Community Agitator-In-Chief Obama Never Saw Himself As An ‘American’ – On His OWN View

This is kind of funny, in a sick, twisted, ironic sort of way.  Remember how Democrats demonized anybody who in any way, shape or form drew attention to Obama’s middle name “Hussein” as “racist”???  And then Barack Hussein HIMSELF took the oath of office using his middle name???  Yeah, in the same way anybody who in any way, shape or form questioned Obama’s patriotism or questioned his commitment to America had to be a racist; but now we find out that Obama HIMSELF WAS QUESTIONING HIS COMMITMENT TO AMERICA:

In new biography, Obama asks: Am I an American?
by Byron York Chief Political Correspondent
posted May 7 | 8:47pm at8:47pm

Ever since the 2008 campaign, many voters, and some journalists too, have felt they know Barack Obama’s life story. In fact, the story they know is the one Obama told them.

Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” published in 1995, has become the semi-official record of his life. But it is not the complete record of his life. It’s partially fictionalized, with composite characters that Obama has always acknowledged were created to make the story read better. It focuses on a few themes Obama wanted to present to the public about himself. And, as with any memoir, it is told completely from Obama’s point of view. It’s not a biography.

Next month the beginnings of an Obama biography will be published, by former Washington Post reporter David Maraniss. Readers wanting to learn about Obama’s entire life will be disappointed to discover that Maraniss stops when Obama is age 27, as he finishes work as a community organizer in Chicago and heads to Harvard Law School. Obama’s law school years, his practice of law in Chicago, his campaigns and career as an Illinois state senator, U.S. senator, presidential candidate — none of that will be covered.

Still, an excerpt of the Maraniss book published last week in Vanity Fair reveals a portrait of Obama that might have enriched the voters’ understanding of him in the 2008 campaign, when many Americans were eager to learn about this new, fresh face in politics.

The excerpt focuses on Obama’s brief time in New York after his graduation from Columbia University. The son of a Kenyan father and an American expatriate mother, Obama emerges as a man questioning whether he viewed himself, or wanted to be viewed by others, as an American. Not in a citizenship sense — Obama was born in the United States and that was that — but in the sense of how he saw the world and wanted to be seen by it.

Obama had a lot of Pakistani friends; Maraniss writes that if Obama and his girlfriend socialized as a couple, “it was almost always with the Pakistanis.” Obama appeared to identify with his friends as fellow non-Americans. “For years when Barack was around them, he seemed to share their attitudes as sophisticated outsiders who looked at politics from an international perspective,” Maraniss writes. “He was one of them, in that sense.”

But Obama was ambitious. Appalled by the “dirty deeds” of “Reagan and his minions” (as he wrote in “Dreams from My Father”), Obama became increasingly interested in, as Maraniss writes, “gaining power in order to change things.” He couldn’t do that as an international guy hanging around with his Pakistani friends; he needed to become an American.

So he did. One of those Pakistani friends, Beenu Mahmood, saw a major change in Obama. Mahmood calls Obama “the most deliberate person I ever met in terms of constructing his own identity,” according to Maraniss. The time after college, Mahmood says, “was an important period for him, first the shift from not international but American, number one, and then not white, but black.”

Years later, the picture of Obama as a young adult wondering whether or not he was really an American was precisely the image that the Hillary Clinton campaign wanted to impose on the middle-aged Obama. In internal memos, top Clinton strategist Mark Penn questioned Obama’s “lack of American roots,” writing that “Obama’s roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”

Clinton didn’t come out and say that during the campaign, but she did everything she could to present herself as the all-American candidate in the race. Her campaign didn’t play Tom Petty’s “American Girl” at all her rallies for nothing.

In the general election, the contrast between Obama and John McCain was, of course, even more stark. At the age Obama was wondering whether he was an American or not, McCain, the son and grandson of U.S. Navy admirals, was a newly-commissioned officer at Naval Air Station Pensacola, headed for a noteworthy military career. It seems unlikely McCain spent much time musing on whether he was an American.

In the end, as the Maraniss excerpt has it, Obama chose to become an American in part because that’s what he needed to be to accomplish his goals. The story of what he did after that momentous decision will, unfortunately, have to wait for another biography.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

We already knew that Barack Obama was never a true American long ago:

“To avoid being mistaken for a white sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.” –Barack Obama, Dreams From My Father

None of those groups are “American” in the sense that the overwhelming majority of the American people would ever affirm or certainly would ever embrace.

And that’s just ONE of the many troublesome quotes Obama told us before the most radically liberal Senator became president.

Obama didn’t want to hang out with those who loved America, but only with those who hated it and felt marginalized by it.  It’s beyond terrifying – and I mean “Manchurian Candidate” terrifying – that someone who without any question whatsoever thought that way as an adult man is now the president of the United States.

Dinesh D’Souza pointed out a rather terrifying thing that the media never bothered to examine emerging from Obama’s title – “Dreams FROM My Father”:

What then is Obama’s dream? We don’t have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father’s dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn’t writing about his father’s dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.

So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.

An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa’s struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country’s future.

I know a great deal about anticolonialism, because I am a native of Mumbai, India. I am part of the first Indian generation to be born after my country’s independence from the British. Anticolonialism was the rallying cry of Third World politics for much of the second half of the 20th century. To most Americans, however, anticolonialism is an unfamiliar idea, so let me explain it.

Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama’s acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, “The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races.”

D’Souza clearly didn’t want to “go there,” but Barack (actually Barak) Hussein Obama, Sr., was also a self-acknowledged and commited communist.  Obama received his dreams from a committed Marxist ideologue.

Dreams FROM my communist, America-hating father.

What the mainstream media did with its abject refusal to examine Barack Obama’s background is absolutely STUNNING.  The same media that literally flew thousands of miles to dig through Sarah Palin’s trash cans didn’t bother to look into Obama’s background in any way, shape or form unless it was exclusively complimentary of him.  The American people were not allowed to know anything about Obama beyond what he wanted the American people to know about him.  And it turns out that he fabricated a great deal of that past that the media swallowed hook, line and sinker with “composite characters, etc.

We’re told that Obama always said he’d created “composite characters,” etc.  But how on EARTH can the media justify not bothering to examine the REAL people and events that shaped a future president of the United States?  Because that is PRECISELY the argument they use when they dig through every detail of the lives of every Republican presidential candidate.

Do you remember the insane media not only pouring through Sarah Palin’s 24,199 emails, but actually asking the public to help them look for dirt???

Liberals are so rabidly diseased with evil and hypocrisy it is beyond unreal.  When I refer to “Democrats” as actually standing for “Demonic Bureaucrats,” I am being completely serious.

And just as Obama’s girlfriends are fake, his college records, etc. are sealed in a way that no American president’s records have EVER been sealed.  We don’t get to know ANYTHING about this guy.

Think about it this way: when Herman Cain ran for president, women suddenly crawled out of the woodwork to claim that Cain had sexually harassed them.  And of course they were represented by radical liberal and pro-Democrat shysters like Gloria Allred.  When Cain dropped out – or more accurately, when he was forced out by a media that went batpoop trying to destroy a black man who was TWICE as “black” and a billion times more American than Barack Obama – suddenly all those women just conveniently went away.  Because of course it was never about “sexual harassment”; it was completely about the Democrat Party using bogus allegations to attack a black Republican very much like the Democrat Ku Klux Klan would have done in the 1860s except without the pointed hoods.

And now it turns out that the only girlfriend Obama ever had in his entire life was fabricated.  And the same media that crawled up Herman Cain’s rectum wouldn’t bother to lift a finger to tell us about the REAL Barack Obama.

Barack Obama does not love America any more than the father from whom Obama got all of his dreams.

And anyone who doesn’t understand that fact is simply a fool.  Particularly since Obama himself has acknowledged it.

Worst Hypocrite Who Ever Lived To Ask For Yet ANOTHER Trillion-Plus Dollar Debt Ceiling Hike

Obama then:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Obama then:

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

And then there’s the Obama of now.  There’s the president who demonized his predecessor in a vicious and hateful way who has since demanded the three highest debt ceiling increases in the history of the entire human race.

Obama is demanding yet another debt ceiling hike – this one to the tune of $1.2 trillion.  Because he is determined to spend until our children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children are still paying off his debts.  Because that is liberalism in a nutshell: destroy America and destroy any chance of a future America ever coming back.

Democrats seem to think that if America even has so much as a thousand-to-one longshot chance of having a future, they haven’t done their job.

It’s as if in the Democrat Party the Soviet Union stabbed us in the heart from the grave.  The Communist Party USA sings Obama’s praises as “one of us!” while the former U.S.S.R. mouthpiece Pravda openly mocks Obama’s America as having a fervent desire to commit national suicide.

The true “Da, Comrade!” Party of socialism in America is the Democrat Party.  And that is simply a documented fact.

And, of course, if Republicans try to do the right thing and stand up against the most completely-out-of-control government in human history, they will be demonized into submission by the Democrat-media complex.  You don’t dare do the right thing in God damn America anymore; the American people are too stupid and too evil and too bent on going the way of the Dodo bird.

Which is why the beast is coming.

Fascist Jane Fonda Says Biggest Regret Not Sleeping With Communist Who Personally Ordered 700 Executions

I just got back from barfing after seeing this, so I’m in a somewhat foul mood:

September 05, 2011
Jane Fonda Says Her Biggest Regret Is Not Sleeping with Che Guevara

AP Graphics

… By mid-1970, she was nearly broke, having spent thousands financing her trips and her many causes. ‘It’s sort of relaxing to be poor,’ she told friends.

It was chiefly to replenish her coffers that she agreed to star as the call girl Bree Daniels in the 1971 film Klute, which won her an Oscar. She also started sleeping with her co-star Donald Sutherland, who fell madly in love with her.

Together, they took a political vaudeville show called FTA — slang for ‘f*** the army’ — across the country. By then, both were under surveillance, so they often talked in code.

FBI agents opened her post, tapped her phone and even planted a false story that she wanted to kill the President. Her FBI files later extended to 22,000 pages.

Of course, Jane didn’t help her case by declaring publicly that what Vietnam really needed was a ‘victory for the Vietcong’ — the Communist army fighting the U.S. government over South Vietnam.

Another of her ideas was to dress protesters as dead Vietcong fighters — in white make-up and black leotards — to demonstrate on the lawn of comedian Bob Hope, who had been entertaining U.S. troops.

Eventually, Jane split from Sutherland, saying she was moving into a different phase of her life and she couldn’t share it with one man. There were soon rumours that she was having liaisons with various activists.

She supposedly confided during a feminist consciousness-raising session, ‘My biggest regret is I never got to f*** Che Guevara.’

Che Guevara was a sociopathic mass murderer who killed because he enjoyed killing.

Here’s the monster fascist liberal Democrat Jane Fonda so regrets never f******:

Chief executioner for the Castro regime, responsible for the murder of thousands Was appointed Cuba’s Minister of Economics in 1960; within months the Cuban peso was practically worthless. Was appointed Cuba’s Minister of Industries in 1961; within a year a previously prosperous nation was rationing food, closing factories, and losing hundreds of thousands of its most productive citizens, who were happy to flee with only the clothes on their backs. Background Ernesto “Che” Guevara de la Serna was born on June 14, 1928, in Rosario, Argentina. After studying medicine at the University of Buenos Aires, Guevara embarked on a life of political activism — first in his native Argentina and afterward in neighboring Bolivia and Guatemala. In 1954, while in Mexico, he met the Cuban revolutionaries Fidel Castro and his brother Raul. Guevara joined Fidel Castro’s quest to overthrow the government of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba. He served as a military advisor to Castro and led guerrilla troops in combat against Batista forces. When Castro officially took power in 1959, Guevara was placed in charge of La Cabaña Fortress prison. Che Guevara: Leftwing Monster In August of 1960, a year and a half after Che Guevara entered Havana ahead of his “column” of “guerrillas,” Time magazine featured the revolutionary comandante on its cover and crowned him the “Brains of the Cuban Revolution.” (Fidel Castro was “the heart” and Raul Castro “the fist.”) “Wearing a smile of melancholy sweetness that many women find devastating,” read the Time article, “Che guides Cuba with icy calculation, vast competence, high intelligence and a perceptive sense of humor.” “This is not a Communist Revolution in any sense of the term,” The New York Times had declared a year earlier. “Fidel Castro is not only not a Communist, he is decidedly anti-Communist.” “It would be a great mistake,” Walter Lippmann wrote in the Washington Post that same month, “even to intimate that Castro’s Cuba has any real prospect of becoming a Soviet satellite.” A few months earlier the London Observer had observed: “Mr. Castro’s bearded youthful figure has become a symbol of Latin America’s rejection of brutality and lying. Every sign is that he will reject personal rule and violence.” Time magazine was in perfect sync with her major-media peers — utterly wrong. Guevara was no more the brains of the Cuban Revolution than Cheka-head Felix Drezhinsky had been the brains of the Bolshevik Revolution, or Gestapo chief Himmler the brains of the National Socialist Revolution, or KGB head Beria the brains behind Stalinism. In fact Che performed the same role for Fidel Castro as Drezhinsky performed for Lenin, Himmler for Hitler and Beria for Stalin. Che Guevara was the Castro regime’s chief executioner. Under Che, Havana’s La Cabana fortress was converted into Cuba’s Lubianka. He was a true Chekist: “Always interrogate your prisoners at night,” Che commanded his prosecutorial goons, “a man is easier to cow at night, his mental resistance is always lower.” [1] A Cuban prosecutor of the time who quickly defected in horror and disgust named Jose Vilasuso estimates that Che signed 400 death warrants the first few months of his command in La Cabana. A Basque priest named Iaki de Aspiazu, who was often on hand to perform confessions and last rites, says Che personally ordered 700 executions by firing squad during the period. Cuban journalist Luis Ortega, who knew Che as early as 1954, writes in his book Yo Soy El Che! that Guevara sent 1,897 men to the firing squad. In his book Che Guevara: A Biography, Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering “several thousand” executions during the first year of the Castro regime. Felix Rodriguez, the Cuban-American CIA operative who helped track him down in Bolivia and was the last person to question him, says that Che during his final talk, admitted to “a couple thousand” executions. But he shrugged them off as all being of “imperialist spies and CIA agents.” Vengeance, much less justice, had little to do with the Castro/Che directed bloodbath in the first months of 1959. Che’s murderous agenda in La Cabana fortress in 1959 was exactly Stalin’s murderous agenda in the Katyn Forest in 1940. Like Stalin’s massacre of the Polish officer corps, like Stalin’s Great Terror against his own officer corps a few years earlier, Che’s firing squad marathons were a perfectly rational and cold blooded exercise that served their purpose ideally. His bloodbath decapitated literally and figuratively the first ranks of Cuba’s anti-Castro rebels. Five years earlier, while still a Communist hobo in Guatemala, Che had seen the Guatemalan officer corps with CIA assistance rise against the Red regime of Jacobo Arbenz and send him and his Communist minions hightailing into exile. (For those leftists who still think that Arbenz was an innocent “nationalist” victimized by the fiendish United Fruit Company and their CIA proxies, please note: Arbenz sought exile not in France or Spain or even Mexico — the traditional havens for deposed Latin-American politicians — but in the Soviet satellite, Czechoslovakia. Also, the coup went into motion, not when Arbenz started nationalizing United Fruit property, but when a cargo of Soviet-bloc weapons arrived in Guatemala. “Arbenz didn’t execute enough people,” was how Guevara explained the Guatemalan coup’s success.) [2] Fidel and Che didn’t want a repeat of the Guatemalan coup in Cuba. Equally important, the massacres cowed and terrorized. Most of them came after public trials. And the executions, right down to the final shattering of the skull with the coup de grace from a massive .45 slug fired at five paces, were public too. Guevara made it a policy for his men to parade the families and friends of the executed before the blood, bone and brain spattered firing squad. Had Ernesto Guevara De La Serna y Lynch not linked up with Raul and Fidel Castro in Mexico city that fateful summer of 1955 — had he not linked up with a Cuban exile named Nico Lopez in Guatemala the year before who later introduced him to Raul and Fidel Castro in Mexico city — everything points to Ernesto continuing his life of a traveling hobo, mooching off women, staying in flophouses and scribbling unreadable poetry. Che was a Revolutionary Ringo Starr. By pure chance, he fell in with the right bunch at just the right time and rode their coattails to fame. His very name “Che” was imparted by the Cubans who hob-knobbed with him in Mexico. Argentines use the term “Che” much like Cubans use “Chico” or Michael Moore fans use “dude.” The Cubans noticed Guevara using it so they pasted it to him. And it stuck. Fidel had brought the recently monikered “Che” on the Granma invasion of Cuba as the rebel group’s doctor, based on his bogus credentials. On the harrowing boat ride through turbulent seas from the Yucatan to Cuba’s Oriente province in the decrepit old yacht, a rebel found Che lying comatose in the boat’s cabin. He rushed to the commander, “Fidel, looks like Che’s dead!” “Well, if he’s dead,” replied Castro. “Then throw him overboard.” In fact Guevara was suffering the combined effects of seasickness and an asthma attack. [3] Evidently, Che was not regarded as an invaluable member of the expedition at the time. But today his famous photo by Alberto Korda ranks as the most reproduced print in the world. Last year Burlington Industries introduced a line of infant wear bearing his famous image. Even the Pope, on his visit to Cuba in 1998, spoke approvingly about Che’s “ideals.” Che owes all this hype and flummery to the century’s top media swindler, Fidel Castro, who also dispatched the hero deliberately to his death. As those who know say, “Fidel only praises the dead.” ***************** As for the rest of Time’s assertions, other than his competence at murdering bound, gagged and blindfolded men, Che Guevara failed spectacularly at everything he attempted in his life. First he failed as an Argentine medical student. Though he’s widely described as a medical doctor by his hagiographers (Castaneda, Anderson, Taibo, Kalfon) no record exists of Guevara’s medical degree. When Cuban-American researcher Enrique Ros inquired of the Rector of the University of Buenos Aires and the head of its Office of Academic Affairs for copies or proof of said document, Ros was variously told that the records had been misplaced or perhaps stolen. [4] In 1960 Castro appointed Che as Cuba’s “Minister of Economics.” Within months the Cuban peso, a currency historically equal to the U.S. dollar and fully backed by Cuba’s gold reserves, was practically worthless. The following year Castro appointed Che as Cuba’s “Minister of Industries.” Within a year a nation that previously had higher per capita income than Austria and Japan, a huge influx of immigrants and the 3rd highest protein consumption in the hemisphere was rationing food, closing factories, and hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of its most productive citizens from every sector of its society, all who were grateful to leave with only the clothes on their back. Most observers attribute this to “Communist mismanagement.” Che himself confessed to his multiple economic errors and failings. Actually, given the goal of Cuba’s ruler since January of 1959 — i.e., absolute power — the Cuban economy has been expertly managed. Castro inherited a vibrant free market economy in 1959 (something unique among communist rulers). All the others — from Lenin to Mao to Ho to Ulbricht to Tito to Kim Il Sung –took over primitive and/or chaotic, war-ravaged economies. A less megalomaniacal ruler would have considered that a golden goose had landed in his lap. But Castro wrung its neck. He deliberately and methodically wrecked Latin America’s premier economy. A Cuban capitalist is a person that couldn’t be controlled, Castro reasoned then, and continues to do so to this day. Despite a flood of tourism and foreign investment for over a decade, Cuba in 2005 is as essentially as poor (and Communist) as it was in 1965 or worse. The Castro brothers are vigilant in these matters. Che actually believed in the socialist fantasy. When he pronounced in May of 1961 that under his tutelage the Cuban economy would boast an annual growth rate of 10% he seemed to believe it. Castro didn’t care. He simply knew as a result he’d be running Cuba like his personal plantation, with the Cuban people as his cattle. This is where libertarian/free-market ideologues get it wrong. They insist that with the lifting of the embargo, capitalism will sneak in and eventually blindside Castro. All the proof is to the contrary. Capitalism didn’t sweep Castro away or even co-opt him. He blindsided it. He swept it away. He is not Deng or Gorbachev. In 1959 Castro could have easily left most of Cuba’s economy in place, made it obedient to his whims, and been a Peron, a Franco, a Mussolini – the idol of his youth. He could have grabbed half and been a Tito. He could have demanded a piece of the action from all involved and been a Marcos, a Trujillo, a Mobutu, a Suharto. But this wasn’t enough for him. Castro lusted for the power of a Stalin or a Mao. And he got it. ***************** Che Guevara’s most famous book is titled Guerrilla Warfare. His famous photo is captioned “Heroic Guerrilla.” On the other hand his most resounding failure came precisely as a guerrilla, while there is no record of him prevailing in any bona-fide guerrilla battle. In fact, there are precious few accounts that he actually fought in anything properly described as a battle. The one that describes his most famous military exploit is referred to as “The Battle of Santa Clara,” which took place in December 1958. The loss of this “battle” by the Batista forces is alleged to have caused Batista to lose hope and flee Cuba. To commemorate this historic military engagement, Castro has built a Che Guevara museum in Santa Clara. “One Thousand Killed in 5 days of Fierce Street Fighting,” proclaimed a New York Times headline on Jan 4, 1959 about the battle. “Commander Che Guevara appealed to Batista troops for a truce to clear the streets of casualties” the articles continued. “Guevara turned the tide in this bloody battle and whipped a Batista force of 3,000 men.” “Those of us who were there can only laugh at this stuff,” say participants on both sides who live in exile today. [5] In fact, the Battle of Santa Clara — despite what those early versions of Jayson Blair reported — was a puerile skirmish. Che Guevara’s own diary mentions that his column suffered exactly one casualty (a soldier known as El Vaquerito) in this ferocious “battle.” Other accounts put the grand total of rebel losses as from three to five men. Most of Batista’s soldiers saw no reason to fight for a crooked, unpopular regime that was clearly doomed. So they didn’t fire a shot, even those on the famous “armored train,” that Guevara supposedly attacked and captured. Today that armored train is a major tourist attraction in Santa Clara. The train, loaded with 373 soldiers and $4M worth of munitions, was sent from Havana to Santa Clara in late December of 1958 by Batista’s high command as a last ditch attempt to halt the rebels. Che’s rebels in Santa Clara bulldozed the tracks and the train derailed just outside of town. Then a few rebels shot at it and a few soldiers fired back. No one was hurt. Soon some rebels approached brandishing a truce flag and one of the train’s officers, Enrique Gomez, walked out to meet them. Gomez was brought to meet Comandante Guevara. “What’s going on here!’ Che shouted. “This isn’t what we agreed on!” Gomez was puzzled. “What agreement?” he asked.[6] It turned out, unbeknownst to the troops inside, Guevara had used funds the revolutionaries had raised from anti-Batista Cubans to buy the train and all its armaments from its corrupt commander Colonel Florentino Rossell, who had already fled to Miami. The price was either $350,000 or $1,000,000, depending on the source. [7] Actually Che had every reason to be upset. Actual shots fired against his troops? Here’s another eye-witness account regarding Che’s famous “invasion” of las Villas Province shortly before the famous “battle” of Santa Clara. “Guevara’s column shuffled right into the U.S. agricultural experimental station in Camaguey. Guevara asked manager Joe McGuire to have a man take a package to Batista’s military commander in the city. The package contained $100,000 with a note. Guevara’s men moved through the province almost within sight of uninterested Batista troops.” [8] Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo was a Rebel captain who had been in on many of these transactions but he defected mere months after the Rebel victory. In an El Diario de Nueva York article dated June 25th 1959 he claimed that Castro still had $4,500,000 left in that “fund” at the time of the Revolutionary victory. “I don’t know what might have happened to that money.” Rodriguez Tamayo adds. Yet immediately after the Santa Clara bribe and skirmish, Che ordered 27 Batista soldiers executed as “war criminals.” Dr. Serafin Ruiz was a Castro operative in Santa Clara at the time, but apparently an essentially decent one. “But Comandante” he responded to Che’s order. “Our revolution promises not to execute without trials, without proof. How can we just….?” “Look Serafin” Che snorted back. “If your bourgeois prejudices won’t allow you to carry out my orders, fine. Go ahead and try them tomorrow morning — but execute them NOW!” [9] It was a Marxist version of the Red Queen’s famous line to Alice in Wonderland: “Sentence first — verdict afterwards!” Che Guevara’s own diary puts the grand total of his forces’ losses during the entire two-year long “civil war” in Cuba at 20, about equal to the average number dead during Rio de Janeiro’s carnival every year. To put it briefly, Batista’s army barely fought. Officials in Cuba’s U.S. embassy at the time became a little skeptical about all the battlefield bloodshed and heroics reported in the New York Times and investigated. They ran down every reliable lead and eyewitness account of what the New York Times kept reporting as bloody civil war with thousands dead in single battles. They found that in the entire Cuban countryside, in those two years of “ferocious” battles between rebel forces and Batista troops, the total casualties on both sides actually amounted to 182. [10] New Orleans has an annual murder rate double that. Typically, Che Guevara doesn’t even merit credit for the perfectly sensible scheme of bribing rather than fighting Batista’s army. The funds for these bribes derived mostly from Fidel’s snookering of Batista’s wealthy political opponents, convincing them that he was a “patriotic Cuban, a democrat,” and that they should join, or at least help fund, his 26th of July Movement in order to bring democracy and prosperity to Cuba. In late 1957 Castro signed an agreement called “The Miami Pact” with several anti-Batista Cuban politicians and ex-ministers in exile at the time. Most of these were quite wealthy. Indeed if the term, “rich, white Miami Cuban exiles,” that liberals scornfully use against current Cuban-Americans ever fit — it was for the mulatto Batista’s liberal opponents, for Fidel Castro’s early backers. Among these was former president Carlos Prio who Batista had ousted in his (bloodless) coup in 1952, along with many of Prio’s ministers and