Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
The mainstream media is pure leftist propaganda. Nothing more. They are dishonest and disingenuous. Everything they cover (and won’t cover) is distorted by their unrelentingly un-American leftist worldview.
Ms. White is an unemployed single mother. Before the interview, Fox learned that she had filed a sexual harassment claim against an employer in 2001. That case was settled. The station also found a bankruptcy filing nearly 23 years ago in Kentucky, and several eviction notices in the Atlanta area over the past six years.
The station also reported that Ms. White had a former business partner who once sought a “stalking temporary protective order” against her for “repeated e-mails/texts threatening lawsuit and defamation of character.” The case was dismissed, but it was followed by a libel lawsuit against Ms. White. A judge entered an order against Ms. White because she failed to respond to the lawsuit, Fox reported.
And if that’s not enough there’s more (from ABC News):
Ginger White . . . has liens and civil judgments in Kentucky and Georgia dating back to 1994.
Eleven of those liens have been filed since 2009, with nine in 2011. The owners of her apartment complex in Dunwoody, Georgia have sued her for non-payment of rent nearly every month since the beginning of the year.
White, a 46-year-old unemployed single mother who is at least twice divorced, was described by WAGA as an Atlanta-area businesswoman. . . . According to WAGA, she filed a sex harassment claim against an employer ten years ago, and the case was settled. . . .
In January, there is a scheduled court date in an unrelated civil suit filed against her by a former business partner, Kimberly Vay, who alleges that Whitestalked and harassed her and had sought a protective order. A judge has entered a default judgment in Vay’s favor.
“jungle boogie black stud” who has “Sexed Up Every Woman In America Including Your Mom.”
Now, that is quintessentially racist in the real world. But liberals have absolved themselves of racism due to the fact that it is by (their own) definition impossible for a liberal to be “racist.” No matter how viscerally racist they actually are.
To say that the media covered the Herman Cain accusations like piranhas and jackals is frankly an insult to piranhas and jackals.
Now, did the media cover the numerous – and FAR more credible – accusations against Bill Clinton the same way they’ve covered Herman Cain? Not in this universe:
Alexandria, VA – In direct contrast to how ABC, CBS and NBC newsrooms all but ignored the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton from multiple women including Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, the same networks are now salivating over an alleged act of harassment by Herman Cain from anonymous sources, a new MRC report finds.
A look back at the Clinton scandals:
Paula Jones – February, 1994 – Accused Bill Clinton of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. CBS and NBC ignored her press conference. ABC gave it 16 seconds of coverage.
Kathleen Willey – July, 1997 – Accused Bill Clinton of groping her in the Oval Office while President. CBS gave it one minute on July 30 while NBC gave it a mention and ABC gave it no immediate coverage.
Juanita Broaddrick – March, 1998 – Accused Bill Clinton of raping her while he was the Arkansas Attorney General and a candidate for Governor. ABC, CBS, NBC offered weekend coverage but then dropped the story. NBC’s Datelinefinally aired an interview with Broaddrick in February of 1999.
Brent Bozell responds:
“ABC, CBS and NBC pounced on the opportunity to slam GOP hopeful Herman Cain – even with unnamed accusers and sources. It is indefensible how the networks were quick to defend Bill Clinton by not reporting public accusations of rape, inappropriate physical contact, and explicit behavior – and are quick to attack Herman Cain on the basis of weak allegations by anonymous sources.
“While these women received a different kind of ‘Clinton Treatment,’ the media have their own version, and are quick to put it aside when it comes to Herman Cain. They want to see this smart, successful, black man come to ruin – all because he is a conservative. A disgraceful President who faced public accusers and an impeachment trial received better treatment in the so-called ‘news’ than a candidate whose accusers remain unnamed.”
Then there was John Edwards, who – unlike Herman Cain – actually fathered a CHILD in the course of his adultery. The mainstream media REFUSED to cover the story even though they KNEW about it. As I documented at the time here and here. The same media that is going after Herman Cain like pitbulls going after a piece of bloody meat refused to go after John Edwards until AFTER the Democrat Primary.
With that as a backdrop of rampant, raging mainstream media bias and outright hatred for conservatives (and particularly black conservatives), let’s see what Newt Gingrich had to say when he found out that the Washington Post had their heads in his garbage cans:
On Monday, NewsBusters broke a story about Washington Post blogger Aaron Blake using Twitter to dig up dirt on Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.
On Tuesday, the former House Speaker spoke to St. Louis radio host and Big Journalism editor Dana Loesch about this saying, “It’s a little sad to see a paper the quality of the Washington Post stoop to…the National Enquirer approach to life” adding they “would rather worry about rumors about conservatives than facts about the President” (video follows with transcript and commentary):
[See video at Newsbusters]
DANA LOESCH: I’ve noticed that Aaron Blake who writes for the Washington Post’s The Fix, it’s a political blog, has reached out to readers asking them to crowd-source your past to see if they can get some skeletons in your closet. Have you heard of this?
