Posts Tagged ‘Communist’

Van Jones: Obama Democrats Continue To Show What They Really Are

September 8, 2009

I laid out most of the evidence of Van Jones’ incredibly radicalism in a previous article.  He is – with the evidence abundantly clear – a communist, a Marxist-Leninist, a “truther” who claimed that the Bush Administration was actually behind the 9/11 attacks, as well as an ardent racist who accused white people of poisoning people of color.

The man who signed a document stating that the Bush administration actually brought down the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 actually then argued that the United States actually DESERVED the attack – as Newsbusters was able to document:

The bombs the government drops in Iraq are the bombs that blew up in New York City,” said Van Jones, director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

Newsbusters‘ Tom Blumer points out, “Keep in mind that Jones had to be referring to either the first Gulf War or no-fly-zone incidents, as the war to remove Saddam Hussein did not begin until 2003.”  This is a naked statement of “America deserved it!” from a lunatic.  And this anti-American lunatic was given a great deal of power by one Barack Obama.

It’s not as though the Obama administration didn’t know about Van Jones or his incredibly far-leftist radicalism.  White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett just recently said of Jones:

“We are so delighted about being able to recruit him [Van Jones] into the White House. We have been watching him – really – for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland.”

So they knew Van Jones was a self-admitted communist, knew he was a racist who accused white people (and even white environmentalists) of poisoning people of color, knew he was a supporter of cop-murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, etc. etc.  And they just didn’t care.  That was what they wanted.  That is who they are.

The Obama administration wanted to make clear that they were not behind Van Jones’ departure.

The resignation of Obama administration figure Van Jones, following controversies over a petition he had signed and his comments about Republicans, did not come at the request of the president, the White House senior adviser said Sunday

After all, he was who and what they wanted.  He’s like Obama.  He’s like the mainstream liberals who are running America now.

Liberal ideologue and Democrat in good standing John Podesta had this bit to say:

Van was working to build a common ground agenda for all Americans, and I am confident he will continue that work. Unfortunately, his critics on the right could find no common ground with him.

Clearly, Van was the subject of a right-wing smear campaign shrouded in hypocrisy.

I think that Van Jones calling Republicans “assholes” literally just for being Republicans kind of exposes the sheer insanity of Podesta’s rhetoric.  Or maybe he’s arguing that all Republicans should just quietly lie down and reflect upon their “assholishness.”  And that’s our “common ground agenda for all Americans.”

So the fact that I am opposed to Marxist-Leninist communism, the fact that I don’t believe Bush bombed the World Trade Center on 9/11, the fact that I don’t blame America for causing 9/11, the fact that I refuse to bear the label of “murderer” for my “environmental crimes” against people of color, the fact that I support Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner over and against the man who murdered him, puts me on the other side of the “common agenda” that liberals want to create.

And of course, if I oppose Van Jones, and John Podesta, and Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Obama on their agenda, why, I’m just “shrouded in hypocrisy.”

That must be some godawful “common ground agenda.”  Or, allow me to quote Obama’s preacher for 23 years, Jeremiah Wright, and call it a “God damned” agenda.

I just want you to realize the radical, communist, hateful, anti-American lengths Republicans are now expected to go to if they want to “build a common ground agenda for all Americans.”

Now that Van Jones is finally gone, I’ve heard that his role as “green jobs czar” was in reality a “fairly minor position.”  Which is actually a bizarre claim, given that Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs – and Van Jones was his point man for that endeavor.  Is it seriously the liberals’ argument that 5 million green jobs is “fairly minor”?

Van Jones is going to just quietly go away because the media is a biased and ideologically liberal group of propagandists, and they don’t want this story to fester (just imagine how the mainstream media would have gone after a rightwing “czar” who had had a tenth of Jones’ ideological baggage.)  But some questions demand to be asked:

Van Jones never created a job in his life.  What qualified him to be the green jobs czar?  What in the world is going on with this green jobs program if Van Jones is their guy?  What kind of ideology must Barack Obama have if he welcomed Van Jones aboard and was willing to stick by him in spite of Jones’ documented far leftist radicalism?  Why shouldn’t conservatives and Republicans oppose everything Obama stands for and tries to implement if he is a “Van Jones-type” of politician?  How dare a man who claimed that he transcended partisan politics appoint such a loathsome ideologue to any post in his administration?  And so on.

