We are at war against an enemy that changes its name and infiltrates like water falling on a leaky roof. However, the actions of the enemy, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, cause him to be visible - within the fog of his lying rhetoric. One particular department of the KGB (or whatever it calls itself currently) has taught communists throughout the U.S. and left them as autonomous agencies to infiltrate our schools, our media, our political parties, our labor unions, our teacher's unions, our government, and various other organizations. According at least one researcher and author, the late Joe McCarthy was right in most ways but was silenced through various political means. McCarthy was ridiculed for his supposed overreaching exposure of the threat of communist infiltration and activity in the U.S. In light of recent events, it is very likely that he was absolutely correct. As Saul Alinsky's teachings begin to come the attention of the public, it seems quite evident that Alinsky's followers and certain agencies within the KGB and its various clones have been using Alinsky's advanced methods for some time. Yet, the public has not yet awakened and even the leftmost of the Democratic Party are not yet fully recognized by the public in general as being communist agents.
Communism became a "dirty" word in the 1950s and 1960s. Most communists in the United States do not like to be called "communist" - in fact, they take great pains to disguise who they are. However, even though they have different names, their actions speak louder than words. A communist is one with the philosophy of a communist and who acts like a communist.
[This part was taken from an Article published Monday, November 03, 2008, at Fox News.
Obama a Uniter? Actions Speak Louder Than Words by John R. Lott, Jr.]
Absolute Control of the Media
Is Barack Obama a uniter? Since the beginning of the Democratic primaries, unity has been one of his major themes. It proved a strong lure compared to the polarizing Hillary Clinton. That theme has also helped Obama blunt the undeniably bipartisan record of John McCain. But being a uniter takes some effort. It isn't just about words. Republicans have pointed to Obama's lack of bipartisan accomplishments in either state or federal government. And even Obama's presidential campaign indicates that he has a tin ear when it comes to dealing with those he disagrees with. One of the surest ways to anger others is not giving them a chance to air their views. Obama's list of heavy-handed actions is growing.
Obama campaign kicked reporters from the Dallas Morning News, the New York Post and the Washington Times off the campaign plane — making it difficult for their papers to cover Obama's final campaign appearances. The reporters were replaced with writers from magazines such as Glamour. The editorial pages of all three papers had endorsed McCain. The Obama campaign explained the decision as simply occurring from an excess demand for seats. But Washington Times Executive Editor John Solomon told radio show host Mark Levin on Friday evening that they had been covering the Obama campaign from the beginning of his run for the presidency, and that those endorsements were "the only one common thread among [the three newspapers]." Kirsten Powers notes how times have changed — not even Richard Nixon kicked disagreeable reporters off campaign planes, not even his archenemies at the Washington Post.
Democrats seems determined to cut back on the few conservative voices in the mainstream media. Obama supports media-ownership caps, which will primarily affect News Corp, the company that owns Fox News and conservative newspapers such as the New York Post. His proposals to increase minority ownership of broadcasting are also designed to change content, no longer leaving it up to customers to decide what it is they want to listen to. [This is reminescent of the way the Soviet Union and Russia today have nationalized the media so that only communist or socialist propaganda can be seen and heard by the citizenry.]
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promise more direct regulations on content. They want to re-impose the "Fairness Doctrine," mandating that private radio stations provide what the government determines to be "balanced" coverage and guaranteeing that conservative talk radio will be over. There is a reason why talk radio only really began after the "Fairness Doctrine" ended in the 1980s. Congressman Mike Pence couldn't get even one single Democratic member of Congress to oppose these regulations last year, and Obama hasn't yet said whether he would veto a bill regulating radio show content.
[The so-called Fairness Doctrine is another example of deliberately misnamed legislation, typical of communist tactics, as it is actually an "Unfairness Doctrine" designed to prevent freedom of speech. Feinstein of California, famous for her efforts to take away our rights under the second amendment is also pushing the "Unfairness Doctrine" - which shows what she actually is under her grandmotherly exterior. There are reports that other means may be taken to silence conservatives if the "Unfairness Doctrine" fails to do so - and with a neo-communist as president, any means to silence the conservatives would NOT be vetoed.]
There has been what can only be described as thuggish activity. In late August, Milt Rosenberg — a Chicago institution, broadcasting on WGN radio since 1973 — interviewed Stanley Kurtz about the extremely extensive relationship between Obama and William Ayers. Milt, a mild mannered, middle-of-the-road person, tried to have both sides represented and had invited a representative of the Obama campaign. No one from the campaign agreed to appear. Instead, the campaign organized an immediate, massive call-in campaign to force WGN to cancel Kurtz's appearance. When that failed, the campaign organized supporters to call in to the station and simply tie up the telephone lines so that other listeners couldn't ask questions. Others threatened Federal Communication Commission action to revoke WGN's license. Rosenberg said that he had never seen anything similar to silence discussion during his years on radio.
Obama has also gone to the extreme of threatening opponents and television stations with legal action for running ads. For example, when ads were run discussing Obama's relationship to Ayers, Obama's campaign demanded that the Department of Justice criminally investigate the group behind the ads. (What criminal charges that were justified by running an ad were never explained.) It is bad enough that a senator demands criminal charges against a political opponent, but Justice Department officials might take this seriously if the president of the United States asks them to press charges.
When the National Rifle Association started running ads warning that Obama had previously
supported bans on handguns and massive taxes on bullets, the Obama campaign likewise used
intimidation and sent cease-and-desist letters to television stations threatening legal action.