NEWT GINGRICH: I haven’t heard of it. I’m not at all surprised. I think that you have to expect that kind of trash. I’ve been honest about the fact that there are things I did in my past that I’ve had to go to G-d and seek forgiveness for and seek reconciliation. And if this guy manages to find some magic example, I will stipulate it. I have a very good marriage with Callista. We have, we’re very, very close and have been now for well over a decade. I’m very close to my two daughters and my son-in-laws, and I’m very close to my grandchildren. And I’ll let people look at who I am and how I live today and decide whether or not I’m the person they want to have as president.
It’s a little sad to see a paper the quality of the Washington Post stoop to that, which used to be the National Enquirer approach to life. But that’s just the nature of where we are today.
LOESCH: And I wish that they would crowd-source the White House visitor logs the way that they’re going after individuals like you or Sarah Palin.
GINGRICH: I wish they would crowd-source to discover what he did at Columbia University, and I wish they would crowd-source to figure out what he did with Saul Alinsky’s ideas on the South Side of Chicago.
LOESCH: Exactly.
GINGRICH: Nobody’s ever explored exactly, the community organizer did not mean boys and girls clubs. It meant Saul Alinsky radicalism.
LOESCH: Yeah, it absolutely did.
GINGRICH: But the news media’s never quite found itself as excited about the facts about Barack Obama. Would rather worry about rumors about conservatives than facts about the President.
It really is absurd how little Americans know about our President’s life after he left Hawaii, in particular what he did in Chicago before running for the highest office in the land.
Instead of doing any such investigative journalism, our so-called press digs into every rumor and unsubstantiated allegation against his political rivals.
Will they only be interested in the truth once Obama leaves office, or will his past continue to be verboten as they try to build up his legacy much as they are currently doing with former President Jimmy Carter?
Loesch’s entire interview with the former Speaker is available at Big Journalism.
If you get your news from the mainstream media, from the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or New York Times, from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. etc., you are a dishonest person. Because you prefer lies. Your soul swims in lies. And you gravitate toward dishonest “news” sources that will feed your addiction to lies.
If the media had gone after Bill Clinton the way it’s gone after Herman Cain, Bill Clinton never would have been president.
If the media had gone after Barack Obama the way it’s gone after Herman Cain or Sarah Palin, Barack Obama never would have even come close to winning the Democrat primary, let alone been president.
“journalists are ranked as the least trustworthy with just 19 per cent believing they tell the truth.”
And one day they will burn in the hottest level of hell.
Not that that will help Herman Cain. Or Newt Gingrich, when these lying cockroaches get to work on him, for that matter.
Newt does the National Enquirer a disservice in comparing them to the mainstream media; because the National Enquirer is vastly more credible than the mainstream media – even when they are talking about the latest Elvis or Bigfoot sighting.
I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.
I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).
I’d like to respond to that. At length.
There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.
The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?
THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.
And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.
With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.” They turned it into an art form. And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???
That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.
But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.
But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”
In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”
I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word “Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”
But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???
It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.
Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.
By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.
Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.
It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all. They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism. That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism. It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:
The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….
The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].
[…]
The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.
[…]
In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.
And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.
One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.
So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.
That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.
Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
[…]
Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.
Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.
[…]
Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.
Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.
The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”
For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:
For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.
Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.
But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.
You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.
And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?
But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?
Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:
And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.
But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:
The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.
S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.
“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.
But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”
Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.
Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.
Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.
So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.
Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.
The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.
Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?
Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.
And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???
Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?
But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.
Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.
A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.
Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:
It’s probably about time to finally understand that Obama has his roots as a leftwing community agitator. And that while you can talk the man out of community agitation, you can never take the community agitator out of the man.
The Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America arm — the remnant of the 2008 Obama campaign— is playing an active role in organizing protests against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s attempt to strip most public employees of collective bargaining rights.
OfA, as the campaign group is known […has been] riding to the aide of the public sector unions… OfA’s engagement with the fight — and Obama’s own clear stance against Walker — mean that he’s remaining loyal to key Democratic Party allies…
OfA Wisconsin’s field efforts include filling buses and building turnout for the rallies this week in Madison, organizing 15 rapid response phone banks urging supporters to call their state legislators, and working on planning and producing rallies, a Democratic Party official in Washington said.
And with all of that evidence that liberals are burning up the powder keg in the Middle East and are trying to do the same thing in America, let me introduce the article that prompted me to write what I wrote above:
While part of the current unrest in Wisconsin is driven by local issues, new information has been uncovered indicating an orchestrated attempt to stir up ‘worker protests’ not only in Wisconsin but in at least a dozen states. The coordinated effort is part of a ‘revolution’ spearheaded in part by a group called ‘Heartland Revolution,’ a Kentucky-based political action organization. The group was first envisioned by a Kentucky Democrat, John Waltz, who announced his candidacy in 2009 to oppose 2-term Republican Geoff Davis for the 4th Congressional District. Waltz was defeated in the November 2010 midterm elections but embarked on an effort to create ‘revolution’ throughout America, stemming from his anger toward what he terms ‘the hijacking of political discourse by right-wing propagandists.’ His group is invovled in the continuing Wisconsin protests of teachers unions upset over Governor Scott Walker’s plan to have them pay for part of their healthcare and pension benefits, to which they currently contribute very little of the total costs.