The fact of the matter is that the modern Democrat Party continues to be the party of Van Jones.  And that is truly frightening.

Obama’s Democrats: The Party Of Van Jones

September 5, 2009

Van Jones is an acknowledged radical black nationalist.  He is an admitted communist.  He is on the record as an anti-white racist.  He is an ANTI-bipartisan radical figure.  And so is Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as long as he is allowed by them to remain in his position as “green jobs czar”

He was arrested for rioting following the Rodney King verdict.

He is a communist:

[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.”

He tried to purge the evidence as his radicalism and communism began to become public knowledge, but the record survives.

Van Jones wrote in his manifesto:

We agreed with Lenin’s analysis of the state and the party,” reads the manifesto. “And we found inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Tse-tung and Amilcar Cabral.” […]

“We also saw our brand of Marxism as, in some ways, a reclamation.”

The night after the horrible 9/11 attack against the United States – during which time the United States suffered more casualties from a foreign enemy than at any time since the War of 1812 – Van Jones took the side of the terrorists against America.  Are we the good guy?  Not according to Van Jones and those who share his ideology:

Jones was the leader and founder of a radical group, the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. That group, together with Jones’ Elle Baker Center for Human Rights, led a vigil Sept. 12, 2001, at Snow Park in Oakland, Calif.

STORM’s official manifesto, titled, “Reclaiming Revolution,” surfaced on the Internet.

A WND review of the 97-page treatise found a description of a vigil that Jones’ group held Sept. 12, 2001, at Snow Park in Oakland, Calif. The event drew hundreds and articulated an “anti-imperialist” line, according to STORM’s own description.

The radical group’s manual boasted the 9/11 vigil was held to express solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans
and to mourn the civilians killed in the terrorist attacks “as well as the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world.”

Van Jones took part in the convicted cop murderer Mumia Abu Jamal.  Go here for more on that vile relationship and it’s vile fruit.

Van Jones signed the 9/11 “Truther” document that demanded the Bush Administration prove it did not engage in a high-level conspiracy to attack the World Trade Center on 9/11 and blame Muslims for it. In the petition that Van Jones signed, he demanded an “immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.”  Now he doesn’t deny signing the statement; he just says he doesn’t agree with it.  As Hot Air puts it:

That’s the second apology he’s made in two days; at this rate, it’d be faster and easier to issue a statement retracting everything he ever said in his life prior to being hired by Obama.

The other apology refers to publication of statements denoting his militant brand of political partisanship that guarantees that Republicans and Democrats will continue to be at the most bitter warfare until the Obama Administration is an unpleasant memory.  In a question regarding Republicans, Van Jones offered this:

Berkely, Calif., Feb. 26, 2009: Jones took audience questions in Berkeley, Calif., during a lecture on energy issues.

Van Jones: “Well, the answer to that is: they’re assholes.”

Female questioner: I was afraid that that was the answer.

Van Jones: That’s a technical, political science term. And — Barack O — Barack Obama’s not an asshole. So — now, I will say this: I can be an asshole. And some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama are going to have to start getting a little bit uppity [to get things done]. How’s that capitalism working for ya?

In addition to calling Republicans to be “a@@holes,” he essentially called for Democrats to be even more militant and radical than they already are.

That in addition to his Marxist hatred for the capitalism that made this country great.

If all that isn’t bad enough, Van Jones is a also a radical racist who will use his position to punish whites for deliberately poisoning people of color.

January 2008

Van Jones: “The environmental justice community that said, ‘Hey, wait a minute, you know, you’re regulating, but you’re not regulating equally.’ And the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don’t have a racial justice frame.”