Re-Writing the Laws
The list is long, but the media isn't the only place that Obama promises to eliminate dissent. Campaign finance laws will surely be rewritten in ways that make it particularly difficult for Republicans to win races. Limits on total expenditures and public financing entrench incumbents, which in this case would be Democrats. For example, when an incumbent president doesn't face a serious challenge during the primaries, he can sit on the public funds obtained during the primaries until the nominee from the other party has been determined, and then use those primary funds to attack his general election opponent. The non-incumbent party's nominee must usually battle for the nomination and typically has reached the spending limit imposed by the taxpayer funding system by March. These challengers are then severely limited in their ability to campaign until their nominating conventions in August. Challengers Walter Mondale in 1984 and Bob Dole in 1996 were pummeled for months with little financial means to respond.
Or take unions, where secret ballots will be eliminated for union certification elections. What is next? Eliminating secret ballots for other elections? Presumably not, but if we care about preventing voter intimidation generally, why don't we also care about that for workers? Don't Democrats trust workers enough to make judgments on their own? Stronger unions do mean one thing: more money for Democrats' campaigns in future elections.
It is hard to put up with those who disagree. But will Democrats put up with criticism when they have the presidency and Congress and enough votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster? This will be more power than any party has had for a long time, because even when the Democrats had over 60 votes in the Senate, many of those were conservative Southern Democrats, who no longer exist. Some Republicans think that this election doesn't matter. That in two years they will come back stronger than ever. Indeed, Republicans might be quite angry and inspired to take things back. But 2012 won't be like 1980. The Democrats plan to tilt the playing field in their favor to ensure a long-term domination in politics.
[John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.]
Some of the material below is quoted from None Dare Call It Treason by John A. Stormer.
Millions of Dollars
The communist left can raise millions of dollars from sources such as socialist billionaires,
socialist nations, communist-controlled unions, and duped citizens. This money can
be used to fund organizations like ACORN to cheat in elections, influence bankers, etc.
It can also be used to overpower the opposition with advertising in a media that is already
communist-controlled. Bribes to certain congressmen, bureaucrats, and other criminals
also come out of this fund. The information under the headings below have more detail
on some of sources of these dollars and the uses to which the dollars are put.
Boiling the Frog
When a frog is put into a pan of water and the pan is placed over a small fire that allows the water to grow warmer very slowly, the frog will not notice as the water reaches the boiling point - and the frog dies. Long ago, the communists learned that they could alter various parts within a nation very slowly without the citizens becoming alarmed. When enough altering had been accomplished, the communists could take over without a bloody revolution.
Using the Controlled Media
With communist media to cover his actions, B.O. was able to see that only the good side of his communist connections could be shown to the voting public. If something did slip out regarding his checkered past, the press could twist it around if necessary. This technique is as old as humanity itself and was used extensively by Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and Stalin in the Soviet Union. Today it is being used in all the communist nations because they have nationalized the media so that it can speak only communist propaganda.
In the U.S., there are still a few examples of the media which are not communist controlled, but it seems that even they are being attacked and may founder in the future. If that should happen, the United States will also have what amounts to a nationalized media.
Intimidation
When Joe the plumber asked a question of B.O. prior to the election, and B.O. shot himself in the foot with his answer, the socialist media, and Ohio Democrat Bureaucrats using state funds and facilities, attacked Joe. Intimidation was also used in the suppression of freedom of speech (control of the media) shown above.
It has been discovered that 18 illegal attacks upon Joe's privacy were initiated - some from
a former state employee who was not legally allowed to access Joe's records, and some
from a woman who has now had her hands slapped for her acts but has not been fired from her
job with the state of Ohio. This is to be expected since the Ohio Secretary of State is
a "democrat" who was obviously in league with ACORN to influence the vote in B.O.'s favor.
It appears that the government in Ohio has been taken over by the communist left.
Ridicule
Have you ever noticed that when children wish to bully one another, they sometimes take on an air of arrogance and superiority, and then ridicule their target. This technique is used especially when the target has a logical argument and those who resort to ridicule do not. Bear in mind that communists have a history of killing millions of people to attain power - and those that were killed were the ones who were the most intelligent and the most educated. This left each communist nation with an inferior gene pool and a marked inability to use logic successfully except as a means of rationalization. Consequently, the communists used (and still use) subterfuge, intimidation, ridicule, and force to attain their ends.
Marx is a perfect example of a man who was unable to cope in the world, a markedly inferior individual who talked and wrote about theories others propounded and that he managed to synthesize into his own incorrect theories. Marx did nothing with his life other than create something that could be used as an excuse for those who were likewise inadequate. He was expelled from several universities and never obtained even a modest education, he would not work to support his family, three of his children died of starvation, two others committed suicide, and his poor wife was evicted along with their children when Marx went on drunken sprees with his friends. Marx can best be described as a ne'er-do-well who drank too much, was socially irresponsible, extremely self-centered, selfish, and a wart on the nose of humanity. Yet communists are so ill-informed and illogical as to follow a man like Marx who could not even take the trouble to be a decent human being.
When you see ridicule used as Obama did during his campaign on numerous occasions, it was
usually done because he had no way to counter a logical argument and wished to be sure
that the subject was not mentioned again except as an object of ridicule. Alinsky
taught this technique to his pupils and Obama was recognized as an excellent student of
Alinsky's techniques.