Waltz frames his revolution in terms of a ‘political war,’ which he claims is being waged against the middle class by Republicans and corporate interests. His aim is to ‘shut down right-wing political cash machines’ using whatever means possible.
For example, in Wisconsin members of his organization were instructed to boycott a Subway Sandwhich Shop in downtown Madison during the protests. The reason? The owner of the deli is a large contributor to Governor Scott Walker.
The following Twitter alert from the Walsh organization was sent to Heartland protesters in Madison this morning:
02.19.11ALERT: If you are @ the protests in WI boycott the Subway in the square. The owners are the 2nd largest contributors to Gov. Walker
Waltz makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is a ‘progressive.’ The term is indicative of a mindset that wishes not only to hide the true intent of those who proudly own the description but promote an agenda that is based on a collectivist view of government and society where decisions concerning the personal lives of citizens can best be made by those in a centralized government complex. The goal is to increase the scope of government so that workers, unions, and others can benefit from a confiscatory tax structure aimed at draining ‘the rich’ to pad the pockets of others.
But perhaps the most troubling aspect of ‘Heartland Revolution’ is its coordinated efforts to create unrest across America, beginning in Wisconsin, but extending to Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Florida, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.
The map displayed here on the group’s blog page will reveal their upcoming plans and targeted areas, along with their Twitter messages to members.
Curiously, the group refers to its protesters as ‘boots on the ground,’ and war terminology abounds. A cursory scan of Heartland Revolution’s website will reveal that members view their efforts as a war, a revolution, with boots on the ground that are determined to intimidate conservatives, overthrow politicans who represent the voices of taxpayers, and target the businesses of those who support them.
Far from being for the ‘working poor,’ as the group claims, Waltz and his minions are dedicated to preverving and expanding union power and protecting the high salaries and benefit structures enjoyed by many who work for various government entities. For example, in Wisconsin the average city school teacher earns over $100,000 per year including pay and benefits, and pays next to nothing toward their retirement or healthcare. The benefits are paid overwhelmingly by taxpayers. Waltz and his group, however, believe that asking these teachers to contribute more to their plans like most Americans do is tantamount to ‘waging war against workers.’
It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks if the average American agrees with him.
If America doesn’t want to burn, it had better vote out all these Democrats and make sure they don’t have enough fire to light anything.
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.
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)
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:
The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
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.
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.
The exciting thing about an Obama presidency – aside from the very real possibility that an inexperienced radical will fail spectacuarly and send the whole country plunging to its ruin – is the neverending stream of hypocrisy that flows from the man.
The man whose campaign offered a constant stream of “that amounts to the charge of guilt by association” when reports of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and others surfaced, is now more fixated on “associations” than any President in history. This from a man who would certainly fail to achieve a security clearance in any administration other than one in which he was President.
A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.
Now, it doesn’t surprise me one iota, but it will likely come as a surprise that the man who campaigned as the paradigmatic symbol epitomizing ‘hope’ and ‘change’ would prove himself to be the paradigmatic Stalinist instead.
My favorite quote of the article:
Just in case the previous 62 questions do not ferret out any potential controversy, the 63rd is all-encompassing: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”
As though anyone could actually embarrass the president-elect more than he has embarrassed himself and the country that voted for him with his own “sources of embarrassment.”
In 1992 it was a serious matter than Bill Clinton had once smoked marijuana; he had to convince voters that he “didn’t inhale.” Obama used hard drugs like cocaine. It is difficult to imagine a President having openly associated with openly anti-Semitic PLO functionaries such as Rashid Khalidi, but here we are. It is beyond impossible to imagine a President having not merely associated with, but actively PARTNERED with, a terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and the Capital building. But here we are. It is utterly impossible to imagine a President who spent 23 years attending a racist and anti-American church and remaining with said church even AFTER the pastor shouted for all to hear, “God damn America!” But here we are.
And his administration is worried that some detail about someone’s life could be “embarrassing”?
The polls are all over the place in the Presidential race. I’ve had Democrats pointing to polls that have Obama up by as much as 14 points. This morning I assumed I must have slept through Wednesday, because the crowd at ABC’s “This Week” were all talking about the election as though McCain had lost in a Iandslide. Questions were phrased in terms of, “Is there anything that McCain could have done?” “What did McCain do wrong that cost him this election?” Personally, I still believe that McCain will eek out a victory, as voters who have no real inclination to support McCain will realize that they have very good reason to reject Obama. I just can’t imagine that the country would decide to make the most inexperienced, most liberal, and most radical candidate in U.S. history our next President given our fragile state.