See the video here.

How does he plan to do that?  By fundamentally transforming the system.

Uprising Radio, April 2008

Van Jones; “Right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said, ‘OK now we want reparations for slavery, we want redistribution of all the wealth, and we want to legalize mixed marriages.’ If we’d come out with a maximum program the very next day, they’d been laughed at. Instead they came out with a very minimum. ‘We just want to integrate these buses.’

But, inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country. And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we’re not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But, that’s a process and I think that’s what’s great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

See the video here.

We are talking about a radical communist who has been empowered for the purpose of “transforming the whole society” by Barack Obama.

Van Jones said at the Powershift Conference in MARCH 2009:

“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! […] And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn’t want, where it was all hot and windy. Well, guess what? Renewable energy? Guess what, solar industry? Guess what wind industry? They now own and control 80 percent of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.

See the video here.

If you are white, you are blight.

Let me tell you something; if you are a white Democrat, I hope you lose your job.  I hope it is “redistributed” to a person of color, and your children (who, being part of the oppressive white race deserve to starve) go hungry.

Obama talked about “hope” and “change.”  You want to know what I hope?  I hope that white Democrats finally get to bear the brunt of the policies that their party has been pushing.  I hope the change is that they will get to experience what “redistribution” is really all about.

That’s what they call “poetic justice.”  It’s time to eat the crap you shoveled for everyone else, white Democrats.  And you’d better smile while you swallow it, or you’ll be labeled a “racist” along with everyone else who has opposed the radical and racist Marxist liberal agenda.

Is all that behind Van Jones like he said in his “apology” that amounts to one of those “If anything I said offended anybody, I’m sorry that you are an oppressive white devil”?  I mean, some of the things he said occurred all the way back to March of 2009.

As you listen to Van Jones’ denials and the White House’s whitewashing, consider Van Jones said this:

“I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”

He said that statement in the same breath in which he claimed that we have “eco-apartheid.” His intent being to use his position to redistribute wealth and punish white people and help people of color.

But his main point is this: I’ll tone down my radical rhetoric so I can better attain my radical objectives.  So whatever he says to distance himself from his previous history is just a ruse to masquerade his past so he can continue pursuing his radical, anti-white, anti-capitalist, pro-Marxist, pro-Islamicist ends.

Just like one Barack Hussein Obama, who spent 23 years in a Marxist “black liberation” church that preached anti-white racist hatred and anti-Americanism.  As I pointed out back in March of last year:

Liberation theology was developed in the early 1970s to pave the way for the communist Sandinistas to infiltrate – and subsequently dominate – Nicaraguan society. The Sandinistas understood full well that they had no hope of installing a Marxist regime in a country that was well over 90% Roman Catholic unless they could successfully subsume Catholicism into their cause of Marxism. And the wedding of Marxism with Christianity was brought about in a clear effort of the former to crush the latter.

And all “black liberation theology” does is repackage that same brand of Marxism for blacks.

Barack Obama’s preacher, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, screamed:

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

while Obama’s fellow congregants leaped to their feat and cheered.

Obama was forced to leave the church after it became politically untenable for him to remain.  But the history of Obama’s long membership and association with Trinity Church and with Jeremiah Wright cannot just be swept under the rug with a politically motivated speech.  He left that racist anti-American cesspool 23 years too late to matter.

Barack Obama pirated a speech from his friend Deval Patrick titled, “Just Words.”  I had a few things to say about a few other things that were “just words”:

When Barack Obama’s pastor for some 23 years said:

“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere … That’s the world! On which hope sits.”

Just words.

When Jeremiah Wright said:

“The government gives them [African Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

Just words.

When Wright said of the United States:

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Just words.

“We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college,” he said. “Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.”

Just words.

When the Rev. Wright said:

“America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. … We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers. … We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi. … We put (Nelson) Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

Yep. Just words.

When Wright shouted out to his cheering congregation:

“We started the AIDS virus. … We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty.”