business cronies. In fact, Guevara went ballistic over the Miami Pact, when he first learned of it, over this shameful deal with “bourgeois” elements. “I refuse to lend my historic name to that crime!” he wrote. “We rebels have proffered our asses in the most despicable act of buggery that Cuban history is likely to recall!” [11] It was despicable buggery for sure. But Che had the buggerers and the buggerees reversed. Lenin coined the term “Useful Idiots,” but to this day Castro remains history’s virtuoso at snaring and employing them. That a “guerrilla war” with “peasant and worker backing” overthrew Batista is among the century’s most widespread and persistent academic fables. No Cuban Castroites who participated actually believe this. The Associated Press dispatches about Castro and Che’s “war” were actually concocted and written by Castro’s own agent in New York, Mario Llerena, who admits as much in his book, The Unsuspected Revolution. Llerena was also the contact with Castro’s most famous publicity agent, the New York Times, Herbert Matthews. National Review‘s famous 1960 cartoon showing a beaming Castro, “I got my job through the New York Times!” nailed it. To give them credit, most of Castro’s comandantes knew their Batista war had been an elaborate ruse and gaudy clown show. After the glorious victory, they were content to run down and execute the few Batista men motivated enough to shoot back (most of these were of humble background), settle into the mansions stolen from Batistianos, and enjoy the rest of their booty. British historian Hugh Thomas, though a leftist Labour Party member who sympathized with Castro’s revolution, studied mountains of records and simply could not evade the truth. His massive and authoritative historical volume Cuba sums it up very succinctly: “In all essentials Castro’s battle for Cuba was a public relations campaign, fought in New York and Washington.” Che Guevara, himself, possessed an immense capacity for self-deception. On a state visit to Czechoslovakia in 1960 his Cuban companions pointed out the numerous prostitutes on the streets and in the very hotel where they stayed. Che nodded wearily. Back in Cuba when one of them winked and brought up the prostitutes Che flared indignantly. “I didn’t see any prostitutes there!” [12] The Cubans looked at each other shrugging but knew better than to press the issue. Che didn’t want to remember the sight of prostitutes. He wanted to convince himself that such a thing was impossible in a glorious Socialist nation, a sister republic. That gift for self-deception probably led him to believe the guerrilla war fable. And while trying to duplicate it in Bolivia he paid for his obtuseness and wishful thinking with his life. In Cuba, Che couldn’t find anyone to fight against him. In the Congo, scene of another of his guerrilla forays, he couldn’t find anyone to fight with him. In Bolivia he finally started getting a tiny taste of both. In short order he was betrayed by the very peasants he set out to liberate (but who didn’t see it quite that way), brought to ground and killed. Shortly after entering Havana with the revolutionary forces, Che was already advising, equipping and dispatching guerrilla forces in an attempt to duplicate the Cuban Revolution in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Every one of those guerrilla forces (which were Cuban Communist-led and staffed) was wiped out in short order, usually to the last man. Rafael Trujillo and Luis Somoza weren’t about to follow Batista’s example of pussyfooting against guerrillas. A few years later Che equipped, advised and sent more guerrillas to Argentina and Guatemala. Again they were stamped out almost to a man. These guerrilla expeditions cost the lives of two of Che’s fatally credulous friends: the Argentine Jorge Masseti and the Guatemalan Julio Caceres. Leftist “scholars” complain about The Bay of Pigs invasion as “Yankee intervention” (though every single invader, including the commanders was Cuban) against an innocent nationalist revolution that wished only to be left alone. They might revisit the documentary evidence. In fact Castro and Che launched five of their own versions of the Bay of Pigs invasions before the U.S. had even started contingency planning for theirs. Castro seemed to know these invasions to spark revolutions were futile. But for Castro they still had a handy rationale. “These foreigners are nothing but troublemakers,” he told a Cuban rebel named Lazaro Ascencio right after the revolutionary triumph. “Know what I’m going to do with Che Guevara? I’m going to send him to Santo Domingo and see if Trujillo kills him.” [14] How serious was Castro? We can only guess. But he found a way for Che to earn his keep and stay of trouble in Cuba by assigning him as commander of La Cabana, the fortress where political prisoners were held and killed. Che’s role in “Imperialism’s First Defeat!” as Castro refers to the Bay of Pigs invasion merits mention. The American invasion plan included a ruse in which a CIA squad dispatched three rowboats off the coast of western Cuba in Pinar Del Rio (350 miles from the true invasion site) loaded with time release Roman candles, bottle rockets, mirrors and a tape recording of battle. The wily Guerrilla Che immediately deciphered the imperialist scheme. That little feint 300 miles away at the Bay of Pigs was a transparent ruse, he determined. The real invasion was coming in Pinar Del Rio. Che stormed over to the site with several thousand troops, dug in, locked, loaded and waited for the “Yankee/mercenary” attack. They braced themselves as the sparklers, smoke bombs and mirrors did their stuff offshore. Three days later the (literal) smoke and mirror show expended itself and Che’s men marched back to Havana. Somehow Che had managed to wound himself in the heated battle against the tape recorder. The bullet pierced Che’s chin and exited above his temple, just missing his brain. The scar is visible in all post April ’61 pictures of Che (the picture we see on posters and T shirts was taken a year earlier.) Cuban novelist Guillermo Cabrera Infante, a Fidelista at the time, speculates the wound may have come from a botched suicide attempt. Che hagiographers John Lee Anderson, Carlos Castaneda and Paco Taibo insist it was an accident, Che’s own pistol going off just under his face. Jorge Castaneda in his Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara cannot resist giving Che some credit for “Imperialism’s First Defeat.” The Mexican author (and recent foreign minister) writes that Che’s role was “crucial,” explaining that Cuba’s 200,000 man militia played a “central role in the victory.” The training of these militia had been in the hands of Che since 1960. “Without Che” Castaneda gushes, “the militias would not have been reliable.” Here’s a summary of the Battle of the Bay of Pigs, and the militia’s performance: 51,000 Castro troops and militia with limitless Soviet arms, including tanks and planes and batteries of heavy artillery met 1400 mostly civilian exile freedom-fighters, most with less than a month’s training. These men carried only light arms and one day’s ammunition. The Che-trained militia hit them, then immediately halted and fled hysterically. They were ordered back, probed hesitantly again, got mauled again and retreated in headlong flight again. They marched back again, many at gun-point, and rolled in battery after battery of Soviet 122 mm Howitzers. They rained 2000 rounds of heavy artillery into lightly-armed men they outnumbered 50-1. (“Rommel’s crack Afrika Corps broke and ran under a similar bombardment,” explains Bay of Pigs historian Haynes Johnson.) Then Castro’s unopposed air force strafed the invaders repeatedly and at will. The invaders stood their ground to the last man and the militia was forced to probe yet again — and retreat again in headlong flight. They eventually stopped and brought in reinforcements. (50-1 was not enough.) They rained another Soviet artillery storm on the utterly abandoned and hopelessly outnumbered freedom fighters and finally moved in to overwhelm them — after three days of effort in which the invaders hadn’t eaten, drank or slept, and had run out of ammunition. Castro’s forces took 5200 casualties in the process. The freedom fighters suffered 114. [14] Che did show up at the battle site, but the day the shooting ended. He walked into a building strewn with captured and wounded freedom-fighters and looked around with his wry Argentine smile. “We’re going to execute every one of you,” he barked. Then he turned on his heels and walked out. [15] As usual, Castro had a much shrewder plan for the prisoners. His regime reaped a propaganda windfall and 62 million American dollars when JFK ransomed them back. In fact, Castro was fuming at his Militia’s performance. A week after the battle he visited some of the freedom-fighters in their Havana prison cells. One had been an old acquaintance from college. “Hombre, if I had 20,000 men like you guys,” Castro beamed to his old friend. ” I’d have all of Latin America in my hands right now!” [16] ***************** One of the longest and bloodiest guerrilla wars on this continent was fought not by Fidel and Che but against Fidel and Che — and by landless peasants. Farm collectivization was no more voluntary in Cuba than in the Ukraine. And Cuba’s kulaks had guns, a few at first anyway, and put up a heroic resistance until the Kennedy-Khrushchev deal during the “Cuban Missile Crisis” finally starved them of supplies. Cubans know this war as “The Escambray Rebellion.” It’s rarely reported, but Che Guevara had a very bloody hand in one of the major anti-insurgency wars on this continent. Seventy to 80 percent of these rural anti-communist peasant guerrillas were executed on the spot on capture. “We fought with the fury of cornered beasts” was how one of the few lucky ones who escaped alive described the guerrillas’ desperate freedom-fight against the totalitarian agendas of the Cuban regime. (In 1956, when Che linked up with the Cuban exiles in Mexico city, one of them recalls Che railing against the Hungarian freedom-fighters as “Fascists!” and cheering their extermination by Soviet tanks.) In 1962 Che got a chance to do more than cheer from the sidelines. “Cuban militia units (whose training and morale Jorge Castaneda insists we credit to Che) commanded by Russian officers employed flame-throwers to burn the palm-thatched cottages in the Escambray countryside. The peasant occupants were accused of feeding the counterrevolutionaries and bandits.” [17] The Maoist line about how “a guerrilla swims in the sea which is the people, etc.,” fit Cuba’s anti-Communist rebellion perfectly. Raul Castro himself admitted that his government faced 179 bands of “counter-revolutionaries” and “bandits.” at the time. So in a massive “relocation” campaign reminiscent of the one Spanish General Valerinao “The Butcher” Weyler carried out against Cubans during their war of independence at the turn of the century, Castro’s Soviet-trained armed forces ripped hundreds of thousands of rural Cubans from their ancestral homes at gunpoint and herded them into concentration camps on the opposite side of Cuba. According to evidence presented to the Organization of American States by Cuban-exile researcher Dr. Claudio Beneda, 4000 anti-Communist peasants were summarily executed during this rural rebellion. Time magazine notwithstanding, Fidel Castro — and Fidel Castro alone — was the “brains” of the Cuban Revolution. And part of his acumen was his proficiency at sizing up his revolutionary companeros, then delegating jobs — then eliminating them in various ways as circumstances dictated. With Guevara he performed masterfully. First he assigned him to be commander of Havana’s La Cabana fortress, which Che promptly converted to a prison and killing field. “Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!” Che Guevara wrote these lines while in his early twenties, before he had gotten his hands on any such enemy. The passage appears in Che’s Motorcycle Diaries, recently made into a heartwarming film by Robert Redford — the only film to get a whooping standing ovation at the Sundance Film Festival. It seems that Redford omitted this inconvenient portion of Che’s diaries from his touching tribute. Two weeks after Che entered Havana and took his post at La Cabana fortress, Castro saw his instincts as a personnel manager fully vindicated. The “acrid odor of gunpowder and blood” never reached Guevara’s nostrils from actual combat. It always came from the close range murder of bound, gagged and blindfolded men. “We must create the pedagogy of the paredon (firing squad.)” Che instructed his Revolutionary Tribunals: “We don’t need proof to execute a man. We only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him. A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.” [18] Actually, Che Guevara was anything but a “cold killing machine.” The term implies a certain detachment or nonchalance towards murder. In fact Che gave ample evidence of enjoying it. Almost all Cubans who knew him and are now in exile and able to talk freely (Jose Benitez, Mario Chanes de Armas Dariel Alarcon among others) recall Che Guevara as a classic psychopath. In January 1957, shortly after landing in Cuba aboard the yacht Granma with Fidel and Raul Castro, Che sent a letter to his discarded wife, Hilda Gadea. “Dear vieja (i.e, ‘Ole Lady’ — on top of everything else, Che was also a notorious misogynist) I’m here in Cuba’s hills, alive and thirsting for blood.” [19] His thirst would soon be slaked. In that very month, January 1957, Fidel Castro ordered the execution of a peasant guerrilla named Eutimio Guerra who he accused of being an informer for Batista’s forces. Castro assigned the killing to his own bodyguard, Universo Sanchez. To everyone’s surprise, Che Guevara — a lowly rebel soldier/medic at the time (not yet a comandante — volunteered to accompany Sanchez and another soldier to the execution site. The Cuban rebels were glum as they walked slowly down the trail in a torrential thunderstorm. Finally the little group stopped in a clearing. Sanchez was hesitant, looking around, perhaps looking for an excuse to postpone or call off the execution. Dozens would follow, but this was the first execution of a Castro rebel by Castro’s rebels. Suddenly without warning Che stepped up and fired his pistol into Guerra’s temple. “He went into convulsions for a while and was finally still. Now his belongings were mine.” Che wrote in his Diaries. Shortly afterwards, Che’s father in Buenos Aires received a letter from his prodigal son. “I’d like to confess, papa’, at that moment I discovered that I really like killing.” [20] This attitude caught Castro’s eye. More executions of assorted “deserters” informers” and “war criminals” quickly followed, all with Che’s enthusiastic participation. One was of a captured Batista soldier, a 17-year old boy totally green to the guerrilla “war,” hence his easy capture. First Che interrogated him. “I haven’t killed anyone, comandante,” the terrified boy answered Che. “I just got out here! I’m an only son, my mother’s a widow and I joined the army for the salary, to send it to her every month…don’t kill me!” He blurted out when he heard Che’s unmoved reply, “Don’t kill me! — why?” The boy was trussed up, shoved in front of a recently dug pit and murdered. [21] Fidel was privy to these events. He thought executing Batista soldiers was incredibly stupid, compared to the propaganda value of releasing them since most weren’t fighting anyway. But he recognized the value of executions in intimidating other Cubans, and recognized Che’s value as someone who enjoyed the job. By the summer of 1957 Che Guevara had been promoted to full-fledged Major or “comandante,” the Rebel army’s highest rank. His fame was spreading. But not all the revolutionaries were favorably impressed. In mid-1958 one of the rebels was wounded and made his way to a Dr. Hector Meruelo in the nearby town of Cienfuegos. The good doctor patched him up and a few weeks later informed him that he was well enough to return to Che’s column. “No, doctor,” the boy responded. Please be discreet with this because it could cost me my life, but I’ve learned that Che is nothing but a murderer. I’m a revolutionary but I’m also a Christian. I’ll go and join Camilo’s column (Camilo Cienfuegos) — but never Che’s.” [22] As commander of the La Cabana prison, Che often insisted on shattering the skull of the condemned man by firing the coup de grace himself. When other duties tore him away from his beloved execution yard, he consoled himself with watching the executions. Che’s office in La Cabana had a section of wall torn out so he could watch his firing squads at work. A Rumanian journalist named Stefan Bacie visited Cuba in early 1959 and was fortunate enough to get an audience with the already famous leader, whom he had also met briefly in Mexico city. The meeting took place in Che’s office in La Cabana. Upon entering, the Rumanian saw Che motioning him over to his office’s newly constructed window. Stefan Bacie got there just in time to hear the command of fuego, hear the blast from the firing squad and see a condemned prisoner man crumple and convulse. The stricken journalist immediately left and composed a poem, titled, “I No Longer Sing of Che.” (“I no longer sing of Che any more than I would of Stalin,” go the first lines.) [23] A Cuban gentleman named Pierre San Martin was among those jailed by Che Guevara in the early months of the Cuban Revolution. In an El Nuevo Herald article from December 28, 1997 San Martin recalled the horrors: “Thirteen of us were crammed into a cell. Sixteen of us would stand while the other sixteen tried to sleep on the cold filthy floor. We took shifts that way. Dozens were led from the cells to the firing squad daily. The volleys kept us awake. We felt that any one of those minutes would be our last. One morning the horrible sound of that rusty steel door swinging open startled us awake and Che’s guards shoved a new prisoner into our cell. He was a boy, maybe 14 years old. His face was bruised and smeared with blood. “What did you do?” We asked horrified. “I tried to defend my papa,” gasped the bloodied boy. “But they sent him to the firing squad.” Soon Che’s guards returned. The rusty steel door opened and they yanked the boy out of the cell. “We all rushed to the cell’s window that faced the execution pit,” recalls Mr. San Martin. “We simply couldn’t believe they’d murder him. “Then we spotted him, strutting around the blood-drenched execution yard with his hands on his waist and barking orders — Che Guevara himself. ‘Kneel down!’ Che barked at the boy. “Assassins!” we screamed from our window. “I said: KNEEL DOWN!” Che barked again. The boy stared Che resolutely in the face. “If you’re going to kill me,” he yelled, “you’ll have to do it while I’m standing! Men die standing!” “Murderers!” the men yelled desperately from their cells. “Then we saw Che unholstering his pistol. He put the barrel to the back of the boys neck and blasted. The shot almost decapitated the young boy. “We erupted…’Murderers! — Assassins!'” His murder finished, Che finally looked up at us, pointed his pistol, and emptied his clip in our direction. Several of us were wounded by his shots.” After a hard day at the office, Che repaired to his new domicile in Tarara, 15 miles outside Havana on the pristine beachfront (today reserved exclusively for tourists and Communist party members, by the way). The “austere idealist,” Che, hadn’t done too badly for himself in this real estate transaction, known in non-revolutionary societies as theft. “The house was among the most luxurious in Cuba,” writes Cuban journalist Antonio Llano Montes. ”Until a few weeks prior, it had belonged to Cuba’s most successful building contractor. The mansion had a boat dock, a huge swimming pool, seven bathrooms, a sauna, a massage salon and several television sets. One TV had been specially designed in the U.S. and had a screen ten feet wide and was operated by remote control (remember, this was 1959.) This was thought to be the only TV of its kind in Latin America. The mansion’s garden had a veritable jungle of imported plants, a pool with waterfall, ponds filled with exotic tropical fish and several bird houses filled with parrots and other exotic birds. The habitation was something out of A Thousand and One Nights. Llano Montes wrote the above in exile. In January 1959 he didn’t go quite into such detail in his article which appeared in the Cuban magazine Carteles. He simply wrote that, “Comandante Che Guevara has fixed his residence in one of the most luxurious houses on Tarara beach.” Two days after his article ran, while lunching at Havana’s El Carmelo restaurant, Llano Montes looked up from his plate to see three heavily armed Rebel army soldiers instructing him to accompany them. Shortly the journalist found himself in Che Guevara’s La Cabana office, seated a few feet in front of the Comandante‘s desk which was piled with papers. It took half an hour but Che finally made his grand entrance, “reeking horribly, as was his custom” recalls Llano Montes. “Without looking at me. He started grabbing papers on his desk and brusquely signing them with ‘Che.’ His assistant came in and Che spoke to him over his shoulder. “I’m signing these 26 executions so we can take care of this tonight.’ “Then he got up and walked out. Half an hour later he walks back in and starts signing more papers. Finished signing, he picks up a book and starts reading — never once looking at me. Another half hour goes by and he finally puts the book down. ‘So you’re Llano Montes,’ he finally sneers, ‘who says I appropriated a luxurious house.’ “I simply wrote that you had moved into a luxurious house, which is the truth,” replied Llano Montes. “I know your tactics!” Che shot back. “You press people are injecting venom into your articles to damage the revolution. You’re either with us or against us. We’re not going to allow all the press foolishness that Batista allowed. I can have you executed this very night. How about that!” “You’ll need proof that I’ve broken some law” responded Montes. “‘We don’t need proof. We manufacture the proof,’ Che said while stroking his shoulder length hair, a habit of his. One of his prosecutors, a man nicknamed ‘Puddle-of-blood’ then walked in and started talking. ‘Don’t let the stupid jabbering of those defense lawyers delay the executions!’ Che yelled at him. ‘Threaten them with execution. Accuse them of being accomplices of the Batistianos.’ Then Che jerked the handful of papers from Mr. Puddle and started signing them. “This type of thing went on from noon until 6:30 PM when Che finally turned to his aides and said. ‘Get this man out of here. I don’t want him in my presence.'” [24] This was Che’s manner of dealing with defenseless men. He acted this way when he held the hammer. Against armed men on an equal footing his behavior was markedly different. Two years earlier in the Sierra, Castro had ordered Che to take command over a guerrilla faction led by a fellow 26th of July Movement rebel named Jorge Sotus, who had been operating in an area north of the area where Fidel and Che were and had actually been confronting and fighting Batista’s army. Che and a few of his men hiked over to Sotus’ command station and informed him that Che was now in command. “Like hell,” responded Sotus. “It’s Fidel’s order,” responded Guevara. “We have more military experience than you and your group.” “More experience in running and hiding from Batista’s army perhaps,” Sotus shot back. Che dithered and Sotus added. “Besides my men and I aren’t about to take orders from a foreigner.” [25] Che backed off, hiked back and informed Fidel who didn’t press the issue. But a few weeks after Batista’s flight and Castro’s triumph, Sotus was arrested without warning and shoved in the Isle of Pines prison. The intrepid Sotus managed to escape, made his way to the U.S. and joined an exile paramilitary group, taking part in many armed raids against Cuba from south Florida until the Kennedy-Khrushchev deal ended them. Guevara also had a run in with a rebel group named the Second Front of the Escambray. These operated against Batista in the Escambray mountains of Las Villas province. When Che’s column entered the area in late 1958, Che sought to bring these guerrillas under his command and met much resistance, especially from a comandante named Jesus Carreras who knew of Che’s Communist pedigree. Again Guevara didn’t press the issue. A few weeks into the January 1959 triumph Carreras and a group of these Escambray commanders visited Che in La Cabana to address the issue of how they’d been frozen out of any leadership roles in the new regime. On the way in, Carreras ran into a rebel he’d known in the anti-Batista fight and stopped to chat while the rest of the group entered Che’s office. Once the group was inside, Che began to rip into Carreras (who was still not present) as a drunkard, a womanizer, a bandit and a person he’d never appoint to any important position. Midway into Che’s tirade, Carreras entered the office, having overheard much while outside. “Che went white,” recall those present. An enraged Carreras jumped right in his face and Che backed off. Finally Carreras challenged Che to a duel, “right outside in the courtyard,” he pointed. “How is it possible,” Che quickly smiled, “that two revolutionary companeros get to such a point simply because of a misunderstanding?” The subject was dropped and they turned to other issues, but a year later Jesus Carreras found himself a prisoner in a La Cabana dungeon. A few months later he was defiantly facing a firing squad. Fuego! The volley shattered his body. And yes, Che was watching from his window. [26] ***************** Even the New York Times admits that the first two months of the Cuban Revolution saw 568 firing squad executions. A study by Cuban-American Scholar Armando Lago doubles that figure. One by Dr. Claudio Beneda triples it. The preceding “trials” shocked and nauseated all who witnessed them. They were shameless farces, sickening charades. Guevara clarified the matter. “Evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail,” he explained. “We execute from revolutionary conviction.” [27] Not that the slaughter ended after the first few months, as most “scholars” imply. In December 1964 Che addressed the U.N. General Assembly. “Yes, we execute, ” he declared to the claps and cheers of that august body. “And we will keep executing as long as it is necessary. This is a war to the death against the Revolution’s enemies.” According to the Black Book of Communism those executions had reached 14,000 by the end of the decade. (Cuba is a small country. In American terms, this would amount to more than three million executions.) On the eve of his trip to New York, Che gave a speech in Santiago Cuba where he declared: “We must learn the lesson of absolute abhorrence of imperialism. Against that class of hyena there is no other medium than extermination!” [28] Two years earlier, Guevara had gotten tantalizingly close to that medium. “If the missiles had remained we would have used them against the very heart of the United States, including New York,” he told the London Daily Worker in November of 1962. “We must never establish peaceful co-existence. We must walk the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims.” [29] “Extermination,” Che stressed. “Millions of atomic victims,” he said for the record. “Pure hate, as the motivating force,” he repeatedly declared. ************** Time also erred regarding Che’s sense of humor, which was on par with Nurse Ratched’s. As most Latin Americans of a certain age know, Che was a ringer for a Mexican Movie star of the fifties named Cantinflas. Shortly after Che entered Havana, one of Cuba’s traditionally sassy newspapermen made sport of this resemblance. He did it exactly once. Those firing squads were working triple-shifts at the time. The reporter heeded Che’s warning not to do it again. In Che’s first decree when his guerrillas captured the town of Sancti Spiritus in central Cuba during the last days of the skirmishing against Batista’s army, he outlawed alcohol, gambling and regulated relations between the sexes. Popular outcry and Fidel’s good sense made him rescind the order. “I have no home, no woman, no parents, no brothers and no friends,” wrote Guevara. “My friends are friends only so long as they think as I do politically.” [30] In 1960 at a town named Guanahacabibes in extreme Western Cuba, Che initiated Cuba’s concentration camp system. “We send to Guanahacabibes people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals. . it is hard labor…the working conditions are harsh…” [31] Among the many categories of criminals against revolutionary morals were “delinquents.” Please take note Che T-shirt wearers: this “delinquency” involved drinking, vagrancy, disrespect for authorities, laziness and playing loud music. Among the more hilarious manifestations of Che idolatry was the rock musician Carlos Santana’s grand entrance to the 2005 Academy Awards ceremony where he stopped, swung open his jacket, and proudly displayed his Che T-shirt as the cameras clicked. By the late 60’s among the tens of thousands of inmates at Guanahacabibes and the rest of the UMAP concentration camp system in Cuba were “roqueros,” hapless Cuban youths who tried to listen to Yankee-Imperialist rock music. Carlos Santana, was grinning widely — and oh so hiply — while proudly sporting the symbol of a regime that made it a criminal offense to listen to Carlos Santana. ***************** By late 1964 Minister of Industries’ Che had so badly crippled Cuba’s economy and infrastructure and so horribly impoverished and traumatized its work force that the Russians themselves were at wits end. They were subsidizing the mess, and it was getting expensive — much too expensive for the paltry geopolitical return. “This is an underdeveloped country?!” Anastas Mikoyan had laughed while looking around on his first visit to Cuba in 1960. The Soviets were frankly tickled to have a developed and civilized country to loot again, like the countries of Eastern Europe after WWII. Alas, the looting, at first, went in the opposite direction. Castro was no chump like Ulbricht or Gomulka. A French Socialist economist, Rene Dumont, tried advising Castro as the wreckage of Cuba’s economy spiraled out of control. “The Cuban Revolution has gone farther in its first three years than the Chinese in its first ten,” he observed. [32] Hence the mess. As Cuba’s Minister of Industries, Che wanted to refashion human nature. With hapless Cubans as his guinea pigs, he was intent on creating a “new socialist man,” diligent, hard-working, obedient, free from all material incentives and always ready to go with the program — in brief, lobotomized shirkers or smartalecks who offered lip would find themselves behind the barbed wire, watchtowers and guard dogs of Guanahacabibes in short order. Interestingly, Jack Nicholson whose film character in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest continually ran afoul of Nurse Ratched is among Communist Cuba’s most frequent visitors and Castro’s most fervent fans. “Fidel Castro is a genius!” gushed Nicholson after a visit in 1998. “We spoke about everything,” the actor rhapsodized. “Castro is a humanist like President Clinton. Cuba is simply a paradise!” This may have more to it than the usual Hollywood vacuity upstairs. “My job was to bug Jack Nicholson’s room at the hotel Melia Cohiba when he visited Cuba,” says high-ranking Cuban intelligence defector Delfin Fernandez, from Madrid today, “with both cameras and listening devices. Most people have no idea they are being watched while they are in Cuba. But their personal activities are filmed under orders from Castro himself. Famous Americans are the priority objectives of Castro’s intelligence.” [33] One day Che decided that Cubans should learn to play and like soccer (futbal) like the citizens of his native Argentina. A Sugar plantation named Central Macareno near Cienfuegos had been recently stolen from its American owners (not that most Sugar plantations in Cuba were American-owned as leftist mythology holds. Barely one-third were.) The plantation also included a huge orchard of Mango, Avocado and Mamey trees that were just starting to give fruit. Che ordered them all cut down and the ground razed in order to construct a soccer field. A year later the field was weed grown, pot-holed and unusable. The decaying trunks of the formerly fruit-yielding trees were still piled up around the edges of the field even as most Cubans scrambled for fresh fruit on the new black market (under that arch-villain of leftist lore, Batista, Cubans had no need for a black market.) At any rate, it seemed that — the threat of Guanahacabibes or not — Che’s Cuban subjects simply didn’t take to Che’s futbal. [34] Che’s fetish to “industrialize” Cuba immediately and by decree, as he thought his role model Stalin had “industrialized” the Soviet Union, ended Cuba’s status as a relatively developed and civilized country. In one of his spasms of decrees, Che ordered a refrigerator factory built in Cienfuegos, a pick and shovel factory built in Santa Clara, a pencil factory built in Havana. Supply? Demand? Costs? Such bourgeois details didn’t interest Che. None of the factories ended up producing a single product. Che railed against the chemists in the newly socialized Coca-Cola plant because the Coke they were producing tasted awful. Some of the flustered chemists responded that it was Che who had nationalized the plant and booted out the former owners and managers, who took the secret Coca-Cola formula with them to the United States. This impertinence was answered with the threat of Guanahacabibes. During this time Che’s ministry also bought a fleet of snow plows from Czechoslovakia. Che had personally inspected them and was convinced they could easily be converted into sugar cane harvesting machines, thus mechanizing the harvest and increasing Cuba’s sugar production. The snowplows in fact squashed the sugar cane plants, cut them off at the wrong length and killed them. Four years into the revolution Cuba’s 1963 sugar production was less than half of its pre-Revolutionary volume. The Soviets themselves finally put their foot down. Their Cuban lark was getting expensive. In 1964 they told Castro that Che had to go. Castro knew who buttered his bread and had never much liked Che anyway. Besides, the Revolution was well entrenched by then, and in any case there were many willing executioners now, so Che might have outlived his usefulness. Here we come to another hoary myth spun by Che’s hagiographers: his “ideological” falling out with the Soviets. Che’s pureness of revolutionary heart, we’re told, led him to clash with the corrupt Soviet nomenklatura. In fact it was a purely practical conflict. The Russians were fed up and simply refused to bankroll Che’s harebrained economic fantasies any longer. Che saw the writing on the wall. In December 1964, right after his visit to the U.N., he visited his friend Ben Bela in Algeria and delivered his famous anti-Soviet speech, branding them “accomplices of imperialist exploitation.” [35] To many it looked like Che was setting the stage for a role as the Trotsky of his generation. Che probably saw it as a more seemly role than that of a hopeless economic bumbler. When he touched down in Havana after the speech, the regime’s press was absolutely mute regarding both his speech and his recent return. Soon he was invited to visit the Maximum Leader and Raul. In fact, Maximum Brother Raul had just returned from Mother Russia itself, where Che’s Algeria speech had caused quite a stir. As soon as he got within earshot, both Castros ripped into Guevara as undisciplined, ungrateful and plain stupid. “Fidel!” Che shot back. “Dammit, show me some respect! I’m not Camilo!” Che’s wife, Aleida (he’d ditched Hilda by then) was forced to jump in between the men, exclaiming, “I can’t believe such a thing is happening between longtime companeros.” [36] Che finally went home, where he found his telephone lines cut. Much evidence points to Che being held in house arrest at this point. [37] And it was under that house arrest that a seriously chastened — and apparently frightened, after all, who better knew the consequences of upsetting the Maximum Leader? — Che composed his famous “Farewell Letter to Fidel,” in which his groveling and fawning was utterly shameless. “I deeply appreciate your lessons and your example … my only fault was not to have had more faith in you since the first moments in the Sierra, not having recognized more quickly your qualities as a leader and a revolutionary. I will take to my new fields of battle the faith that you have inculcated.” and on and on in relentless toadying. [38] Che’s few public appearances between his return from Algeria and his departure for the Congo always found him in the company of state security personnel. His Cuban welcome had worn out. By April 1965 he was in Tanzania with a few dozen black Cuban military men. Code named “Tatu,” Che and his force entered the eastern Congo, which was convulsed at the time (like now) by an incomprehensible series of civil (actually, mostly tribal) wars. Tatu’s mission was to help the alternately Soviet and Chinese backed “Simbas” of the Congolese red leader, Laurent Kabila. These were fighting the forces of the western-backed Moise Tshombe. Tshombe’s forces consisted of Belgian foreign legionnaires, mercenaries under the famous “Mad” Mike Hoare, Congolese who opposed Kabila, and a handful of Cuban Bay of Pigs veterans sent by the CIA. The Cubans were mostly pilots who provided close-in air support for “Mad” Mike. Here is Mike Hoare’s opinion, after watching them in battle, of his CIA allies: “These Cuban CIA men were as tough, dedicated and impetuous a group of soldiers as I’ve ever had the honor of commanding. Their leader [Rip Robertson] was the most extraordinary and dedicated soldier I’ve ever met.” [39] Together Mad Mike, Rip and the Cubans made short work of Kabila’s “Simbas,” who were murdering, raping and munching (many were cannibals) their way through many of the defenseless Europeans still left in the recently abandoned Belgian colony. “Tatu’s” first military mission was plotting an attack on a garrison guarding a hydroelectric plant in a place called Front Bendela on the Kimbi River in Eastern Congo. Che’s masterstroke was to be an elaborate ambush of the garrison. Tatu himself was stealthily leading his force into position when ambushers became the ambushed. Che lost half his men and barely escaped with his life. [40] His African allies started frowning a little more closely at Tatu’s c.v. and asking a few questions (but in Swahili, which he didn’t understand.) Tatu’s next clash with the mad dogs of imperialism was at a mountaintop town called Fizi Baraka. And another hideous rout ensued. Che admits as much in his Congo Diaries, but he blames it all on Congolese who were terrible soldiers. Yet, for some reason, the Congolese on Hoare’s side seemed to fight rather well. One thing that did impress the Simbas about Tatu was that “he never went down to the river to wash.” [41] ***************** Tatu’s Congo mission was soon abandoned as hopeless and in a humiliating retreat across Lake Tanganyika, Che and the Castro Cubans barely escaped Africa with their lives. Che now set his sights on Bolivia for the next guerrilla adventure, for living his dream of turning the Andes “into the Sierra Maestra of the Continent,” for creating “two, three many Vietnams.” It would be difficult to imagine a more cockamamie plan for Bolivia than Che’s. Under President Paz Estenssoro in 1952-53 Bolivia had undergone a revolution of sorts, with an extensive land reform that — unlike Che’s and Fidel’s — actually gave ownership of the land to the peasants, the tillers of the soil themselves, much like Douglas McArthur’s land reform in post-war Japan. Even crazier, Che himself, during his famous motorcycle jaunt had visited Bolivia and witnessed the positive results of the reform. Still, his amazing powers of self-deception prevailed. Che convinced himself that in a section of Bolivia where the population consisted — not of landless peasants — but of actual homesteaders, he’d have the locals crowding into his recruitment tent to sign up with a bunch of foreign communists to overthrow the government that had given them their land, a series of rural schools and left them completely unmolested to pursue their lives. These were Indians highly suspicious of foreigners and especially of white foreigners, to boot. Che was undaunted by any of these facts. Hasta la victoria siempre! as he liked to say. At this stage in his life Che was probably more deluded than Hitler in his Bunker. There is no evidence that Castro took the Bolivian mission seriously. His Soviet patrons were certainly not behind it. They knew better. They’d seen every guerrilla movement in Latin America wiped out. The only thing these half-baked adventures accomplished was to upset the Americans, with whom they’d cut a splendid little deal during the Missile Crisis to safeguard Castro. Why blow this arrangement with another of Che’s harebrained adventures? Much better to work within the system in Latin America, reasoned the Soviets at this time, subtly subverting the governments by using legitimate Communist parties. A few years later Allende’s electoral victory in Chile seemed to bear the Soviets out. In fact, the East German female guerrilla, Tamara Bunke or “Tania” who linked up with Che in Bolivia (they’d met as early as 1961 and were reputedly lovers) was actually a KGB-STASI agent sent to keep an eye on Che. [42] Alas, poor “Tania” ( remember Patty Hearst’s Symbianese Liberation Army moniker?) was mowed down by machine gun fire along with her entire “rearguard” group after a Bolivian peasant relayed their position to the army and helped plan an ambush. The Bolivian Communist party itself stood aloof from Che’s final mission. Its head, Mario Monje, was a faithful follower of the Soviet party-line. The only Bolivians Che managed to recruit were renegade Communists and Maoists. Che’s guerrilla force averaged 40-45 members and was pompously named the “National Liberation Army.” Yet at no point during its 11 month venture did Bolivians make up more than half of its members. And most of these came from the cities and areas far distant from the guerrilla base. The rural population shunned their “National Liberation Army” like a plague. “We cannot develop any peasant support,” Che admits in his diaries. “But it looks like by employing planned terror (emphasis mine) we may at least neutralize most of them. Their support will come later.” It never did. It was the campesinos themselves who kept reporting the guerrilla’s whereabouts to the army, with whom they were generally on excellent terms. And for an excellent reason: it was composed mainly of Bolivian campesinos, not bearded foreigners who stole their livestock. Among the unreported idiocies regarding Che’s Bolivian debacle, was how he split his forces into a vanguard and a rearguard in April of 1967, whereupon they got hopelessly lost and bumbled around , half-starved, half-clothed and half-shod, without any contact for 6 months — though they were usually within a mile of each other. [43] They didn’t even have WWII vintage walkie-talkies to communicate. Che’s masterful Guerrilla War, gives no explanation for such a tactic. Dariel Alarcon, a Cuban who was one of the three guerrillas who managed to survive and escape Bolivia, reports in his book, Benigno; Memorias de un Soldado Cubano how in the very midst of this blundering around, Che was obsessed with posing for photos. One was Che atop a (presumably stolen) horse on a ridgeline where he was strategically silhouetted against the bare sky. Che handed Alarcon his Pentax and had him back off just the right distance to capture the entire scene. Che nodded then plucked out a machete and waved it high over his head, even adding a sound score to the scene, shouting: “I am the new Bolivar!” as Alarcon dutifully clicked away. While Che was posing for pictures neither he nor anyone in his group had any way to communicate with Cuba. Castro had sent an agent named Renan Montero to La Paz to keep in touch with Che, but Montero abruptly left Bolivia in July of 1967 and returned to Cuba. Significantly, just a week earlier, Alexie Kosygin had visited Cuba and met with Castro, where he laid it on the line. Kosygin had just come from a meeting with Lyndon Johnson where the U.S. President had laid it on the line, complaining about Castroite subversion in Latin America, and how this was a clear breach of the deal the U.S. and Soviets had cut back in October 1962 that had kept Castro unmolested. Now this mischief in Bolivia might force the U.S. into an agonizing reappraisal of that deal. [44] Well, Castro didn’t have his heart in the Bolivian adventure anyway. And now he could finally rid himself of the Argentine popinjay. Montero came home and Che was cast completely adrift. Barely two months later the “National Liberation Army” was wiped out. Che’s capture merits some clarification. His hagiographers have romanticized his last day alive. Che was defiant, they claim. Che was surprised, caught off guard and was unable to properly defend himself or to shoot himself with his last bullet as was his plan. Nothing in the actual record supports this fantasy. In fact everything points to Che surrendering quite enthusiastically, right after he ordered his men to fight to the last man and the last bullet. Most did, but Che was captured with a full clip in his pistol. Even more suspiciously, though he was in the bottom of a ravine during the final firefight and could have escaped in the opposite direction like a few of his men, Che actually moved upwards and towards the Bolivian soldiers who had been firing. Yet he was doing no firing of his own in the process. Then as soon as he saw some soldiers he yelled, “Don’t shoot! I’m Che!” [45] Immediately after his capture his demeanor was even more interesting “What’s your name, young man?” Che asked a soldier. “Why what a great name for a Bolivian soldier!” he blurted after hearing it. The firefight was still raging after Che’s surrender. His men, unlike their comandante, were indeed fighting to the last bullet. Soon a wounded Bolivian soldier was carried by. “Shall I attend him?!” Che asked his captors. “Why? Are you a doctor?” asked Bolivian army captain Gary Prado. “No, (the truth at last!) but I have some knowledge of medicine,” answered Guevara, resuming his pathetic attempt to ingratiate himself with his captors. [46] Another interesting factoid is that Che was captured wearing his famous black beret, and it sported a bullet hole. Yet those on the Bolivian mission with him like Dariel Alarcon attest that Che never once wore that beret during the Bolivian campaign. Che had always worn a military cap, all pictures of him in Bolivia back this up. Some speculate that Che put on his famous black beret (and even shot a hole in it) to make a dramatic celebrity surrender and impress his captors. He probably expected a few snapshots in the process. After a peaceful capture, Che seemed to have expected a trial which would become a worldwide media sensation, with pleas for his freedom pouring into Bolivia like a blizzard from leftists in every corner of the globe. This would have been the case had the Bolivians been foolish enough to try him. The trial of Regis Debray a few months earlier had given them a taste. Debray was a French Communist journalist who had spent much time in Cuba and was a serious Castro/Che groupie. He had gone to Bolivia and met with Che and his band and seemed poised to do for Che in Bolivia what Herbert Matthews had done for Castro in Cuba. But Debray would also act in a more official capacity as a recruiter and messenger for the guerrillas. Debray was captured by the Bolivian Army, worked over, and sang like a canary about Che’s presence in Bolivia (not completely known in April of 1967) and what he was up to. The U.S. was alerted and sent some Green Berets to help train a Ranger Battalion of the Bolivian Army, along with some Cuban-American CIA men to help with intelligence work. One of these, Felix Rodriguez (currently President of the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association, and a friend of mine I’m very, very proud to say), convinced the Bolivian military to stop summarily executing all the guerrilla prisoners. Questioned properly and treated decently, they could provide valuable information and help close the net on Che and his group. And so it happened with a prisoner named Jose Castillo Chavez. Rodriguez played good cop with him and deciphered Che’s whereabouts. He persuaded the Bolivian military to send their Ranger battalion to the area post-haste. “But their training isn’t complete,” replied the Bolivian commander. “No matter!” answered Rodriguez. “I think we’ve got Che pin-pointed! Send them in!” Barely a week later Che was yelling his pitiful plea to those Bolivian Rangers. “Don’t Shoot! — I’m Che, I’m worth more to you alive than dead!” [47] The Bolivian high command didn’t see it that way. Though he was captured alive, Che was executed the next day. Compared to the courageous and defiant yells of his own firing squad victims — “I kneel for no man! Viva Cuba Libre! Viva Cristo Rey! Abajo Comunismo! Aim right HERE!” — Che Guevara proved on his last day alive that he was unworthy to carry his victims’ slop buckets. This profile was written by Humberto Fontova and appeared as an article titled “Fidel’s Executioner,” published by FrontPageMagazine.com on October 14, 2005. Endnotes: [1] Humberto Fontova. Fidel; Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant. Regnery, 2005 [2] Enrique Ros, Che; Mito y Realidad. Ediciones Universal. Miami, 2002 [3] Ibid [4] Ibid [5] Marcos Bravo. La Otra Cara Del Che. Editorial Solar. Bogota, 2003 [6] Author interview with Henry Gomez [7] Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo. El Diario de Nueva York, June 25th 1959. [8] Paul Bethel, The Losers, Arlington House. New York, 1970 [9] Enrique Ros, op. cit. [10] Paul Bethel, op. cit. [11] Jorge Castaneda, Companero; The Life and Death of Che Guevara. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, 1997 [12] Jose Pardo Llada, El Che Que Yo Conoci. Bolsilibros Bedout. Mexico, 1970 [13] Georgie Ann Geyer. Guerrilla Prince. Little Brown & Co. Boston. [14] Author interview with Bay of Pigs Veterans’ Association Vice President, Nilo Messer. [15] Ibid [16] Ibid. [17] Paul Bethel, op. cit. [18] Humberto Fontova, op. cit. [19] Enrique Ros, op. cit. [20] Marcos Bravo. La Otra Cara Del Che, Editorial Solar. Bogota, Colombia. [21] Ibid. [22] Enrique Ros, op. cit. [23] Mario Lazo. Daga En El Corazon, Cuba Traicionada. Minerva, Madrid. [24] Marcos Bravo, op. cit. [25] Ibid. [26] Ibid. [27] Jose Vilasuso. Come Era El Che. Bayamon/edu. Puerto Rico, 1997 [28] Jorge Castaneda, op. cit. [29] Humberto Fontova, op. cit. [30] Víctor Llano, El Carnicerito de La Cabana, Libertad Digital. Madrid. [31] Jorge Castaneda, op. cit. [32] Rene Dumont. Cuba Est-Il Socialiste? Seuil. Paris. [33] Humberto Fontova. “Castro Spies on Jack Nicholson & Pope,” Newsmax Magazine. [34] Marcos Bravo. cited. [35] Ernesto Guevara. Temas Economicos, Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, Havana. [36] Pedro Manuel Rodriguez, Ernesto Guevara: Un Sepulcro Blanqueado.Editorial Solar. Bogota, Colombia. 2003 [37] Ibid. [38] Marcos Bravo, op. cit. [39] Mike Hoare. Congo Mercenary. Robert Hall. London. [40] Enrique Ros. Cubanos Combatientes, Ediciones Universal, Miami. [41] Marcos Bravo.cited. [42] Jose Friedl. Tania la Guerrillera. Zapata. Montevideo. [43] Marcos Bravo.cited. [44] Juan Benemiles. Las Guerra Secreta De Castro. Fundacion Elena Mederos. Miami, 2002. [45] Gary Prado. La Guerilla Inmolada. Punta y Coma, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. [46] Ibid. [47] Ibid.