But I’ve got to face reality. Maybe all those talking heads on “This Week” are right. I frankly don’t know which polls are “most accurate” (if any), or who will surge or who will fade (although it seems to me – given their Iraq positions – that it be only fitting that McCain “surge” and Obama’s “victory” turn into a “cut and run” on him). But regardless of what I hope will happen, or even what I think will happen, there’s always what might happen: Obama is clearly favored to win this election, and Democrats are clearly favored to win massive control of the House and the Senate under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
The question is, if Obama does win, what should Republicans hope for about the Congressional elections? What should we hope for during the course of the next two years? During an Obama Presidency? Should we want Republicans to do well enough to filibuster? Or should we want to see Democrats do so well they destroy the country and destroy their own political futures in the process? Should Republicans hope the economy recovers and hums along under Democratic leadership, or should we literally hope the economy tanks under the Democrats’ control?
You’ve got plenty of your ordinary, traditional conservatives out there. They want what’s best for the country because they’ve always put country over party. They want to see the economy pick up, they want to see the United States maintain and even expand its power and influence. They want to see the country continue to remain great, because that’s what they’ve always wanted.
It’s what I always wanted. At least up to now. I was so proud to enlist in the United States Army with Ronald Reagan as my Commander-in-Chief. I was proud to wear two Armed Forces Expeditionary Medals and the Combat Infantryman Badge on my chest. And I continued to remain proud of my country after I left the Army. During the Clinton years, I told more than a few bitter Republicans, “Whether you voted for him or not, he’s STILL your President!” I didn’t vote for President Clinton, and was disappointed by his victory; but I was an American, and he was my President because my country voted for him. I prayed for his wisdom and leadership. Too bad so many Democrats never brought any similar bipartisanship with them. They worked to undermine President Bush in every way they could.
I just cannot bring myself to support God Damn America. Or even wish it well. We have become so amoral that we easily support the death-by-mutilation of 50,000,000 babies. In fact, we have become so immoral that we are prepared to make a man who voted to let babies who have been born alive be killed. I find myself hoping that the economy goes down the tubes under the Democrats’ control, because that appears to be the only way that people will support traditional values or the party that seeks to uphold them.
If Barack Obama is elected President, I will quote the man he called his pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years: GOD DAMN AMERICA! THE U.S. OF KKK A!!! And I will say my prayers accordingly: where I used to say, God, please don’t give us the judgment we deserve, I will say, “Lord, we voted for God damn America; go ahead and give it to us!”
I finally understand all the Democrats’ who expressed such vitriolic hatred of George Bush and the America that voted for him. I love the America that the founding fathers envisioned; these Democrats repudiate that historic vision for America – and with their messiah – view our Constitution as having had an “enormous blind spot” which “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country.” They think the Constitution and the country were deeply flawed; I think the flaw has always laid with the people who kept corrupting our system of government by imposing their will in place of our Constitution because they thought they knew better.
I loved the America of which Kennedy said, “Ask… what you can do for your country”; Today’s Democrats say, “Ask what your country can do for you.” Or, to put it in Obama-Wright terms, Democrats hated the God bless America that we once were; I hate the God damn America that they promise to usher in.
But I do wonder how conservatives – whose opinions I actually DO give a rip about – feel about my anger and bitterness over the prospect that half the country (or more, or less, as we’ll find out November 4) would elect such an un-American – or at least such a ‘God Damn America’ American – for President. I feel like Dietrich Bonhoeffer must have felt as he watched his beloved Germany fervently embracing Nazism. The German people in the 1920s wanted “change”, too: and Adolf Hitler gave them change in spades.
Right or wrong, this is how I feel: I actually hope that if Obama wins, Republicans lose HUGE. You know how, when you realize that your professional sports team won’t make it to the playoffs, you come to start hoping they lose so many games that they’ll receive a high draft pick? I’m kind of there in my politics, given an Obama win. The fewer Republicans there are to blame for the disaster that is going to overtake this country, the better. The whole charade that has led to such anti-Republicanism has been due to the demonization by Democrats and by the overwhelmingly biased liberal media. Let Republicans be so utterly rejected that liberals have no one – and I mean absolutely no one – to blame but themselves so that their ideas and their candidates can be vilified for the next fifty years or so.
The media has been so blatantly biased that we are now in a propaganda state. There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their brand new study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased. Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain. The media now represents a fifth column of government – a propaganda wing – that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats. Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded it, because no free society can survive a climate of propaganda.
The only way that America can turn around given the propaganda-dominated culture is if the media is utterly discredited, and Democrats lead the nation into calamity and despair. It can happen in two ways:
The second way that America will recognize that they’ve been lied to by both Democrats and their media propaganda is if we are attacked again.