Removing Freedom of Speech
Obama's tactics have been to use every means available to prevent any opposition through speech. Since he has been elected, the communists in power in the House and the Senate - Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, and others - are planning to reinstate the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", which is a means of muzzling talk radio which is the last refuge for conservative views with the possible exception of Fox News (which seems to be turning more to the left every day). In communist nations, the media is owned by the communist government and only communist propaganda is allowed to be aired. Since almost all of the U.S. media is now owned by communist billionaires, their foundations, or their subsidiaries, the effect is essentially the same as government ownership.
In the United States today (the year 2008), most of the population uses three television networks which broadcast through the ether. These are owned by the leftists. The general population in the United States are not wealthy enough to afford cable or satellite television where the Fox News channel can be accessed - and even if they did have cable or satellite TV, there are a multiplicity of other channels which are leftist on cable and satellite TV as well as Fox News. This means that the majority of the people in the U.S. are getting leftist propaganda whenever they turn on their TV sets. Some listen to talk radio and are able to obtain information that the communists leave out of their broadcasts. If the "Fairness Doctrine" is established and enforced, only a few newspapers and magazines will be left before the communist takeover is complete.
More the details can be seen in the back-up material below.
Foundations
Foundations such as Bill Clinton's are not required to publicize where money donated to them comes from - while donations from sources donated directly to a political campaign supposedly must be listed and the donor's name and address given. Donations from foreign countries are supposedly illegal, but the law is not enforced and Obama had many non-listed donations during his campaign for President. Therefore, foundations can accept money from any source such as organized crime, a communist nation, whatever, and then donate that money either to another foundation or directly to a political campaign. This is money-laundering through foundations or like organizations and was used by the Clintons to obtain campaign donations from China - among other donors.
A good example of this is found in the November 17, 2008, issue of National Review in an article written by John J. Miller titled Giving Liberally. Much of what follows comes from that article. It may be an explanation of how communist moles work as well. There are many more details in the article and we highly recommend National Review as a source of excellent information.
In 1961, Herbert and Marion Sandler were married. Herb was a real-estate lawyer and Marion analyzed securities. In 1963, they bought a savings and loan company that had two branches, twenty-five employees, and assets worth about $34 million. Herb administered the company while Marion was the marketer.
For a long time they were very conservative in making residential loans and managing the company's assets. The company grew rapidly and, in 1991, they established the Sandler Family Support Foundation (recently re-named the Sandler Foundation).
The conservatism of the Sandlers changed as they grew in wealth. They began to specialize in adjustable rate mortgages, lending to people with weak credit scores in places where housing prices were in decline. The company became a "ticking time bomb".
In 2006, the Sandlers sold the company (Golden West Financial) to Wachovia. At that time, Golden West was supposedly worth $25 billion. The Sandlers received $2.4 billion from the sale, most of which went into their foundation. The house of cards the Sandlers had sold to Wachovia contributed greatly to the economic crisis in September of 2008. The Sandlers did well from the suffering they created for others.
The Sandler Foundation has give millions to Democrats' campaigns and organizations which, among other things, aid in electing people like Obama, provide legal aid to terrorists, promote abortion services, loan to those who are poor credit risks, attempt to prevent discipline from being administered to children in schools, etc.
In 1997, the foundation was giving away $5.5 million annually. Today, the Sandler Foundation is one of the leading sponsors of left-wing activism in the United States, spending millions upon millions of dollars on groups whose activities undermine the economic system that made the foundation's existence possible.
The question remains in the minds of some (not so much in mine) - "Are the Sandlers conscious agents of international communism or merely do-gooders who are no wiser than a bull in china shop?"
George Soros is possibly the wealthiest man in the world. He and his minions have created numerous organizations to launder dollars and promote socialism through undermining the economies of nations who are capitalistic. While Saul Alinsky is considered the architect of the most successful form of radicalism, Soros is considered its major source of power. However, Soros does not stop at undermining capitalism and even uses capitalism to undermine communist nations - provided that Soros can gain either more power, more money, or both.
One must remember that international communism - or whatever its people call themselves -
is devoted to an eventual communistic world government, a government monopoly on everything
that is administered through government committees and dictated by one or a few individuals.
It is believed that Soros would like to be the dictator of the world government as
would Putin.
The Organized Labor Movement
The above quote is over half a century old and explains what has happened since in both
trade unions and teachers' unions. No more need be said. Today, the
unions use dollars from all of their members - not just those who agree to have their
money spent that way - to back the communist (Democratic Party) candidates in elections.
Bogus Charities and Causes
Going hand-in-glove with the use of foundations is the use of causes to obtain money from
the public. When a possible cause is discovered, one communist operative chooses one
side while another chooses the other side. Literature is sent to likely prospects
requesting donations. The donations, when they arrive, are either added in major
part or completely to the communist cause. Certain buzz words are found to be most
useful - for instance, the use of "Christian" in the name of the organization or the
supposed cause makes more people donate. Often, the organization soliciting donations
is only a post office box which is opened periodically to take out the donations.
However, some organizations are more thorough in gaining legal status and actually do send
from one to ten percent of the take to the place the donor expects it to go.
Legal Bullying
The U.S. legal system is designed to allow both sides of a case to appeal to a higher court when a lower court's decision is deemed insufficient. This was originally conceived as a means to obtain justice. However, due to the expense of continuing a case, as a rule, only the wealthiest side can afford to continue funding a case as it is appealed through the various levels. Most of the manufacturers of private aircraft were sued by greedy people in the last few decades - and even though most of the lawsuits should never have begun, the costs eventually drove the innocent manufacturers out of business. The same tactics were used by the leftists against firearms manufacturers in an effort to get rid of guns in the United States. The motive for these lawsuits was in clear violation of the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms - yet the communist left succeeded in some cases and crippled even those who were able survive.