As vile as her admission is, it makes her an even BETTER Democrat.

Democrat Party Not Just Marxists, They Are Dishonest, Stupid Marxists

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his means.”

That’s a much more concise statement of a certain economic and political philosophy than Obama’s “I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too….  And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent…  “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody…  I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

And it’s similarly a lot more concise than his recent statement: “And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

But it’s the same exact stuff and it comes from the same exact source.

And, for the record, that source behind “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his means” is Marxist communism.  That statement above came from Karl Marx himself and summarizes the basic economic principle of a communist economy.

And Democrats are either too fundamentally stupid or too fundamentally dishonest (or both) to recognize and affirm their socialism.  Personally, I think it’s both.

There is another belief that is common to virtually all Democrats that is a likewise central defining tenet of Marxism; and that is the notion that the government basically owns all it’s people’s wealth and bascially graciously allows people to keep a certain amount (with the rest going to the State).  An example of this mindset was the oft-repeated Democrat claim that the cost of keeping the Bush tax cuts for “the rich” was widely reported as around $700 billion (over 10 years).

I wrote about that at some length (pointing out the pure socialist origins of the mindset), and included a statement by Brit Hume that is worth repeating:

The running argument over extending the Bush tax cuts may come to nothing if Congress decides to go home in just three weeks, but it has been a revealing exchange nonetheless. The president’s call for extending the cuts for middle class taxpayers is an acknowledgment that President Bush did not just cut taxes for the rich as Democrats are fond of claiming. He cut them for all taxpayers.

Administration officials keep saying it’s a bad idea to keep the cuts in place for wealthier taxpayers because it would cost $700 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. What they don’t say is that keeping them for the middle class which they now support would cost about three times that much.

Still, the president’s position means he agrees with Republicans that raising people’s taxes in the midst of a flagging economy is a bad idea. But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.

This sense of the primacy of government is reflected in the high percentage of stimulus funds used to bail out broke localities and protect the jobs of government workers. Democrats are proving once again that they are indeed the party of government. Americans think government is important, too. They just don’t think financing it takes priority over all else — Bret.

As I point out in my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” the same study that argued that “tax cuts for the rich” “COST” the government $700 billion ALSO argue that keeping tax cuts for the middle class “cost” the government $3 TRILLION.  Which is to say that it is INCREDIBLY dishonest and deceitful to pass off the arguments that Democrats routinely pass off.  With the help of a remarkably TASS-like American mainstream media, for what that’s worth.

I also document in that article that basically half of the American people now pay NO federal income tax at ALL.  Which, along with the demogogic rhetoric that “the rich need to pay their fair share” when the top 2% of Americans already pay 40% of the federal income taxes, is pure distilled Marxist class-warfare demagoguery.

Not only are Democrats greedy – which they routinely accuse the rich of being for wanting to keep money that DEMOCRATS want to take away – but they are thieves, too.  They are greedy, dishonest Marxist bureaucrats who want to take what is not theirs and piss it away on self-serving pet boondoggles that will benefit them politically.  A different way of putting it is that they want to seize resources from the job creators and piss it away.  They want to take money away from job creators who would invest in the private economy and use that money to purchase votes for their political campaigns.

[Update]: I hadn’t even published this article (I actually wrote it to this point on the 17th), and I already just received some powerful support for my main point.  Steve Wynn – who has described himself as a “Democrat businessman” who supported Harry Reid’s reelection campaign and who has a liberal activist for a wife – had this to say about Barack Obama and his policies:

And I’m saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the  next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate.  Regulations coming from left and right.  A President that seems, you know — that keeps using that word redistribution.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe’s ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest, they’re holding too much money.  You know, we haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.

“Pure socialism,” for what it’s worth, is “communism.”

The shoe fits.  So let’s put it on their feet (i.e. like “concrete shoes”).

Unless the American people want communism, they should reject Barack Hussein Obama and they should abandon the Democrat Party.

‘Independent’ NLRB My Foot: Obama Agency Pounds NLRB To Destroy Business’ Right To Locate In Right To Work States

The White House has been hiding behind the assertion that the National Labor Relations Board is an “independent” agency, and that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the lawsuit attacking Boeing for building a new plant in right-to-work state South Carolina:

White House Dodges Questions About NLRB’s Complaint Against Boeing
Posted by: Carter Wood under Briefly Legal, Economy, Labor Unions on May 11, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

From today’s White House press briefing conducted by Jay Carney:

Q    Boeing CEO Jim McNerney, who chairs the President’s Export Council, said the National Labor Relations Board suit against his company for building a plant in a right-to-work state is a fundamental assault on capitalism.  I’m wondering is the President aware of the issue, and does he think the government should be involved in how businesses allocate capital or resources?MR. CARNEY:  Well, it’s obviously been in the news, so we are aware of it, but I would refer any questions about it to the NLRB because it is an independent agency, and we do not get involved in particular enforcement matters of independent agencies.

Q    The President has weighed in on outside issues before, though.  I mean is this something — it’s also coming from someone who is chairing the Export Council, who’s saying this is hurting job creation.

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have a reaction to this from the President.  And I think the fact that he’s weighed in on outside issues doesn’t mean that he will weigh in on an independent agency’s enforcement action.

Carney then changed the subject to tout the President’s record on the auto industry and hail the growth of manufacturing.

Well, first of all, let me take a moment to ask a question: why is Obama dodging this issue rather than claiming credit for it?  Because it’s wrong; it is un-American; and this radical hard-core union agenda action will hurt the economy by forcing businesses to locate overseas.  If they can’t build factories where they want to in America, then they will go overseas to where they have the freedoms our soldiers fought for.  Amazingly, communist China is actually far more free market and pro-capitalist than the Obama administration.

Now let me get to my main point.

Like absolutely everything else from this lying president and this lying White House, BULLCRAP.  Not only is it absolutely true that Obama has weighed in on virtually every issue under the sun – including bizarre issues such as the “stupidity” of the Cambridge Police Department in Massachusetts – but we now have it in WRITING that the NLRB is anything but an “independent agency.”

Let’s take a look at just how “independent” the NLRB actually is.  First, we find that the agency’s top officials are literally partisan political hacks out there taking partisan political sides to attack Obama’s Republican opponents.  Then – given that obvious appearance of any lack of “independence” – the White House’s OMB literally orders the NLRB to take down the attacking memo and demands that they clear everything with them first.  Which actually goes about as far as you can go to demonstrate that the National Labor Relations Board – which Obama PACKED with radical leftist union types by bypassing even a Democrat-controlled US Senate – is marching to Obama’s drumbeat.  And then, if that isn’t enough, when the NLRB did Obama’s bidding to take down the partisan hack memo, the notice basically said, “The content in this statement has been removed. For further information on this subject, please see what our Messiah Obama says, as we’re really just his minions anyway.”

“Independence” my butt:

Obama official ordered labor board to pull rebuke of GOP budget
By Kevin Bogardus – 05/29/11 07:40 AM ET

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had an independent agency take down a stinging press release aimed at the House Republicans’ budget proposal, according to a newly released document.

In an e-mail obtained by The Hill under a Freedom of Information Act request, an OMB official told a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officer she should have checked before sending out a Feb. 18 press release titled, “Top NLRB officials respond to House budget proposal.”

The NLRB statement slammed what was then the GOP’s proposed continuing resolution to fund the government for the rest of fiscal year 2011.

On the day the labor board’s statement was published, Michael Lazzeri, OMB’s examiner for the NRLB, wrote to Shanti Ananthanayagam, the labor board’s budget officer, and asked her to take it down.

“In case didn’t get my vmail. That press release needs to come down from your website. In the future you guys have to clear that stuff with us,” Lazzeri wrote to Ananthanayagam in the e-mail.

The press release quoted NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman and Lafe Solomon, the board’s acting general counsel, as saying the funding cuts would lead to agency delays and “would occur at a great cost to working people and responsible employers trying to survive in this difficult economic climate, and would have the potential to destabilize relations between labor and business.”

They also said the proposed budget cuts would reduce the agency’s annual funding by 18 percent, or $50 million, which could lead to furloughs for all of the labor board’s 1,665 employees for 55 workdays.

The press release was subsequently taken down. In its place on the labor board’s website is a bland statement that says, “The content in this statement has been removed. For further information on this subject, please see the President’s Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) regarding the budget, which can be found on the OMB website.”

OMB asking the labor board to take down the press release was first reported by The Huffington Post.

Asked why the press release was taken down, a spokeswoman for the labor board referred questions to OMB.

“In accordance with longstanding clearance procedures in Circular A-11, agencies are asked to clear such comments through OMB. In this case, the language on budget-related legislation had not been cleared, so it was taken down,” said Meg Reilly, an OMB spokeswoman.

Circular A-11 is a memo sent by OMB to federal agencies regarding the president’s budget proposal. The memo states that communications to Congress or the media about the president’s budget proposal need to receive clearance from OMB before being sent out, including “proposed press releases relating to the president’s budget.”

Despite the fears the labor board expressed in the original press release, the Republican-proposed budget cuts for the agency did not come to pass.

In the compromise deal to prevent the government shutdown, the labor board’s annual $282 million budget received only a 0.2 percent haircut — a reduction in line with other administrative agencies. The cut took $500,000 from the NRLB’s fiscal year 2011 funding.

Further, an amendment to the continuing resolution by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) that would have defunded the labor board entirely failed to pass earlier this year. Sixty House Republicans voted against axing the labor board’s budget in a 176-250 vote.

The agency has recently become a source of controversy. NRLB’s April 20 complaint against Boeing for allegedly retaliating against union workers has incensed GOP lawmakers and business groups.

Under scrutiny is Boeing’s decision to establish a second production line for its new Dreamliner jet in South Carolina — a right-to-work state that generally prohibits mandatory union membership or dues — instead of in Washington state, where Boeing has unionized operations.

The labor board cited statements made by Boeing executives expressing fear that work stoppages could hurt production as the reason the complaint was issued.

Republicans in both the House and Senate have threatened to hold up Solomon’s nomination as general counsel over the Boeing complaint and are pressing the NRLB to hand over the documents that explain the reasoning behind it.

Democrats have defended the labor board from the attacks. They say it is an independent agency that is performing a law enforcement action and should be free of political pressure.

The complaint is set to go before an administrative law judge at a June 14 hearing in Seattle.

“Should be fre of political pressure”?  In the age of Obama?  Not likely.  He is a fascist.  Fascism is simply one viral species of socialism.  And “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Worker’s Party“).  Obama is waaaaaayyyyyy on the left side with the SEIU Andy Stearns (“Because workers of the world unite it’s not just a slogan anymore“; and “We’re trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the persuasion of power “) and SEIU Stephen Lerner (“There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement“; “you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again“).  The mantra of Obama’s labor union buddies is “Forget about the law.”  These are people who are perfectly willing to “Get a little bloody” to get their way – no matter who else gets hurt or how badly. And Obama has been deeply involved behind the scenes in stirring up rowdy unrest in states like Wisconsin and Ohio.  Obama is one of them.

And to the extent that Obama is dishonest about his deep involvement in hard-core leftist union agenda issues, that aint a good thing.

Obama, the White House, and Democrats in general ROUTINELY lie.  These are the type of people who disingenuously, falsely and maliciously attack Republicans with “Mediscare” tactics when in fact Republicans are trying to save Medicare while Democrats are intent on seeing the system collapse into total bankruptcy while they attack anybody who tries to prevent that documented future fact from happening.

The National Labor Relations Board case – again, said board packed by Obama behind the US Senate’s back – against Boeing is a case against business.  It is a case against freedom.  It is a case against America.  It is a case against everything this country stands for.  It is certainly a case against the right to work without having to say “Yes sir” and “No Ma’am” to a union boss.  The unions want to have the power to shut down any business that doesn’t toe their socialist line – as they have repeatedly done with Boeing.  They would rather corporations relocate all their operations overseas than see those corporations build plants in right to work states.

I can understand why this fascist president wouldn’t want the American people to really know what he stands for and what he is doing to destroy their way of life.