“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

Just words.

And, of course, when Wright said:

“We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. … We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. …”

Those were just words.

This past weekend, when Father Michael Pfleger – a longtime friend and spiritual mentor of Barack Obama, said from the pulpit of Obama’s church:

When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘this is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’

Then out of nowhere, ‘I’m Barack Obama!’

Imitating Hillary’s response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, ‘Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’

(mocks crying)

She wasn’t the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!

Just words.

When Father Pfleger said in the pulpit of Obama’s church:

“Honestly now, to address the one who says, ‘Don’t hold me responsible for what my ancestors did.’ But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did … and unless you are ready to give up the benefits, throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the monies you put away into the company you walked into because your daddy and grand daddy. …”

Shouting, Pfleger continued, “Unless you are willing to give up the benefits then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation, because you are the beneficiaries of this insurance policy.”

Just words (well, unless you mind having everything you own taken away from you and given to someone else to make up for “historic injustices”).

And when Obama’s good friend Father Pfleger said:

“Racism is still America’s greatest addiction. I also believe that America is also the greatest sin against God.”

Just words.

Now, when Barack Obama opined to a wine-sipping, cheese nibbling crowd in San Franscisco:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Just words.

Van Jones’ views aren’t an anomaly.  They accurately reflect Barack Obama’s own views, and what Van Jones intends to do is what Barack Obama intends to do.

Van Jones is the face of the Democratic Party.  Pure and simple.  Otherwise, you explain to me why Barack Obama picked him.  You explain to me why Barack Obama has kept him at his side as all of these facts about him came out.

John F. Kennedy is dead, and has been for more than 45 years.  The Democrat Party of John F. Kennedy used to be a party that believed in a powerful military that Democrats today mock and attack; it used to be a party that staunchly and steadfastly opposed the very Marxist/communist agenda that Democrats today are now openly embracing; it used to be a party that believed in low taxes as the foundation for economic growth (and see him on video).

John F. Kennedy is rolling in his grave as his former party becomes the very sort of abomination that he fought to oppose under the leadership of Barack Hussein Obama and the vile characters that he has chosen to surround himself with to implement his incredibly radical agenda.  John F. Kennedy and Barack H. Obama are anathema to one another.

Please read Thomas Sowell’s article, “Stop and Think.”

It is long past time that “Kennedy Democrats” (and I mean JOHN, NOT TED) to wake up and turn on the Obama administration before it is too late.

Obama’s Cloward-Piven Redistributionism Shaping The Future Collapse

August 28, 2009

There is a bizarre conspiracy afoot that most Americans are simply unwilling to comprehend, much less believe.

Obama and ‘Redistributive Change’
Forget the recession and the “uninsured.” Obama has bigger fish to fry.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The first seven months of the Obama administration seemingly make no sense. Why squander public approval by running up astronomical deficits in a time of pre-existing staggering national debt?

Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?

Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?

But that is exactly the wrong way to look at these first seven months of Obamist policy-making.

Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP.  Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession.  In that case we would still have had to deal with a burgeoning and unsustainable annual federal deficit that would have approached $1 trillion.

Instead, Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness with more federal stimuli and bailouts, newly envisioned cap-and-trade legislation, and a variety of fresh entitlements. Was that fiscally irresponsible? Yes, of course.

But I think the key was not so much the spending excess or new entitlements. The point instead was the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations. If on April 15 the federal and state governments, local entities, the Social Security system, and the new health-care programs can claim 70 percent of the income of the top 5 percent of taxpayers, then that is considered a public good — every bit as valuable as funding new programs, and one worth risking insolvency.

Individual compensation is now seen as arbitrary and, by extension, inherently unfair. A high income is now rationalized as having less to do with market-driven needs, acquired skills, a higher level of education, innate intelligence, inheritance, hard work, or accepting risk. Rather income is seen more as luck-driven, cruelly capricious, unfair — even immoral, in that some are rewarded arbitrarily on the basis of race, class, and gender advantages, others for their overweening greed and ambition, and still more for their quasi-criminality.