Again, the back-up material below gets into more of this kind of thing in detail. If you play poker, you know that you should never get into a poker game without a limit on raising. The U.S. legal system in most states is like a poker game without a limit on raising. The wealthiest side usually wins because sooner or later the raise is too high for anyone to call. The socialist/communist billionaires with their foundations can provide plenty of cash for raises (legal appeals) while the defending individual or company cannot. Class action lawsuits fueled by leftist propaganda follow in the same mold.
In all such cases, legal means are used to exhaust the funds of the opposition and the
greed of most trial lawyers strongly aids the communists - who exploit human weaknesses
whenever possible.
Bogus Candidates
In the primaries, the leftists have spent huge amounts to fund the campaigns of leftists
running against real Republicans. By the time the primaries are finished, either
the leftist candidate has won, or the real Republican is almost out of funds for the
November election campaign. Since the leftists have plenty of funding through
money laundered and given to them illegally, they can often win this way.
A perfect example of this has been the McClintock campaign in California where he has
had to fight against Charlie Brown (a leftist) after becoming exhausted while fighting
against another leftist in the Republican primary.
Twisting the Truth
Perhaps the most important part of deciding for whom to vote is knowing the nature of the candidates. This most assuredly includes their past record of friends, acquaintances, business associates, and actions. Without that knowledge of the candidates, one knows nothing except the candidate's appearance and what he claims for the future if he wins. This like buying a used car without checking the brakes, the engine, and the tires.
Obama agreed early on to go with public financing - and he broke his word after McCain had committed himself to use public financing. Obama and McCain also agreed that they would not use personal attacks against one another. McCain kept his word even to the ridiculous point of not confronting Obama (except superficially) about his past. When Obama's past is reviewed it is obviously one of communist associations and actions, a past that indicates B.O. is far more dangerous than any serial killer. Much of the detail is given in the back-up material below. More is given in the report of the contents of Saul Alinsky's two books and Alinsky's associations.
When a youth is first investigated before he can be considered a candidate for a service academy, the FBI checks out everything they can about him and his parents. If something is suspicious in the youth's background, he is not allowed to continue as a candidate - because he will be exposed to top secret material. The same is true of an officer in service or an enlisted man who must deal with secret information. Obama could never pass a security check by the FBI - yet he will now be trusted with all of our secrets.
Yet, when this was mentioned during the election, he turned it aside as a "personal attack"
with no relevance to the issues. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But the hypnotized B.O. worshippers bought it - which shows just how ignorant and gullible
a majority of our youth has become - since it was the youth votes that did the most for
B.O.
The Bald-Faced Lie
This is not new, but has been used very effectively against Palin especially. See some of the details in the back-up material below. The object is to make the opposition spend all of the their time and money in defending against the lie.
Michael Moore, perhaps the greatest example of a bald-faced liar with his leftist films,
has publicly admitted that he hates capitalism and hope the economic crisis will herald
the end of it. He and the Castro brothers get along so well that there is little
doubt what Michael is.
Demonizing a Symbolic Figure
This tactic is a long-term type that Alinsky explains in detail in his book, Rules for Radicals. Since it is nearly impossible to destroy or defeat an opponent when it is a large organization (it has too many parts), one chooses a public figure who is symbolic of the organization. When the Republican Party was the target, President Bush was the logical choice. The communist left in the United States took great pains to demonize President Bush with bald-faced lies repeated over and over again until one wonders if Bush did not believe them himself. Once Bush was sufficiently unpopular, B.O. was able to link McCain to Bush and claim it was a Bush surrogate that was his opponent.
Michael Moore's film is an excellent example of this technique as is the plot to blame
Bush for the 9-11 attack.
Attacking Traditions
When communist agents in the Republican Part altered the Pledge of Allegiance it 1954 by inserting the phrase "under God", they were setting the stage for a future effort to undermine Judeo-Christian tradition in the United States. The Pledge had been written by a Baptist minister who knew better than to set one American against another by inserting something that was (1) unnecessary since the Pledge was for ALL AMERICANS and had nothing to do with religious preference or non-preference, (2) would indicate the same egotistical conceit as praying for victory in a football game, and (3) would eventually be perceived as setting up a state religion (which the founding fathers did not want). The original Pledge, without the offending phrase in it, had been very effective for 57 years and tampering with it was liking "fixing" the Mona Lisa.
Needless to say, the Pledge was eventually ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as it should have been - on the grounds that the phrase "under God" shows a religious preference in a nation that is supposed keep state and religion separate.
Subsequent to the Supreme Court ruling and the result of our not having a Pledge of Allegiance any longer, the communist agents and their dupes in both major political parties did nothing to remove the unconstitutional phrase. Had they done so, the original Pledge would have once again been allowed in our schools and in other public places. The communists had triumphed - especially because our children could now be better indoctrinated with communism.
Going a step too far, the traditional symbols were attacked. The ten commandments have much to do with our traditional justice system and their presence in courthouses was presented by the communists as religious bigotry. Pagan Yule trees which Christians call Christmas trees are a tradition in the United States that may be an expression of Christianity if one chooses to call it that, but regardless it is a form of expression that is allowed under the Constitution - as is all religious expression that does not use public funds in areas where much of the populace does not want it. For most of the public, Yule trees are traditional for the winter solstice holiday season. The celebration of Christmas itself is now under attack as well. In a nation where the Bill of Rights allows people to have freedom of religion, and religious tolerance is a must, people have the right to celebrate their religion or lack thereof as they choose so long as their celebration does not cause harm to others.