 

On the Malicious Connection Between Conservatives And Hate

The following article will consist in two parts: 1) A detailing of just a few of the profoundly hateful rhetoric that comes out of the left on a routine basis, which clearly refutes the idea that some sort of “climate of hate” is being generated by the right wing; and 2) my argument why “political rhetoric” – which is free speech that should be protected by anyone who values American society – should have nothing to do with acts of violence.

Allow me to state at the outset that, when we look at Jared Loughner, what we find is that he had a grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords dating back to 2007.  That grudge predates Sarah Palin; it predates the Tea Party movement; it predates the so-called “rightwing rhetoric” against Barack Obama.  In fact, Loughner’s hatred of Rep. Giffords actually occurred during the LEFTWING hatred targeting George W. Bush and Republicans.  And we find that while Loughner nowhere mentioned Sarah Palin, the tea party movement, ObamaCare, conservatives, or anything “right wing,” he DID repeatedly mention his belief that George Bush was responsible for engineering the 9/11 attacks.

And yet it took Paul Krugman and The New York Slimes 2 hours after the terrible tragedy in Tucson to publish a vile and frankly immoral piece of propaganda demonizing conservatives.  Which is to say that this Nobel Prize-winning propagandist of the left started manufacturing facts before the echoes of the gunfire had died down.  And this from a man who had himself burned effigies of Republicans at his party celebrating the Democrat victories in 2008; and who had called for Joe Lieberman to be hung by the neck in effigy.

Let’s take a moment and look at the hatred of the left, and realize just how amazingly laughable it is for the left to claim the moral high ground regarding any “climate of hate,” and recognize that they did nothing more than despicably try to seize political advantage from a terrible tragedy:

1) The hatred of conservatives by the left:

■ “I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” — Left-wing radio host Mike Malloy on the January 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show, talking about Rush Limbaugh going to the hospital after suffering chest pains.

■ MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in 2009 fantasized about the death of Rush Limbaugh: “Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp”

■ Author/humorist P.J. O’Rourke: “It’s the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy-”
Host Bill Maher: “You mean Rush Limbaugh and Sean-”
O’Rourke: “-from the moment the fat guy refused to share his drugs….”
Maher: “You mean the OxyContin that he was on?…Why couldn’t he have croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?” — HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, February 8, 2008.

■ MSNBC’s Amy Robach in 2006 mildly wondered if “Death of a President” movie depicting the imagined assassination of President Bush was “poor taste or, as some say, thought-provoking?”

■ On his radio show in 2009, Ed Schultz wished for Dick Cheney’s death: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country … Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?”

■ Also on his radio show, in 2010, Schultz shouted: “Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!”

■ Then-Air America host Montel Williams in 2009 urged Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to kill herself: “Slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to – or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

■ Writing on the Huffington Post in 2007, radio host Charles Karel Bouley mocked: “I hear about Tony Snow and I say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you? Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?”

■ “I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Host Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, March 2, 2007, discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed.

■ “Earlier today, a rental truck carried a half a million ballots from Palm Beach to the Florida Supreme Court there in Tallahassee. CNN had live helicopter coverage from the truck making its way up the Florida highway, and for a few brief moments, America held the hope that O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris.” — Bill Maher on ABC’s Politically Incorrect, November 30, 2000.

■ Host Tina Gulland: “I don’t think I have any Jesse Helms defenders here. Nina?”
NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “Not me. I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” — Exchange on the July 8, 1995 Inside Washington, after Helms said the government spends too much on AIDS.

■ “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease….He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” — USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

For more examples and additional information, see MRC’s recent report: “While Media Indict Conservative Speech, Left’s Lunacy Is Ignored”

See also Michelle Malkin’s documentation, “The Progressive Climate of Hate: an Illustrated Primer 2000-2010.”

I have further documented numerous concrete acts of violence by the left in two articles here and here which I wrote during the debates that occurred last year when Democrats falsely demonized the right.

Furthermore, you should do a review of history.  Go back to the 1960s and consider movements and organizations such as the Weathermen, Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers, the anti-war movement, the radical environmentalist movement, and the violence that has been all-too typical of the left.

I believe by now I’ve made my point.

Before moving on, allow me to demonstrate how top Democrats have deliberately manufactured blame and guilt at conservatives for crimes that liberals and Democrats in fact committed.

First, there is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. reflecting on how his Uncle Jack (JFK) was essentially killed by right wing conservative hatred as a device to “me to” the liberal movement to demonize conservatives as being responsible for the Tuscon, Arizona shooting by a deranged psychopath.  There was only one problem: JFK was murdered by a communist named Lee Harvey Oswald, who somehow is never mentioned a single time in Kennedy Jr.’s fabricated account.

The second episode was Nancy Pelosi, speaking out against the Tea Party movement, reflecting on the murder of Harvy Milk in her district of San Francisco:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

What’s wrong with Pelosi’s words and tears?  Well, in demagoguing conservatives for their climate of violence-generating hate, she nowhere reflects upon the fact that Harvey Milk and George Moscone were murdered by a Democrat who was angry because his fellow Democrats had not reappointed him to his government job.  And her equating these murders with right wing violence is not just absurd, but evil.

Both of these accounts are readily historically verifiable.  The Democrats in question literally fabricate history in order to blame the party and ideology that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with these murders.  What we see are people who are clearly close enough to the events in question to know that what they are saying is not true.  They are either liars without shame, or they have literally so committed themselves to false ideology that they have used every possible device of rationalization to believe obvious lies.  You can take your pick.

So you take an event like the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (along with the murder of conservative Republican-appointed federal judge John Roll, btw), and demonize conservatives for it, and it is merely one more documented case of obvious demonization that merely serves to demonstrates that if you want to see hate, just look at liberals.

And, yes, if deranged monster Jared Loughner was anything, he was a liberal.  One thing is certain; he certainly was not a conservative, and he certainly was not influenced by any “rightwing climate of hate.”

Clearly, I did not attempt to prove that conservatives have not said anything hateful.  First of all it would be impossible to prove a negative; and second whether conservatives have said hateful things about liberals really isn’t the point here.  The point is that when Democrats denounce the right for “hate,” they merely demonstrate that they are hypocrites without any shame whatsoever.

This baseless and hateful charge about rightwing hate being responsible for the Tucson shooting that was recently repeated by dozens of Democrat elected officials, hundreds of mainstream media journalists, and thousands upon thousands of liberal bloggers, literally becomes a tacit acknowledgment that it is in fact the left that practices hate.

Tomorrow: Part 2, on how free speech political rhetoric should be and is unrelated to acts of violence: “On The So-Called Link Between Political Rhetoric And Violence.”

Cloward-Piven Alive And Well: Progressives CONTINUE To Push For Destruction Of U.S. System

The next time you see a progressive liberal, realize that there is a good chance that they would love to see you in a soup line – helpless, hungry, desperate, and ready for “change.”

Back in August of last year, I wrote an article entitled, “Politico Article Reveals Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy Backfiring.”  I pointed out quite a few facts of history which I believed were important.  For example, I cited an article that defined the radical leftist Cloward-Piven strategy:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

Does that sound like something you’d like to see happen?  I hope not!  But you can bet that there are a lot of people on the political left right now who would love nothing more than having a crack at reshaping American society in their own image.

I cited the words of top Democrats like Obama’s chief of staff who said:

EMANUEL:  “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.  What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.  This is an opportunity….  And this crisis provides the opportunity for us, as I would say, the opportunity to do things that you could not do before.”

And of course, you have Obama saying “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Change it exactly how, Barry Hussein?  And what about those of us who liked the United States of America our founding fathers gave us who don’t want it “fundamentally transformed”?

We haven’t known exactly what Obama meant by that. Because Obama turned himself into a “blank screen” while he was running for president:

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

As I pointed out in a recent article:

A politician who has Obama’s ostensible verbal skills is, quite simply, not a “blank screen” unless he wants to be one.

Obama did not want us to know who he was, because we would have rejected him as our leader if we knew.

The more we finally learn about who Obama really is and what he really wants to do, the less we are going to like it.

We’re seeing more and more now.  The man has a record.  And sadly, it is a record of filling his administration with far leftist radicals – even with outright self-described communists (e.g., Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Anita Dunn, Carol Browner, Ron Bloom, Andy Stern) – and of pursuing government takeovers of one sphere of our economy (e.g., auto manufacturing, banking industry, financial sector, health care system) after another.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why a man who professes himself to be a free market president would appoint a man who would say “We know that the free market is nonsense” as his manufacturing czar.  Ron Bloom is a man who said:

“We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.”

You’re a “free market guy” who appoints a man who thinks the free market is “nonsense” and agrees with Mao to restore our incredibly important manufacturing sector?

For the life of me, I can’t understand how a man who says he’s a “free market guy” would appoint Andy Stern to his fiscal commission given statements such as the following:

– “Because workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore.”

– “We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power.”

This same Andy Stern – whom Obama has invited to visit the White House more than ANY other person – described Obama’s “free market” program this way:

We now have a new metric. The president says he wants to judge the new economy whether it increases the number of people in the middle class. Whether we have shared prosperity, not just growth. Which is a fundamental different philosophy then what we’ve seen in this country to date. Now how do we distribute wealth in this country … clearly government has a major opportunity to distribute wealth – from the EITC, from tax policies, from minimum wages, from living wages – the government has a role in distributing wealth and social benefits. We are at historic crossroads … in terms of what our new president is trying to do and a different way we are going to try and evaluate the economy. And so all of sudden we are witnessing the first new American economic plan led by the government, not necessarily by the private sector.

(Video available here).

You’re a “free market guy” and you appoint a massive big government Marxist to figure out how to reduce government spending???  You’re a “free market guy” and you’re pushing a “fundamentally different philosophy” than anything this country has ever seen?  You’re a “free market guy” and you want to redistribute the wealth at the expense of growth?  You’re a “free market guy” and you have an economic plan led by the government, and not the private sector?

Really?

And, of course, for the life of me, I can’t understand how Barack Obama would have installed a man (i.e., Van Jones) who routinely said things like this –

• “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’”

• How’s that capitalism working for ya?

• And the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities.

• “This movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don’t stop there! Don’t stop there! We’re gonna change the whole system! We’re gonna change the whole thing!

– to be his Green Jobs Czar!

“Free market guy”?  Really?  And I’m not supposed to be either rolling on the floor laughing or barfing in a giant bucket WHY?

Obama told us that he chose his friends carefully, and “carefully” chose to be friends with “Marxist professors” and Marxist terrorist-bombers.  The problem is that he’s STILL choosing to surround himself with Marxists.

Obama says his administration has a “fundamentally business- friendly” agenda and are “fierce advocates” for the free market.

But fully 77% of American investors understand Barry Hussein very, very differently:

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) — U.S. investors overwhelmingly see President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey.

The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency.

To summarize to this point, “Mr. Blank Screen,” who wants to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” by “never letting a serious crisis go to waste,” calls himself a “free market guy” while repeatedly appointing communists to important “free-market”-positions.  But more than 3/4ths of American investors who earn their bread and butter from the aforementioned free market think he’s full of crap.

With that foundation, let us get back to the strategy of Cloward and Piven.

The following comes from a member of the leftwing in very good standing.  He’s written and worked for LeftTurn, Political Affairs, and Monthly Review according to his Wikipedia entry.  He lives in Chicago (Barry Hussein’s hometown), where he founded Youth Against Apathy.

I instantly hearken to Michelle Obama’s saying of her husband: “He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism.”

At a recent Brecht Forum, event, Jed Brandt said the following:

JED BRANDT, COMMUNIST: “We have to help bring this government down, we have to help destroy this system and that requires increasing the alienation that working class and oppressed people feel. The way change is going to happen in this country is through the destruction of what we call the United States of America.

I’m opposed to white supremacy not because it’s white people involved. I am opposed to the system we traditionally call imperialism and the idea that some people have rights and privileges that are not granted to all human beings. And the solution to that problem is called communism and socialism and we should put it in our mouths. We should say it when we say what is your politics? I am a socialist. I demand that we have health care for people and it’s not a demand that’s negotiable with health insurance companies.

We will take your insurance companies; we will take the farms in this country; we will shut down the military apparatus in this country and I am tired of being told to stuff my anger back in my pants.

[Youtube]:

Compare that to what Cloward and Piven were saying needed to happen way back in the 1960s:

Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands

Am I the only one who finds it interesting that the man who says “The way change is going to happen in this country is through the destruction of what we call the United States of America” is demanding that ObamaCare be passed in his very next breath?

I mean, if the Democrat talking points had any validity, wouldn’t this guy be who wants to see America destroyed be saying, “I want health care that features tort reform, competition across state lines, and all the other elements of the Republican plan???

This is where articles such as  Cloward-Piven Crisis Care should start making sense.  I myself offered my own article, “ObamaCare Is Cloward-Piven Strategy In Microcosm” to establish this connection well before hearing Jed Brandt make the connection.  I cited the world famous Mayo Clinic as pointing out that ObamaCare represents the idea of:

accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country

I cited the Wall Street Journal which pointed out that:

Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable

I pointed out that the Dean of the Harvard Medical School said that:

while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants.

I pointed out the fears of the California Medical Association that ObamaCare:

would increase local healthcare costs and restrict access to care for elderly and low-income patients.

As we speak, we are talking about the destruction of America by means of a political technique that the Democrats themselves called “the arrogance of power,” “majoritarian absolute power,” “the precipice of a constitutional crisis,” “the abandonment of the concept of check on power,” and “a naked power grab.”

My favorite description and prediction comes from Max Baucus, who is now pushing for the very thing that he said would be “the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”

I think that last is correct.  ObamaCare, forced down the throats of Americans by the unAmerican nuclear option, will indeed be the way Democracy ends.

ObamaCare – by whatever name it is called – will be the ultimate actualization of the Cloward-Piven strategy.  It will in short order overwhelm and collapse our social support network just as leftists have been dreaming about for decades.