Personally, if Obama is elected to the White House, I would like to see conservatives leaving military service the way rats might leave a sinking ship. Let them determine that they will not fight for God Damn America and leave the military in droves. Let Democrats do all the fighting and suffering sacrificing and dying (or at least all the cutting and running that they prefer to fighting) for the next few years. When 70% of the military is composed of McCain-supporting conservatives, something needs to change under a Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama. Joe Biden – the foreign policy “expert” on the ticket – flat-out guaranteed that Obama would be tested with an international crisis in the first six months of his Presidency. Let the people who voted for him do all the dying for him, too. That only seems fair. I earlier suggested that we have a “Gay All The Way!” military.
The country that so totally rejects conservatives certainly doesn’t need their help. At this point – with the voters demanding complete Democratic domination – building up country amounts to tearing down the conservative vision for the country.
We have totally turned Iraq around in the last couple years, but that is only because President Bush and his commanders in the filed refused to listen while the Democratic Senate Majority Leader proclaimed defeat, while Barack Obama vigorously opposed the surge that allowed us to finally gain the upper hand in the first place, with Democrats claiming that President Bush lied about Iraq from the outset, and with too many Democrats loudly and publicly calling our soldiers war criminals and Nazis. Let’s see how President Obama fares against Iran. Let’s see what happens when – as I believe – Israel attacks Iran to try to destroy its nuclear program because they don’t believe that the United States under President Obama will do anything.
When a weak, passive, appeasing Barack Obama allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons (because only the assurance of a massive attack will stop them at this point), they will be coming after the Great Satan both directly and indirectly through terrorist proxies – and be able to threaten a few mushroom clouds should the Great Satan directly threaten them in return. That won’t look so good to the electorate, who will suddenly fondly remember that the Bush Presidency had actually managed to protect them from terrorist attacks. But I will be loudly quoting Jeremiah Wright and how “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
We are one major terrorist attack – just ONE – away from an America that overwhelmingly realizes that Barack Hissein Obama is UNFIT to lead this country. Don’t think for one nanosecond that the same fickle electorate that rejected Bush won’t reject Obama. One attack, and they will remember all the many ways that Democrats left this country vulnerable to terrorism.
Yes, in the short run, the Democrats would pass the fascist “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle all opposition speech and run so completely wild on social godlessness that they will make decent peoples’ skin crawl. But when they poison the nation against themselves do to their own rabid excesses – or if there is another major terrorist attack given the likely Democrat’s repeal of the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance of terrorists, the abandonment of Gitmo and its detention of our terrorist enemies, and their overall perception by terrorists as weakling cowardly retreating appeasers ripe for attack – there will be a conservative victory in two years that will be like nothing ever seen. The only way Democrats can be seen as the incompetent fools they truly are is if they are actually allowed to run everything and they have no one to blame for the disaster but themselves.
Until then, I’m just going to spend the next four years reciting Democratic talking points: our country is evil; our President is evil; our soldiers are evil. God damn America, also known as the U.S. of KKK A. We’re immoral for doing every damn thing we do; Obama lied, people died. That sort of thing.
Contact the LA Times and Demand the Rashid Khalidi Video
Politics | Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:24:57 am PST
We’re calling on LGF readers to contact the Los Angeles Times and their advertisers to demand that the Times release the videotape they are concealing, showing Barack Obama at a party with radical Palestinian activists, Bill Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn, being praised by former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi.
They’re stonewalling, and giving people who contact them the runaround.
Please note: the existence of the tape is not in doubt; Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times explicitly wrote that the Times had a copy of the tape, in an article about Obama’s ties to Rashid Khalidi: Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama.
At Khalidi’s going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances,” Khalidi said.
The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.
The Los Angeles Times is hiding a potentially explosive video of a presidential candidate, during the final days of an election.
If the media were fair, if they were unbiased, objective, and frankly, if they were honest, the Democratic Party would either look much different, or it would have gone the way of the Dodo bird. As it is, the media has become the propaganda wing of the DNC, and they are biased to the core even as they falsely represent themselves as “objective journalists.”
Journalism has become a disgrace, and the entire industry would be ashamed of themselves if they still retained a functioning moral compass.
I found the following means of leaving a complaint at the doorstep of the LA Times:
Editorial Contacts
Readers’ Representative:
Questions or concerns about The Times’
journalistic standards and practices
(877) 554-4000
Don’t let them get away with this. Let them know that YOU know that they are a disgrace. There is no way in hell the LA Times would sit on damning video if it would have hurt John McCain instead of Barack Obama.
Some recent videos – especially in the aftermath of the “spread the wealth around” comment to Joe the Plumber – really fill out the vague, fuzzy, shallow, prettily-lit with halo aftereffects Obama economic and tax policy. In his discussion with Joe Wurzelbacher, Obama said, “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.”