“Patriotic” federal healers must then step in to “spread the wealth.” Through redistributive tax rates, they can “treat” the illness that the private sector has caused. After all, there is no intrinsic reason why an auto fabricator makes $60 in hourly wages and benefits, while a young investment banker finagles $500.

Or, in the president’s own language, the government must equalize the circumstances of the “waitress” with those of the “lucky.” It is thus a fitting and proper role of the new federal government to rectify imbalances of compensation — at least for those outside the anointed Guardian class. In a 2001 interview Obama in fact outlined the desirable political circumstances that would lead government to enforce equality of results when he elaborated on what he called an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Still, why would intelligent politicians try to ram through, in mere weeks, a thousand pages of health-care gibberish — its details outsourced to far-left elements in the Congress (and their staffers) — that few in the cabinet had ever read or even knew much about?

Once again, I don’t think health care per se was ever really the issue. When pressed, no one in the administration seemed to know whether illegal aliens were covered. Few cared why young people do not divert some of their entertainment expenditures to a modest investment in private catastrophic coverage.

Warnings that Canadians already have their health care rationed, wait in long lines, and are denied timely and critical procedures also did not seem to matter. And no attention was paid to statistics suggesting that, if we exclude homicides and auto accidents, Americans live as long on average as anyone in the industrial world, and have better chances of surviving longer with heart disease and cancer. That the average American did not wish to radically alter his existing plan, and that he understood that the uninsured really did have access to health care, albeit in a wasteful manner at the emergency room, was likewise of no concern.

The issue again was larger, and involved a vast reinterpretation of how America receives health care.  Whether more or fewer Americans would get better or worse access and cheaper or more expensive care, or whether the government can or cannot afford such new entitlements, oddly seemed largely secondary to the crux of the debate.

Instead, the notion that the state will assume control, in Canada-like fashion, and level the health-care playing field was the real concern. “They” (the few) will now have the same care as “we” (the many). Whether the result is worse or better for everyone involved is extraneous, since sameness is the overarching principle.

We can discern this same mandated egalitarianism beneath many of the administration’s recent policy initiatives. Obama is not a pragmatist, as he insisted, nor even a liberal, as charged.

Rather, he is a statist. The president believes that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves. By “better” I do not mean in a fashion that, measured by disinterested criteria, makes us necessarily wealthier, happier, more productive, or freer.

Instead, “better” means “fairer,” or more “equal.” We may “make” different amounts of money, but we will end up with more or less similar net incomes. We may know friendly doctors, be aware of the latest procedures, and have the capital to buy blue-chip health insurance, but no matter. Now we will all alike queue up with our government-issued insurance cards to wait our turn at the ubiquitous corner clinic.

None of this equality-of-results thinking is new.

When radical leaders over the last 2,500 years have sought to enforce equality of results, their prescriptions were usually predictable: redistribution of property; cancellation of debts; incentives to bring out the vote and increase political participation among the poor; stigmatizing of the wealthy, whether through the extreme measure of ostracism or the more mundane forced liturgies; use of the court system to even the playing field by targeting the more prominent citizens; radical growth in government and government employment; the use of state employees as defenders of the egalitarian faith; bread-and-circus entitlements; inflation of the currency and greater national debt to lessen the power of accumulated capital; and radical sloganeering about reactionary enemies of the new state.

The modern versions of much of the above already seem to be guiding the Obama administration — evident each time we hear of another proposal to make it easier to renounce personal debt; federal action to curtail property or water rights; efforts to make voter registration and vote casting easier; radically higher taxes on the top 5 percent; takeover of private business; expansion of the federal government and an increase in government employees; or massive inflationary borrowing. The current class-warfare “them/us” rhetoric was predictable.