Attacking national traditions of any kind is a way to remove the fabric of nationality so that the communists can better train our youth to accept a communist world government (the United Nations) in which the United States must play a subservient role. It is communist "tradition" to eliminate nationalism wherever it is found so that a their world government, inferior though it may be, can dominate.
A world government, as opposed to various nations with their own traditions,
is a means of making us
all the same without various preferences and choices. Such a world would be boring
and mentally stifling. The old Soviet Union was such a world insofar as it was
possible for the Russians to enforce their will upon others. The result was that
those within the Soviet Union wanted to escape (they were not allowed to do so).
The greatest overriding argument between socialism and capitalism is what one person calls
the "gate test". When one opens the gate on a fence surrounding a nation, which
way do people go - in or out? The socialist-communist gates are there to keep
their populations in - and when the gates are open, the people rush out. The
capitalist free-enterprise gates are there to keep people from other nations out -
and when the gates are open, people rush in.
Destruction or Manipulation of the Voting System
The purpose of voter registration fraud and voter fraud is to either elect a candidate that will completely change the nature of our economic/political system or destroy that system altogether. Saul Alinsky, B.O.'s mentor, stated that an organization must be disorganized (destroyed as an organization) before it can be organized. If destruction of the validity of the voting system can destroy the current organization of the U.S. political system, that political system can be supplanted by communism. Destroying the validity of our voting system is one of the purposes of ACORN - which has been caught instigating both registration fraud and voter fraud. ACORN is a brainchild of the far left which includes George Soros. Its agents have been trained by B.O.
Early voting is a means of preventing the voters from learning everything about the candidates and the issues before they vote. Only when someone cannot vote in person on election day should early voting be allowed. B.O. found that by entreating his followers to vote early, he could be sure that they would not change their minds when the full extent of his communist connections and teachings were discovered.
ACORN is the most well-organized example of devotion to voting manipulation seen in the United States today. LBJ padded his elections in Texas by having winos vote for him when they were paid off with a bottle of wine for one vote each - some of them may have voted more than once if they were sober enough to do so after drinking one bottle of wine. This was also common practice by local politicians in New Jersey in the 1960s when I was there. Although despicable, these instances were nothing compared to what ACORN has been doing. We suspect that the inspiration for ACORN came from Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals where he states: A large shadow over organizing efforts, in the beginning, is, then, rationalization. Everyone has a reason or rationalization for what he does or does not do. No matter what, every action carries its rationalization. One of Chicago's political ward bosses nationally notorious for his use of the chain ballot and multiple voting once unleashed a tirade well seasoned with alcohol on my being a disloyal American. He climaxed with, "And you, Alinsky! When that great day of America, election day, comes around - that day of the right to vote for which our ancestors fought and died - when that great day comes around you care so little for your country that you never even bother to vote more than once!"
Alinsky was an idealist - though pragmatic enough that he would stoop to unethical means when necessary to win. He has repeatedly stated that the proper question regarding means is Does this particular end justify this particular means? He has also stated In war the end justifies almost any means.
Politically, B.O. was raised in the atmosphere of the political machine in Chicago which was the descendant of the Mafia tradition. B.O. has no conscience when it comes to politics because he was taught that a conscience is a weakness. To B.O. politics is like war and most likely when he or another communist first came upon the multiple vote idea from Alinsky's writings or from one of the other Chicago politicians, he had the germ of a idea that blossomed into ACORN, a nation-wide organization that would have people of all kinds voting for him many times each. Dead people, felons, illegal aliens, children, mental incompetents, Disney characters - all could be registered - and one live, adult person could vote for many of those who were registered illegally. This would all be under the guise of helping the poor to vote. Furthermore, the voters could be bussed from one precinct to another after having voted, so that they might vote again and not be recognized by anyone who had seen them vote before. Without the requirement for photo voter ID, this was easy to do in most states.
To aid in the voting fraud was the secretary of the particular state - when the secretary
of that state was a democrat. When the circuit court justice was also a far leftist
as was the case with the Ohio voting fraud, the democratic take-over was a fait accompli
even though there were more registered voters than residents.
Destroying the Economic System
In Stormer's later book, finished in 1989 and published in 1990, we see that Stormer is a prophet in the paragraphs he devotes to The Coming Economic Crisis. The following words are his except for those in brackets (which are mine).
The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) is implementing the Sobolev blueprint step-by-step - "The coming national crisis" - Sobolev's first prerequisite is a recurring theme in the literature of the CPUSA. The Reds plan to exploit a coming economic crisis to produce a poitical crisis. Following the October 1987 stock market crash, Communist Party chief, Gus Hall, opened the Party's next Central Committee saying, There is no question the stock market crash will move the date of the cyclical economic crisis up... Monopoly capital created the crisis. Let them pay the cost.
The Central Committee's report on the meeting amplified the theme, The crash will shake people's already shaky confidence in capitalism even more. People will be open to new and more radical solutions. There will be political fallout from the crisis.
The report emphasized the importance of communists being ready for a quick and determined response to the coming economic crisis. Historically, Communist and working class revolutionary parties become mass parties on the basis of how they react in periods of crisis. It is always the parties that respond fastest, with the clearest most popular explanations and best working class solutions that become mass parties.