If you got your job from a homeless guy, Obama is right. Vote for “bottom-up economics.” If you got it from a business, Obama is wrong. It is and always has been the wealthy who have created jobs with their investment and their leadership. When you tax businesses and corporations, you punish the success which results in job-creation. That is simply as obvious as it can get.
Obama has decried the charge that he’s a “socialist.” His surrogates allege that merely calling a black man a “socialist” is racist to try to take it off the table. It is frankly stunning how often the “transformational” candidate has played the race card.
But some recent footage from Barack Obama’s past puts all of this into clear perspective. If you want to know who Barack Obama is and what he really believes, now you finally have your chance.
I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
The Constitution – you know, the thing our Presidents have sworn to uphold for more than 220 years? – is viewed by Barack Obama as having an “enormous blind spot.” Our founding fathers were similarly blind. There’s a “fundamental flaw” with the system of government that has made this the greatest nation in the history of the world.
Don’t worry: Barack Hussein Obama will fix what shortsighted figures like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and so many other men – who envisioned a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” – were just too ignorant to get right.
Now let us turn to a transcript of another statement from Barack Obama that reveals his attitude favoring “redistributionist change” (youtube video is here):
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.
OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.
KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?
OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
So even the most radical Supreme Court in history that created rights out of such fantasies as “penumbras formed by emanations” wasn’t quite radical enough for Barack Obama. He refers to the failure of a “court focused” movement to bring about desired reparations and redistributive changes, most specifically the redistribution of wealth. He is opposed to the very framework of the Constitution. He doesn’t like the “essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution,” and bemoans the Warren Court’s failure to “break free” from the “enormous blind spots” of our founding fathers and in our Constitution. The fact that the Constitution is framed in terms of limiting the power of the government to help or to harm, rather than specifying all the goodies that government must give you is deemed by Barack Obama as a tragedy.
Obama apologists are claiming that Obama repudiates an activist court; but he does no such thing. He merely says that – as a practical matter – the Supreme Court has had a hard time trying to “legitimize opinions” and that certain radical judicial activist programs were “hard to manage” and “hard to figure out.” His final sentence reveals that he is by no means through with radical judicial activism: “Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.”
Give him a chance to appoint three Supreme Court Justices – as many say he may well be able to do if elected (as older liberals retire) – and you will get a chance to find out what damage three young radical activists can do. As a single example, Obama has repeatedly cited his opposition to homosexual marriage; does anyone actually believe he would do anything other than appoint judges who would impose the very homosexual marriage Obama claims to oppose on society?
OBAMA: I worked as a community organizer in Chicago. I was very active in low income neighborhoods, uh, working on issues of crime and education and employment, uh, and seeing that in some ways certain portions of the African-American community, uh, are doing as bad, if not worse, and recognizing that my fate remained tied up with their fates, that, uh, that my individual salvation, uh, is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country. Um, Unfortunately, I think that recognition, uh, requires that we make sacrifices, and this country has not always been willing to make the sacrifices necessary to bring about a new day and the new age….
OBAMA: In the last year, African-Americans have lost their jobs at a faster rate than at any time in a quarter century. That’s a wrong that needs to be made right. [snip] There’s a certain race weariness that confronts the country precisely because the questions are so deeply embedded and the solutions are gonna require so much investment of time, energy, and money. [snip] Unfortunately, we’ve got caught up in ideological battle where one party says, the only way to create job opportunities is through the marketplace and governments should not be involved at all, whereas my argument would be we also have to make sure that people are trained for jobs, that they’ve got child care, uh, so that they can go to a job, that there’s affordable housing in those areas where jobs are being created, that entrepreneurs in minority communities are getting financing to create their own businesses and to create jobs in those communities, and all of those involve not just individual responsibility, but also societal responsibility….
OBAMA: Because I think of the problems that African-Americans face in this country, we tend to have a sanitized view in the African-American community about what is going on in Africa. And the truth of the matter is is that many of the problems that Africa faces, whether it’s poverty, uh, or political suppression, uh, or ethnic conflict, uh, is just as prominent there and can’t all be blamed on, uh, the effects of colonialism. What it can be blamed on is some of the common factors that affect Bosnia or, uh, Los Angeles or, uh, all kinds of places on this earth, and that is the tendency for one group to try to suppress another group in the interests of power or greed or, uh, resources or what have you.
Now you should start to remember many of the things that Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, said that become so incredibly relevant. Obama may phrase his positions, views, and beliefs in more flowerly and non-threatening ways, but his worldview is basically identical to Jeremiah Wright’s – which is why Obama stayed in Wright’s church for 23 years while he preached:
“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.”….
“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.”….
“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.”….
“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.”….
“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.”….
“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.”….
“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. …”
Barack Obama’s views – which he has NEVER been called to fully explain and defend by the mainstream media – are incredibly radical, just as are his open associations and partnerships with radicals (which have similarly been whitewashed by a shockingly partisan media).