Usually such ideologies do not take hold in America, given its tradition of liberty, frontier self-reliance, and emphasis on personal freedom rather than mandated fraternity and egalitarianism. At times, however, the stars line up, when a national catastrophe, like war or depression, coincides with the appearance of an unusually gifted, highly polished, and eloquent populist. But the anointed one must be savvy enough to run first as a centrist in order later to govern as a statist.

Given the September 2008 financial meltdown, the unhappiness over the war, the ongoing recession, and Barack Obama’s postracial claims and singular hope-and-change rhetoric, we found ourselves in just such a situation. For one of the rare times in American history, statism could take hold, and the country could be pushed far to the left.

That goal is the touchstone that explains the seemingly inexplicable — and explains also why, when Obama is losing independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans, his anxious base nevertheless keeps pushing him to become even more partisan, more left-wing, angrier, and more in a hurry to rush things through. They understand the unpopularity of the agenda and the brief shelf life of the president’s charm. One term may be enough to establish lasting institutional change.

Obama and his supporters at times are quite candid about such a radical spread-the-wealth agenda, voiced best by Rahm Emanuel — “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid” — or more casually by Obama himself — “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.”

So we move at breakneck speed in order not to miss this rare opportunity when the radical leadership of the Congress and the White House for a brief moment clinch the reins of power. By the time a shell-shocked public wakes up and realizes that the prescribed chemotherapy is far worse than the existing illness, it should be too late to revive the old-style American patient.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The term, “Cloward-Piven strategy” resounds in Hanson’s article without having ever once been used:

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.

An American Thinker article provides flesh to the concept:

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-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. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

  1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
  2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
  3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Nobody wants to believe that a large and influential group of our leaders would want to create a catastrophe as a means of having an opportunity to impose their will upon an ensuing “super-government” that would necessarily have to arise from the ashes.  The concept strikes many as madness.

Only it’s happened too many times in just this century to label as “madness.”  It is, in fact, the goal of virtually every revolutionary movement.  You have to tear down the old in order to create the new.

Consider the fact that the leftist organizers of the 1960s – like Barack Obama’s friend and mentor William Ayers, who was instrumental in Obama’s early career and his run in politics – are very much still around and still profoundly shaping the leftist agenda.  Take Ayers’ Weather Underground co-founder Jeff Jones, whose Apollo Alliance wrote a big chunk of Obama’s stimulus package.  Take Tom Hayden (who endorsed Obama), leader of the leftist group Students for a Democratic Society.  He proclaimed in a landmark 1962 speech that the youth must wrest control of society from their elders, and that to that end universities had to be transformed into incubators of revolutionary “social action.”  And his calls to use any means necessary to achieve that “social action” – certainly including violence and force – colored and in fact defined the entire 60s leftist radicalism.  Hayden was one of the writers of the “Berkeley Liberation Program.”  Some highlights: “destroy the university, unless it serves the people”; “all oppressed people in jail are political prisoners and must be set free”; “create a soulful socialism”; “students must destroy the senile dictatorship of adult teachers.”  And his “community outreach” fomented horrific race riots.

These people are still dictating the agenda of the left today.  They were trying to fundamentally transform society then, and they are trying to fundamentally transform society today.  Only their tactics have changed; the goal remains the same.

You don’t think Barack Obama – who was in turn mentored by communist Frank Marshall Davis, by radical organizer Saul Alinsky, by terrorist William Ayers – (the link is to a CNN story demonstrating that Obama’s relationship to Ayers was MUCH deeper than Obama claimed) – doesn’t value these people and share their values?  Then, to put it very bluntly, you are a fool.  The words of our current president:

“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.  We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.  At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.  When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints.  We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure.  We were alienated.”

But of course, Obama really wasn’t alienated, by his own statement.  He was a member of a community–a community of far-far-leftist radicals.

Also, of course “the more politically active black students” were the violent, racist, and criminal Black Panthers.

Obama was always about “change.”