The statement was drawing upon the Czechoslavakian experience. The Czech Communist Party gained 237,384 new members in the first ten months of 1947 as the Czech crisis intensified.
The importance of using a national crisis is restated regularly in communist literature. In the June 1989 Political Affairs, for example, Jack Kurzweil in discussing "Crises and Mass Struggle" wrote A fundamental proposition of Leninism, as I understand it, is that a cumulative crisis of the system generates divisions in the ruling class which, together with intensified mass struggle, create the opening for fundamental social change.
[Crises can have other uses too, such as that which occurred in Syria just before the U.S. forces moved into Iraq. Saddam Hussein used it as a means to disguise his movement of weapons of mass destruction into Syria after making a lucrative business deal for them. The details are given in Saddam's Secrets by Georges Sada. In the case of the economic crisis of 2007, neo-communists had set the stage, and George Soros triggered the crisis at an appropriate time - so that an Alinsky-trained neo-communist could win the Presidency and neo-communists could win a huge majority of seats in Congress.]
Kurzweil added another significant facet to the concept of the coming crisis. He anticipated that struggles over AIDS, drugs, and abortion will produce a "social crisis". Kurzweil, a professor of electrical engineering at California's San Jose State University, was a key leader of the 1987 Marxist Scholars Conference at the University of California at Berkeley. Kurzweil anticipates that the "social crisis" will intensify the economic and political crisis the communists are preparing to manipulate.
[The neo-communist triumverate (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid) have been using the crisis to manipulate the problem so that it will become much worse. Most of the nation is still asleep and believes either that they are doing well to cure the problem or that they are simply too stupid to do the right thing - the fact that they know perfectly well what they are doing is not realized by the public in general. The public has no idea that the triumverate means to destroy the economic system of America.]
The use of the crisis, as proposed by Sobolev and continually emphasized by the CPUSA, follows the clear teachings of Lenin, who said A revolution is simply not possible without an overall national crisis.
The crisis is the key. The CPUSA anticipates using the next "cyclical economic crisis" to precipitate conditions favorable for the "peaceful transition to socialism". [This ends the words of Stormer that we have room for here. Much was left out and we advise that people read his book for a more complete explanation.]
ACORN was instrumental, as was B.O. and other moles in the Democratic Party, in causing the economic crisis which was followed by a socialistic "solution" to the problem (the bail-out). The leftists (socialists, communists, whatever) generally have an insuffient grasp of capitalism and how it works. Consequently, I do not believe that they had a clue as to how the U.S. economy is tied in with the world economy (even though they know how to destroy it). I believe that their little trick is backfiring now - and that they will be held responsible by the public when all is said and done - they are in charge now and it is their incompetent minions that must present the excuses for their failures.
Brunner, the Democrat who is the Ohio Secretary of State, showed her true colors when she essentially refused to correct a problem with voting that should have been corrected long ago. She saw no problem in accepting approximately 200,000 potentially illegal votes. Had those votes been tendered by those perceived as conservatives, she would have acted in an appropriate manner according to the Constitution - but she did act in an appropriate manner for a communist who wants our government to change. A similar problem existed in Minnesota where the executive branch of government was composed of "Democrats" (leftwing radicals).
However, the chief reason for economic chaos is found with George Soros.
"Peace" Movements
There are a number of peace movements throughout the U.S. which have the goals of taking us away from areas such as Afghanistan and Iraq, weakening our military, and teaching our youth to be afraid of conflict.
For the era of the cold war, America used Strategic Air Command and nuclear-armed submarines to keep the Soviet Union at bay. The philosophy was simple - the same philosophy needed to keep a school-yard bully at bay - an attack will not occur if the would-be attacker knows that he will be painfully repulsed. This philosophy works well - provided people like Clinton do not hand our secrets over the Chinese or the Russians.
Peace without preparedness for war does not work and neither does appeasement. However, the "peace" philosophers do not want us consider the alternative to certain wars. These alternatives cause a nation to become subservient to the bully with terrible consequences for its citizens. Wars happen because a peaceful nation is considerably weaker than an aggressor nation.
Peace itself is a consequence rather than an end. We should ask any nation that wants us to sign a peace treaty just what they are planning to do to us that makes them fearful of our retaliation. Peace is the consequence of mutual respect between nations. Yet, the peaceniks are still here because we fight to preserve their right to attempt to weaken us. The "spam blockers" in many schools are now set to stop anything going in via e-mail that mentions the word "war". Most the people who read the incoming mail are adults in the school faculty or the school administration, and they are being carefully left out of the loop. Reading material in the school libraries is chosen to prevent children from ever wanting to join the military.
The socialist-communists know and use the peaceniks to bring our nation down.
They always exploit our freedoms as weaknesses whenever they can.
Terrorism
The DGI is the KGB clone that is found in Cuba. During the 1970s, young Americans went to Cuba by circumventing the travel regulations. They wanted to harvest sugar cane and experience the Cuban revolution first-hand. Their Cuban hosts, tour organizers, and tour guides were all DGI officers who used this occasion as cover for training young Americans as radicals who would become members of the Weathermen. These Americans were known as the Venceremos Brigade. After each new group arrived, the DGI would drop everything else to do background investigations on the new arrivals to see who could be recruited - and also to gain intelligence from them. Those recruited came back to the United States to work for the DGI in America.
