immediately gain new credibility with Independent voters. They would also put conservative Democrats into play who lean right, but won’t vote for GOP candidates because of their retrograde views on social issues.

 

 

Dumping the Tea, as well as the Religious Right, would also increase the Republican odds of winning the presidency. In the last couple of election cycles, the GOP primaries attracted two types of presidential candidates: Those who are crazy (Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann) and those who abandoned their principles and pretended to be insane in order to win (John McCain and “severe conservative” Mitt Romney). The influence of radical elements in the primaries produced flawed candidates who appeared plastic and insincere. A worst-case scenario was the drafting of the unqualified Sarah Palin for Vice President, which badly damaged McCain’s credibility.

 

… (John Boehner Should Stop Fishing In the Tea Party Piranha Stream; By Wayne Besen [Leader of group Truth Wins Out]; Falls Church News Press; 12/17/13 4:16 PM)

 

So if the Fringe Left views the Republican Establishment as an ally in the sense of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, why indeed should Tea Party Conservatives remain a part of a Political Party in which the power structure does not desire Conservative Principles or Conservative Values? My God my fellow Americans! The Republican Establishment is calling the Conservative base that retook the House in 2012 is being vilified as fringe outside groups and basically must discover their pecking order within the GOP.

 

JRH 1/9/13

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.”

 

BHO Agenda to Divide and Conquer America


Obama Divider

John R. Houk

© September 18, 2012

 

Discover The Networks has sent me an update about a recent post about President Barack Hussein Obama. The update focuses on three areas:

 

1)     Dividing America by Class

 

2)     Dividing America by Race/Ethnicity

 

3)     Dividing America by Sex

 

The “Class” exposé is largely about of BHO’s employment of the Saul Alinsky Method. Krauthammer fails to use the word Communism, but that is exactly what the Alinsky Method is. The Alinsky Method is basically Marxist-Gramscianism placed into action (HERE is a more detailed explanation of Gramscianism).

 

The DTN exposé of BHO’s race/ethnicity is a light shone on the darkness Black Liberation Theology which originally is Black versus Whitey that has been updated with baiting American minorities with hate toward Caucasians as if White Americans are still living in the pre-Civil Rights Movement days influenced by old Southern Confederate racism. BHO’s Marxist part is to unite minorities in a political race war in which racial anger and hate unites divergent minorities against perceived White Supremacism. BHO’s agenda will literally pull America apart as he teaches Caucasians again to despise American minorities due to self-preservation.

 

DTN exposes a war of the sexes by BHO trying irrationally to drive a wedge between males and females. Sure there are some fairness issues for women in America but not as much as during pre-Civil Rights Movement days. Part of this wedge is exploiting the Leftist thought of Pro-Choice women in desiring to normalize contraceptive-abortions as a right to control their own body rather than the reality of murdering an unborn person growing inside a woman’s womb.

 

Krauthammer inspired this DTN post with a Washington Post article entitled “Divider in chief”. Krauthammer is bit of an Establishment Conservative more than a Social Values Conservative. Because of this is a failure to address BHO’s agenda of dividing Americans by disdaining Christian Biblical Morality. Hence is now out of the closet on the issue of Marriage. Biblically Marriage is between a male and a female and not a male and a male OR a female and a female. Obama has joined the war on Christianity in a big way lining up with the Leftist big guns of controlling the Mainstream Media editorial content and the entertainment industry such as Hollywood and Television. BHO’s full union with the Homosexual Agenda of normalizing homosexuality by making Biblical Christians into bigots is in full swing. Simply check out some of the pro-homosexual programming coming to Prime Time Television this Fall.

 

JRH 9/18/12

Please Support NCCR

Huma Abedin-Muslim Brotherhood Themed Stories


 

IMMA Editorial Board - Saleha and Huma Abedin

 

Posted August 12, 2012

 

Here are a series of articles questioning the National Security risks that might probably exist between Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

The contributors are ACT for America highlighting an Andrew Bostom essay, two articles from WalidShoebat.com and finally the best and the must read article by Danny Jeffrey that points the finger of shame-on-you toward John McCain, John Boehner, Lindsey Graham, Ed Rollins (former Bachmann for Prez Campaign Manager) and Fox News for putting Michelle Bachmann into cement shoes and tossing her in the river to placate political correctness and undoubtedly multiculturalist thinking.

 

HOW CRAZY IS THAT?

 

JRH 8/12/12

Please Support NCCR