You may not believe me now.  I understand that.  But hear this: it is my contention that things are going to get seriously bad in this country.  And that there are liberals, progressives, socialists (as Obama’s climate czar Carol Browner is), communists (as Obama’s ‘Green jobs czar’ Van Jones describes himself) – or whatever the hell these people want to call themselves – who are manipulating and riding the current times in order to take advantage of the future collapse.

Things didn’t have to get as bad as they’re going to get.  It certainly won’t be George Bush’s fault (all of Obama’s efforts to turn him into the current version of Emmanuel Goldstein to the contrary).  It is not George Bush’s fault that Barack Obama’s budget accumulated so far in 2009 exceeds all eight years of Bush’s combined deficits.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that we have seen historic and completely unsustainable levels of red ink under Barack Obama.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that Barack Obama is essentially truing to nationalize wide swaths of our economy, such as health care and energy.  It’s all on Obama.

Obama’s massive debt is creating serious worries about the future of the U.S. dollar.  We are forecasted to be paying a trillion dollars a year just in interest on the debt by 2019; and it will very likely be a lot more a lot sooner.

What’s going to happen then?

Well, let me tell you what the Cloward-Piven proponents believe will happen: they think the coming complete crash of our economic system will result in the complete takeover of the economy and the society by the state.  They think that as panicked and hungry people look around at the disaster big government created, they will have no choice but to turn to government for help.  They think that they will finally have the socialist utopia they always dreamed of but American independence and self-reliance would never allow.

If by some miracle in defiance of all the laws of economics Obama’s economic policy actually doesn’t kill our economy, Obama and Democrats will win big.  If, far more likely, Obama’s economic policy causes a crash of the entire system, liberals believe that Democrats will ultimately STILL win big.

You can call me crazy if you like.  But mark my words.

As you see things getting worse, and liberals using the complete and catastrophic failure of big government to justify even MORE and even BIGGER big government, what might seem crazy to you now will make a lot more sense.

Obama Wishes U.S. Could Be Like China

August 22, 2008

Hot Air jumped all over this stunningly revealing statement from Barack Obama. I figured I might as well pile on:

Everybody’s watching what’s going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you’re starting to think, “Beijing looks like a pretty good option.”

Ed Morrissey had this to say by way of comment:

Well, as long as you forget about the oppressive Communist government and the lack of freedom and the Internet filtering and the re-education camps … China sounds really groovy.

Does Barack Obama understand the nature of the Beijing regime? The reason that the government can afford all of this spending is that they control the means of production and the wealth of the nation. They can confiscate what they want at will and spend it where they like. And in Beijing, they spent it where the cameras would be pointed.

Unfortunately, most of what the cameras see is just a facade, as Dale Franks points out at Q&O:The Chinese infrastructure that so enthralls Obama remains decades behind that of the US.  What infrastructure China manages to build, however, gets its energy from oil and coal, not from wind and solar.  China has become the highest emissions nation in the world and shows no sign of slowing itself down over concerns about anthropogenic climate change.  In fact, the air in Beijing is so bad that outdoor Olympics events almost had to be moved.

Meanwhile, the regime where Obama thinks the world would love to do business maintains itself through brutal oppression.  China blocked access to the Internet for international journalists despite promising to allow full access to reporters for the Games.  They arrested reporters covering peaceful protests.  And these are the actions they took while trying to make themselves look good.

If Obama wants us to build up American infrastructure, he can start by ending the flow of American wealth overseas for energy.  Create hundreds of thousands of jobs by building the American energy infrastructure through drilling in the OCS, ANWR, and interior shale formations.  Lower capital-gains tax rates to encourage more investment and generate more revenues (and jobs).

America needs a President who can see past the facades.  Obama has given every indication of gullibility, first with his pledge to conduct presidential-level diplomacy without preconditions with regimes like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, and now in declaring China the place to do business.  Obama isn’t at all ready to lead this nation; he’s not even ready to run a business, with thinking like this.

Barack Obama’s statement on China betrays a fundamentally stupid as well as fundamentally amoral understanding of both the economy and the world.