Criticism by the Cubans after the first group came back to the U.S. was that they were useless - did not help with the sugar cane. This was justified by the DGI as a means to train and politicize weathermen contacts and weathermen. To the Americans, the Cubans had more appeal than the Soviets, so the KGB wanted the Cubans to handle the Americans. The American revolutionaries were told that the Cubans were the vanguard of the international communist revolution, that the Russians were being used by the Cubans, and that the KGB was subservient to the DGI. This was as the KGB wanted it to appear.
Bil Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, who headed the Weathermen (violent political
activists - terrorists), constantly had new recruits from the Venceremos Brigade.
Ayers and Alinsky were polar opposites in the means to be used to overthrow the U.S.
government. Ayers wanted (and still seems to want) more violence. Alinsky
wanted (and B.O. wants) to use subterfuge rather than violence. So today we have
two sides of the same coin: those who wish to use violence and those who wish to use
subterfuge to overthrow the U.S. government and economic system.
Subliminal Messages
The use of red and blue on the political maps is a subliminal message. Red is a code word for communist. Red was chosen for the Republican majority states rather than for the Democratic majority states so that people would not associate red with the democrats - who have become the real reds in the sense that the communists have taken over the Democratic Party.
Obama (B.O.) used a tactic identical to Adolf Hitler's in his rallies with a line of flags in the background to show B.O.'s support for America. Look at the staging in those Obama rallies (see the pictures) and compare it to what Hitler's staging was in his rallies. Tie this in with B.O.'s strategy and tactics and the similarities are enough to make one wonder if Hitler has be reincarnated.
Emotion must be used to cloud judgement. It has been repeatedly shown that when
emotion is invoked in some manner, the propaganda message is usually taken without analysis.
In B.O.'s half-hour presentation a few days before the election, he invoked
emotion from his targets by using stories of people who needed his help and backing up the
stories with music which was designed to make him seem honest and sincere. The
presentation was both visual and audial - if B.O. could have found a way, it would have
been tactile as well, with flower scents. Yet, it had no real substance insofar
as addressing the issues in detail.
Candidate Gender and Color
In this last election, two democratic candidates were chosen for voter appeal:
Hillary Clinton to appeal to the women and because many wanted us to have a woman
for President for the first time, and Obama to appeal to the black community and
because many of us wanted a black for President for the first time. These
were great choices for the communist left - because either way they could have their
President in the White House. If Obama was the one to win in the primary,
and failed to be elected in November, there might be race riots - and probably some
form of retaliation from some of the other nations.
Subversion of American Youth
The above quote and some of what follows is from None Dare Call It Treason by John A. Stormer. Dewey was an "educational philosopher" whose experimental philosphies in education were first tried in a model school at the University of Chicago before 1900. The children learned nothing, but Dewey left to go to Teachers College, Columbia University (note that Columbia is perhaps the foremost communist university in the United States today) where he became the dominant figure and the most influential man in American education.
Dewey was a communist who managed to influence the do-gooders who wanted their children to succeed with as little effort as possible. It was wrong to have children compete for grades, so the grading system should be ruled out. It was wrong to fail a child. Having a lower grade than another or failing to pass could hurt the child's feelings and even destroy the child's confidence. The child should stay with his or her social group regardless of whether the child learned or not. The purpose of education was to mold the child into a desired social model, devoid of individual characteristics. The child would then be able to get along well with the group. Dewey said: Education, therefore, is a process for living and not a preparation for future living.
The result of Dewey's teachings - at least in California where the children were promoted from grade even if they did not learn anything - was an adult that had no study habits, no decent attention span, no real sense of responsibility, did not know the alphabet sufficiently to look up information in an encyclopedia or dictionary, could not do simple math except with extreme effort, knew nothing of history or geography, etc. However, the child did learn how to party, smoke, and take drugs. Granted, there were some children who escaped this purgatory because their parents taught them what they needed to know.
For a greater understanding of how the communists have ruined our children, see Education.
The neo-communists have succeeded in taking over most of our colleges and universities. First, one of their agents would become a faculty member or administrator of the targeted educational institution. From this vantage point, the agent could cause friction to develop between others until at least one more resigned or was fired. This left an opening for another leftist agent. The process was continued until most of the faculty and administration were communists. The youths who were naturally rebellious were cultivated and used as a political force (see Alinsky's methods) to affect the whole student body. One can see the result when the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) is no longer allowed on campus, military men who have come back for a college degree are shunned, there are protests against recruiting centers outside of the college grounds, etc.
It is the professors who write the textbooks and the communist professors proceeded to write textbooks that were pro-socialist, anti-American, and devoid of real educational value. This trend progressed using political correctness as a ploy until the text for K-12 were also affected.
In the meantime, the K-12 teachers' unions were infiltrated and taken over the communists and their dupes. There were places where the state interfered and would not allow teachers to espouse political views, but this was not enough. Furthermore, the state legislatures would eventually succumb - as was the case recently in California - and create legislation that allowed communists to teach openly in schools.
Perhaps the most shocking examply of how American youth is being affected was found when people were being asked questions after they had voted. Voters often did not know what party currently controlled congress. Their knowledge did not include how our federal government operates or our history. However, they did know that Palin's clothes were expensive.
A poll was taken of Obama voters and according to that poll (Zogby's poll):
57% thought the Republicans still control Congress (note that there are only two possible answers
to the question),
only 12% could identify Obama as the candidate who said that his energy policies would cause
the price of electricity to skyrocket,
94% knew that Palin was the candidate with a pregnant teen-age daughter, the highest correct
score recorded by the Obama voters,
86% knew that Palin was the candidate whose party bought her a $150,000 wardrobe, and
87% said that Palin was the candidate who said she could see Russia from her house - actually,
it was Tina Fey who said that.