There’s more. The same Barack Obama who claimed that the United States was “fundamentally flawed” and that the Constitution of the United States “reflected an enormous blind spot” also compared the United States to Nazi Germany:
“…just to take a, sort of a realist perspective…there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”
Sooshisoo has the video with further commentary of this unfortunate episode. Suffice it to say Barack Obama would be the first U.S. President who ever trashed the Constitution which he would then swear to uphold, and the first President to compare the political philsophy of the country he would lead to “the doctrines of Nazism.”
When you combine the fact that we are facing a Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and a filibuster-proof Senate led by Harry Reid, along with the fact that the media has overwhelmingly proven that it is little more than an open apologist for liberal causes, we are facing a genuinely terrifying prospect for any but the very farthest members of the radical left.
Just a week ago, the Battleground poll showed Barack Obama had a 13 point lead over John McCain (53-40, taken 10/8-10/13). Their poll released just today shows that the race is 48-47.
A CNN poll has McCain tied in five key battleground states. A week ago McCain was behind in all of them.
Obama isn’t a good finisher. He limped across the finish line against Hillary Clinton, and he’s starting to limp now.
Two issues have fallen into John McCain’s lap like golden nuggets from heaven in the form of two Joe’s: Joe the plumber and Joe the Biden.
Barack Obama revealed in his impromptu discussion outside of Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher’s house that, yes, all rhetoric aside, he IS a socialist who wants to “spread the wealth around.” People are more interested in the details of Obama’s tax plan. And, like a cheap auto paint job, it doesn’t look so good on a close inspection.
And Joe Biden revealed in his speech at a fund raiser that, yes, all rhetoric aside, Barack Obama IS young and untested and the world is most definitely growing to throw an international crisis at him to see what he’s made of. People are going to think about Obama as a Commander-in-Chief ready to step in and deal with a real crisis.
And if that isn’t enough; the William Ayers issue just got fed a whole bunch of fresh raw meat:
William Ayers didn’t make that horrible statement when Barack Obama was 8 years old (FYI, Ayers’ last self-acknowledged and most well-known bombings occurred in 1972, when Barack Obama was eleven years old). Ayers said that when Barack Obama was 40 years old. Nor did Obama work in direct partnership with William Ayers when he was 8 years old; he did so beginning when he was 32 years old. In other words, he was old enough to be held responsible for his relationships and alliances.
[John] Murtagh, whose father was a New York Supreme Court justice when his family’s home was targeted, put out a statement on behalf of McCain’s campaign Wednesday claiming “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family.”
Obama has said his relationship with Ayers did not extend beyond serving with him on an education board in Chicago. He has condemned Ayers’ Vietnam War-era attacks, and his campaign has said Obama did not know of Ayers’ radical past when Ayers held a campaign event at his home for Obama in 1995.
But Murtagh cast doubt on the narrative out of the Obama campaign, saying it would make the Democratic presidential candidate “the dumbest man that ever graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School” if he didn’t initially know about Ayers’ past.
Barack Obama said he didn’t know about William Ayers’ radical terrorist past when he held his first campaign fund raiser in William Ayers’ home – and directly benefited from Ayers’ clout – in 1995. But Obama had already known and worked with Ayers for a couple of years (beginning in early 1993), and Ayers’ Weatherman terrorist background was common knowledge in Chicago. It is very much like someone in New York serving on a couple of boards with Joe Namath and claiming that he was never told that Namath had been a football player.
The article quoted above also notes that Michelle Obama worked with William Ayers’ wife – and convicted terrorist – Bernadine Dohrn. Murtagh says, “I believe if the senator were to come clean and tell us the full story, we’d find out this relationship well predates the fundraiser held in the Ayers home. It goes back to the ’80s.”
William Ayers wasn’t some irrelevant and tangential acquaintance; he was a powerful and influential supporter of Barack Obama at an early and critical stage in an inexperienced Barack Obama’s career.
To begin with, the William Ayers relationship – and Barack Obama’s attempts to distance himself from that relationship – reveal the cynical and deceptive personal character of Barack Obama. The only thing worse than having a bad association is having a bad association and then regularly lying about it. Obama has lied about his relationship with William Ayers.
But, believe it or not, that’s not the worst of it. That Barack Obama has “palled around with terrorists” is only part of the problem. [For the record, there have been a lot of virulently anti-American friends in Barack Obama’s Rolodex.]
You need to realize just what Barack Obama did while serving on those two boards with William Ayers. It isn’t pretty.
It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.
John McCain, take note. Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.
Let me begin by asking the following question: would it bother you if I – as a white scholar – asserted that white brains were different than black brains, and that black children are incapable of learning the same way white children do? That is precisely the position of Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor, spiritual advisor, and mentor for 23 years.