As one Democrat said, “Never mind the camel’s nose; we’ve got his head and his neck in the tent.”

There’s your REAL “hope” and “change.”  Too bad it doesn’t represent your hope, and too bad it is change that you most certainly don’t want.

Anti-Free Press Obama Demagogue Anita Dunn A Self-Admitted Marxist

Anita Dunn is Barack Obama’s White House Communications Director, anti-Fox News demagogue — and a self-acknowledged Maoist Communist.

Glenn Beck provided the stunning video of Anita Dunn speaking on June 5 of this year:

Speaking to an audience of high school students, Barack Obama’s Communications Director said the following:

“A lot of you have a great deal of ability.  A lot of you work hard.  Put them together, and that answers the ‘why not?’ question.  There’s usually not a good reason.

And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa — not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say, “Why not?” You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else’s.

In 1947, when Mao Tse-Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side.  And people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?” And Mao Tse-Tung said, you know, “You fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.” And think about that for a second.

You know, you don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.”

Well, that’s just great.

For what it’s worth, Adolf Hitler also laid out his own path.  He too figured out what was “right for him.”  He certainly didn’t let any “external definitions define how good he was internally.”  Oh, did he ever fight his war.  And Adolf Hitler most definitely had his own path.

And Hitler actually murdered fewer than Anita Dunn’s political hero.

Anita Dunn joins fellow Marxist and Obama-handpicked FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd, who said:

“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela….The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

Nothing wrong with a little Marxism and a little crusade to attack and destroy media critics.  Unless you have a functioning moral compass, anyway.

And we have to mentioned Van Jones, who departed (literally) in the night after his extreme radicalism was revealed.  Van Jones said:

[Van] Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

If Barack Obama isn’t a communist, then why on earth does he keep intentionally surrounding himself with them?

It’s readily apparent that Obama has always sought out communist mentors.  In Dreams of My Father, Obama described his circle whom he intentionally surrounded himself with:

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully.  The more politically active black students.  The foreign students.  The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.

And before those Marxist professors, Obama was mentored in Hawaii by communist Frank Marshall Davis.  And after those Marxist professors, Obama chose to go to Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation theology (i.e. Marxist) church.

I bring that out lest anyone try to disassociate Anita Dunn, Mark Lloyd, Van Jones, and others from Barack Obama.  These people aren’t a bunch of individual anomalies; they are part of a very clear pattern of Marxism having invaded the VERY highest level of the White House.

You know, my own favorite political philosophers are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and great political thinkers such as Cicero and Alexis de Tocqueville.  My list most certainly does not include Mao Tse-Tung, who was without question one of the worst monsters in human history.

Mao Tse-Tung, Anita Dunn’s favorite political philosopher, murdered 70 million of his own people during peacetime to secure and consolidate his power.

Annie Dillard underscored both the evil heart of Mao Tse-Tung and the inherent moral insanity of affirming both Chairman Mao and Mother Teresa in her article “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998:

Was it wisdom Mao Tse-Tong attained when – like Ted Bundy – the awakened to the long view?  “The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population. Does Mao’s reckoning shock me really? If sanctioning the death of strangers could save my daughter’s life, would I do it? Probably. How many others’ lives would I be willing to sacrifice? Three? Three hundred million?

An English journalist, observing the Sisters of Charity in Calcutta, reasoned: “Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other.”

Mao Tse-Tung was a fundamentally evil man.  And Anita Dunn – Barack Obama’s handpicked demagogue who is working on his behalf to undermine the free press that her “favorite political philosopher” Mao likewise destroyed in China – is a moral idiot.  She connects and embraces the world’s greatest taker of human life with the world’s greatest saver of human life.  And cannot comprehend the insanity of doing so.

One of the things that her “other” favorite political philosopher, Mother Teresa, said should make Anita Dunn a fierce opponent of abortion:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

But I think we can all see which “favorite” political philosopher is more “favorite” for Anita Dunn.  But then, this political demagogue, this liberal witch-hunter, is morally incapable of seeing the fundamental irrationality of the Mother who fought for the lives of children, versus the Chairman who created a system that imposed forced abortion.

John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both saw the truly graphic evil represented by communism.  How they must be turning over in their graves knowing that the White House has come to embrace everything they fought to protect this country from.

Obama’s Demonic Czars: Obama ‘Safe Schools Czar’ Supported Pedophile Molestation Of Student

“No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God damn America!” – Reverend Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama told audiences, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”

And he has surrounded himself with demons.

He surrounded himself with Van Jones – a communist; a supporter of cop murderers; a man who took the terrorists’ side on 9/11; a man who signed a “truther” statement demonizing President Bush for secretly attacking the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11; a racist who accused even white liberals of being murderers who deliberately poisoned people of color; etc. etc. etc.

He surrounded himself with men like Cass Sunstein and Ezekiel Emanuel, who have said things like:

– “When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.” – Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s handpicked health policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget, and appointed by Obama to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Resarch

– “I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.” – Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar.

And Dr. Mengele couldn’t have put it much better.

Barack Obama has surrounded himself with men like his science czar, John Holdren, who has stated:

– Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

– It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

– Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

And now we are learning that he has surrounded himself with a teacher who refused to protect a child under his counseling from being sodomized by a pedophile.

Kevin Jennings, appointed as the Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, is another Obama buddy out of ultra-corrupt Chicago.

In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future.

“One of our board members” was called to testify before Congress when they had hearings on the promotion of homosexuality in schools,” Jennings said. “And we were busy putting out press releases, and saying, “We’re not promoting homosexuality, that’s not what our program’s about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. ‘

“Being finished might someday mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote.”

The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in 2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques.

A state official who spoke to teens at the conference said:

“Fisting (forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap….[It’s] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”

You see, I think most parents would rather teachers and public schools teach their kids to be in “exploratory mode” of damn near anything else than their children’s rectums.  Am I wrong?

And then we have Kevin Jennings sharing how he provided advice to a fifteen year-old sophomore:

Another controversy from Jennings’ past concerns an account in his 1994 book, “One Teacher In 10,” about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was “involved” with an “older man”:

“Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

The account led Diane Lenning, head of the National Education Association’s Republican Educators Caucus, to criticize Jennings in 2004 for not alerting school and state authorities about the boy’s situation, calling Jennings’ failure to do so an “unethical practice.”

Jennings threatened to sue Lenning for libel, saying she had no evidence that he knew the student in question was sexually active, or that he failed to report the situation.

But a professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, Warren Throckmorton, has produced an audio recording of a speech Jennings gave in 2000 at a GLSEN rally in Iowa, in which Jennings made it clear that he believed the student was sexually active:

“I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’ He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old’ I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’”  [Audio is available here via Youtube, and the professor’s website contains a transcript of Jenning’s account with Brewster].

The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.

Kevin Jennings is an advocate for homosexual pedophilia.  He has in his past openly supported the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) by way of praising Harry Hay.  Jennings wrote the forward to a book entitled, The Queering of American Education.  For what it’s worth, fellow Chicago Obama buddy and terrorist Bill Ayers wrote a note endorsing the book on its cover jacket.

This is the man that Obama “entrusted” with ultimate care over your children.  But he is a demon in masquerade.

The despicable personal conduct, followed by the threat of a lawsuit when it was revealed, reminds me of another organization that Obama chose to surround himself with — ACORN.

Contrary to the left’s dismissal, Obama’s ties with ACORN are deep, and go back more than 20 years.

Two kids who were sick of the lefts’ corruption, hypocrisy, and vileness decided to see if ACORN would fall for the most horrendous scenario they could imagine: a prostitute and her pimp seeking to commit federal income tax fraud so they could purchase a house with the intent of importing child sex slaves from El Salvador so they could start a brothel.

And Obama’s ACORN fell for it – on film – on at least five separate occasions in five separate ACORN offices.

Let us judge Obama by the people with whom he has surrounded himself.  Because he has surrounded himself with the devil – and demons are doing his bidding.

And let us finally begin to think about how God will judge these demons – and the president who surrounded himself with them.  And, yes, the nation that elected that president.

Galatians 6:7 makes it clear, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”  And it is not just individuals who fall under God’s judgment, but nations.  As Psalm 110:6 says, “He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.”

“No, no, no! Not God bless America!  God damn America!”

ABC and ACORN: Epitomizing The Media Ostrich

A screen shot of Michelle Malkin’s blog speaks volumes:

You’ve got the media-as-ostrich, burying its head in the sand lest it see something that would embarrass the left.  You’ve got “OBAMACORN” and a clever symbol depicting the truth that ACORN is Obama and Obama is ACORN.  And you’ve got the story of the anchor of one of the big three news channels saying he absolutely doesn’t have a clue about what is going on.

A transcript of the interview with Charles Gibson is even more damning:

Don: Okay, here’s my news question. A Senate bill yesterday passes, cutting off funds to this group called ACORN. Now, we got that bill passed and we have the embarrassing video of ACORN staffers giving tax advice on how to set up a brothel with 13-year-old hookers. It has everything you could want – corruption and sleazy action at tax-funded organizations and it’s got government ties. But nobody’s covering that story. Why?

Gibson: HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning.

Roma: This is the American way!

Gibson: Or maybe this is just one you leave to the cables.

Roma: Well, I think this is a huge issue because there’s so much funding that goes into this organization…

This isn’t a story that the anchor of a major mainline media agency wants to cover; it is embarrassing to the Democrat Party, and it is a direct exposure to a president who was once a community organizer FOR ACORN.  Better to just stay ignorant and hope it goes away than cover the story that a couple of kids have revealed that, in city after city, the ACORN that Obama worked for, the ACORN that has taken tens of millions of dollars in federal taxpayer money and is set to qualify for BILLIONS in stimulus money, the ACORN that conservatives have pointed out as a corrupt and immoral organization, is willing to help a pimp and his prostitute qualify on a house and cheat on their taxes so they can import more than a dozen illegal and underage El Salvadoran girls to set up a brothel.  On tape and in glowing color for any who would just open their damn eyes to see.
In the same interview Gibson said that he was “purposely oblivious” to the huge Washington DC rally on September 12th.

Here’s a little about that rally via the Examiner:

Photo courtesy of Michelle Malkin.  For the actual ariel time-lapse video of the march today, click here for the Rhetorician (via Instapundit). In addition, 50 photos from the event are posted by The Patriot Room.

The photo above is a view of part of the crowd of protesters who gathered in Washington, D.C. and around the country today to demand control of reckless runaway government spending and to voice their opposition to the government takeover of healthcare.

Police agencies estimates the crowd at 1.2 million.  ABC News, however, reported this afternoon that the crowd was estimated at 2 million.

No matter which way you cut it, the size and scope of today’s citizen march on Washington is an historic, groundbreaking event.  Ordinary citizens who have been called ‘the great silent majority’ normally do not protest…at least not in public.  That day is long gone.

The outrage expressed by normal, everyday citizens from across the nation at the town hall meetings in August is a case in point.  Never before in recent history or memory have citizens been so clearly, visibly–and audibly–enraged by the actions of their government.

For the sake of comparison, just imagine the famous One Million Man March – a march of one million black men that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan organized and Barack Obama helped organize and attended.  And imagine Charles Gibson as the anchor of ABC News saying he didn’t know anything about it.  Oh, and suggesting that coverage of such an event was maybe something that only “the cables” should stoop to covering.

Imagine the outrage of this patent demonstration of bias, of this arrogant and demeaning attitude to a giant group of people representing an even more giant segment of the American population.

Just imagine the outrage.  And this crowed was twice as large – and reflects a even LARGER movement that the mainstream media have ignored all along.

Liberals – which means “journalists” these days, disparagingly call the movement Astroturf.  Only Astroturf doesn’t keep growing, does it?

And, of course, the media was virtually A.W.O.L. on the coverage of Van Jones.  They ignored massive evidence that he was unfit to hold his “czarship.”  Aside from the fact that he was a self-admitted communist, he was a racist, a “truther” who signed a petition stating that he believed that 9/11 was a myth perpetuated by the Bush administration, and a supporter of a convicted cop murderer named Mumia Abu Jamal.  The media refused to cover the growing scandal; it was basically up to Glenn Beck to do both the media’s job of covering significant stories and the administration’s job of vetting candidates for its positions.

It’s not just Charles Gibson; in fact, he might even be one of the better representatives of the mainstream media.  When Murphy said that “Beauty is only skin deep; ugly goes to the bone,” he might as well have been describing the media: Pretty people telling glossy stories based on a foundation of bias, dishonesty, corruption, and propaganda.

I earlier pointed out the flagrant and despicable bias of the Washington Post’s Keith Richburg and Salon’s Joe Conason in their horrendous commentary of the kids who revealed the total depravity of ACORN.  The fact of the matter is that the corruption and criminal activity of ACORN has been ignored and covered-up by the media for years because they are the community organizing-arm of the Democrat Party.  And Keith Richburg and Joe Conason might as well be the poster boys for the complete fraud that the media has become.

Throughout the entire election campaign, ACORN revealed itself as a criminal enterprise participating in voter fraud, embezzlement, and the worst forms of “community organization.”  It was up to two kids to expose ACORN.  The media would never have done it.  And if the mainstream media have their way, they will help ACORN demonize and even criminalize these kids for exposing ACORN and exposing their own corruption and bias.

The documentation of the horrifying ACORN scandal has led Senate Democrats to vote 83-7 to defund ACORN to protect their own asses.  Only a few radical leftists such as the Senator who was chosen to carry on Obama’s scandalous legacy in Illinois are left “voting for ACORN.”  And the mainstream media are still deliberately slow to respond to the story.

As a conservative, I am deeply opposed to the agenda being advanced by the Democrat Party.  And I believe they frequently lie and demagogue in order to advance that agenda.  But as bad as the Democrats are, they don’t hold a candle to the dishonesty and the betrayal of the mainstream media.  Unlike the political parties, the media have a constitutional duty to be objective and expose the truth – and they have deliberately chosen to pervert their profession into propaganda.

To hell with them.  And I say that as someone who believes in the reality of an everlasting hell.