Now let me point out as a further preamble that William Ayers – in a book timed to be released after the election in order to keep Obama out of trouble yet benefit from the publicity surrounding the Obama-Ayers link – will be titled Race Course Against White Supremacy. Ayers used to be a radical bomb-throwing terrorist. Newsflash: since then he’s been a radical bomb-throwing educator. It’s too bad that this book will come out too late for voters to understand the incredibly radical agenda that William Ayers – and Barack H. Obama – have regarding education. The fact is, Obama didn’t just “pal around” with Bill Ayers; he partnered with Ayers to advance and fund an incredibly radical education agenda.
In 1996, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge gave the Coalition for Improved Education in South Shore (CIESS) a $200,000 grant. CIESS was made an “enternal partner” linked to a network of schools within the Chicago public system. This network, named the “South Shore African Village Collaborative” was thoroughly “Afrocentric” in orientation. It continued to receive large grants from Annenburg throughout the period of Barack Obama’s oversight as a board member.
Stanley Kurtz documents the relationship between Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and what turns out to be an extremely troubling “Afrocentric” curriculum advanced and supported by Ayers and Obama and which Kurtz describes as a “carbon copy of Jeremiah Wright’s worldview.”
The Afrocentric “rites of passage” movement begins with the presupposition (in the words of the Journal of Negro Education) that public education in the United States is shaped by “capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression.” Is that your view of American public education, PTA mom and dad? It is Barack Obama’s, given his support for and funding of the movement.
According to the Afrocentric system championed by William Ayers and Barack Obama with Annenberg money, American values “have confused African American people and oriented them toward American definitions of achievement and success and away from traditional African values.” American socialization has “proven to be dysfunctional and genocidal to the African American community.” And the “answer is the adolescent rites of passage movement, designed ‘to provide African American youth with the cultural information and values they would need to counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.'”
Supporters of the “rites of passage” movement (such as Barack Obama and William Ayers in their decision to fund them) viewed these programs as “a social and cultural ‘inoculation’ process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society.”
Jacob Carruthers, a leader of the “rites of passage” movement funded by Annenberg money under Barack Obama, “dismisses critics as part of a white supremacist conspiracy to hide the truth of African superiority.” His mission, as detailed in his book Intellectual Warfare, calls upon society to “dismantle the European intellectual campaign to commit historicide against African peoples.” According to Carruthers, “The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.”
As Stanley Kurtz explains:
Carruthers’s goal is to use African-centered education to recreate a separatist universe within America, a kind of state-within-a-state. The rites of passage movement is central to the plan. Carruthers sees enemies on every part of the political spectrum, from conservatives, to liberals, to academic leftists, all of whom reject advocates of Kemetic civilization, like himself, as dangerous and academically irresponsible extremists. Carruthers sees all these groups as deluded captives of white supremacist Eurocentric culture. Therefore the only safe place for Africans living in the United States (i.e. American blacks) is outside the mental boundaries of our ineradicably racist Eurocentric civilization. As Carruthers puts it: “…some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture.” The rites of passage movement is a way to teach young Africans in the United States how to reject America and recover their authentic African heritage.
Carruthers admits that Africans living in America have already been shaped by Western culture, yet compares this Americanization process to rape: “We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist….” In other words, American blacks (i.e. Africans) may have been forcibly exposed to American culture, but that doesn’t mean they need to accept it. The better option, says Carruthers, is to separate out and relearn the wisdom of Africa’s original Kemetic culture, embodied in the teachings of the ancient wise man, Ptahhotep (an historical figure traditionally identified as the author of a Fifth Dynasty wisdom book). Anything less than re-Africanization threatens the mental, and even physical, genocide of Africans living in an ineradicably white supremacist United States.
Kurtz also says:
According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers’s training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: “As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey….” These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC’s curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers’s concerns about “menticide” and “genocide” at the hand of America’s white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: “Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us.”
You might have noticed that the three R’s don’t seem to be very important. They aren’t, for this Obama-funded racist and anti-American ideology masquerading as a curriculum. It is a curriculum Barack Obama, as a friend of William Ayers, a board member with Annenberg, and a congregant for 23 years in Jeremiah Wright’s church, has supported for most of his entire adult life. In his conclusion, Kurtz says:
As if the content of SSAVC documents wasn’t warning enough, their proposals consistently misspelled “rites of passage” as “rights of passage,” hardly an encouraging sign from a group meant to improve children’s reading skills. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s own evaluators acknowledged that Annenberg-aided schools showed no improvement in achievement scores. Evaluators attributed that failure, in part, to the fact that many of Annenberg’s “external partners” had little educational expertise. A group that puts its efforts into Kwanzaa celebrations and half-baked history certainly fits that bill, and goes a long way toward explaining how Ayers and Obama managed to waste upwards of $150 million without improving student achievement.
However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke. It’s time for McCain to say so.
Barack Obama has promised to increase the funding of our nation’s already massively funded public education system by about another thirty percent. Just realize that – based on his past history – President Obama will use that money to radicalize your little darlings, rather than try to teach them.
Start Thinking Right 