Shockingly, 97% of the voters in the sample were high school graduates - and 55% were college graduates.
When McCain voters were interviewed, there was a marked improvement. They were at least three times more knowledgeable about the issues, government, etc. Yet they were still less informed than they should have been.
This lack of knowledge could have been due, in part, to the fact that the media
would not publish certain things and the fact that many people do not have any means of
watching cable or satellite channels which have more complete information. However,
the neither the high school graduates nor the college graduates could not distinguish between
important issues and fluff, and neither had kept up with the most fundamental knowledge
that any voter should know (like who was the majority party in Congress).
Removal of the Religious Heritage
By removing the belief in God, an afterlife, and any type of divine justice, the communists remove the ethics of our nation without giving us any in return except communist ethics which are godless and without morality except to say that anything leading to communism is good and anything else is bad. This leads to disrespect for our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our laws.
The United Nations was established as a precursor to world government with the United States as a subservient power. Ultimately, the communists expect the U.N. to be socialist (communist) in nature - and people like Gyorgy Soros each expect to be the de facto dictator.
The World Federation of Mental Health has a title that sounds great. It is part of the communist effort to undermine religion and ethics. The following is a quote from Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, the first head of this "World Federation". The pretense is made that to do away with right and wrong would produce uncivilized people, immorality, lawlessness, and social chaos. The fact is that most psychiatrists and psychologists and other respected people have escaped from moral chains and are able to think freely.
Chisholm has been obsessed for years with the idea that instilling concepts of right and wrong, love of country, and morality in children by their parents is the paramount evil. In another speech he said: The people who have been taught to believe whatever they were told by their parents or their teachers are the people who are the menace to the world.
It may be true that a some point the individual should objectively assess the values he or she was taught as a child. Some may be without merit while others should be kept as valid concepts. However, as a rule, certain fundamental concepts of right and wrong should be considered absolutes if we are to live in harmony together - and most religions teach these concepts - things like the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, or even obeying traffic laws to avoid killing or maiming others or yourself.
There are individuals like Marx, Chisholm, or other communists, who should be considered subhuman because each lacks a conscience or any means of obtaining a conscience. Since such a person has no conscience, that person cannot understand what a conscience is, why it is needed, and why he or she is out of step with those who are complete humans. Much of this problem is related to the fact that such people lack the ability to empathize with others. In any case, they are subhuman and are called either psychopaths or sociopaths (those who have mental disorders typified by emotional immaturity and instability). There are some who are harmless and others like Saul Alinsky, William Ayres, and Barack Obama, who are extremely dangerous even though they should be pitied for their lack of mental/emotional completeness. These people have shown by their own writings and actions that they are lacking a conscience other than that provided by communist propaganda. See Marxism for more detail.
In valid psychological studies performed on every creature from rats to humans,
those without a sense of right and wrong have a greater feeling of insecurity than those
who have that sense. Children raised without lines drawn beyond which they must not
go, are very insecure, while those who are punished for wrongful behavior feel very secure.
However, the most insecure are those who are punished for certain behavior one time,
and rewarded for that same behavior the next time. Those children usually grow up to
be schizoid.
The Brand of "Mental Illness"
The threat of discrediting a political leader by branding him "mentally ill" was used to
discredit Whittaker Chambers' testimony when it was used to unmask a high state department
official, Alger Hiss, as a communist agent. A psychiatrist who had never examined
Chambers took the stand and branded him under oath as a psychopath.
Drugs
Drug traffic, including the use of alcohol, is encouraged by the communist left in the United States and attempts to curb it have been blocked whenever possible. The use of drugs by American youth cripples them and gives communist agents a means of controlling them when deemed appropriate. Older people can become addicts as well, but they are usually not as easily influenced to become addicted. Even so, during the youthful years, many were addicted and could be used later as moles, espionage agents, etc. See Higlights and Comments on KGB Connections or read The Sword and the Shield for more detail.
Cigarettes (nicotine addiction) was used recently to buy more signatures for voter
registration by ACORN.
Feinting
Alinsky taught his students to "feint" before committing themselves. He used different words, but essentially he taught a three-step method that could be extended to more steps if necessary.
1. Mention a particular subject or issue in an ambiguous manner.
2. Watch for the reaction from those who are against your actual (but not disclosed) inner agenda.
3. Use your opponent's reaction to dictate how to proceed - and proceed in a way that does not disclose your agenda and still lets you gain your ends.
If necessary, repeat the above until you have gained your ends. This goes hand-in-glove with an Alinsky requirement for his students: the organizer (student) must be "A well-integrated political schizoid". This means that the student must be able to further goals, policies, and supposed truths, while not believing in any of them.
In B.O.'s campaign, he first put forth subjects in an ambiguous manner that allowed people
to believe that he might be in favor of what they wanted. Next, B.O. assessed the
reaction of the different groups. He repeated this procedure until he was certain
of how to address each group in a way that would get him elected. Finally, he told
each group what they wanted to hear (usually without very much detail). And, of course
he did this with sufficient emotional content to prevent them from thinking clearly.
The Solutions
The background of every candidate for public office should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI - just as military officers were checked in the 1960s before they could receive secret information. The results of this investigation should be made public and published through all major newspapers, radio stations, and television stations. Those candidates who failed to pass the minimums for receiving secret information, should not be allowed to run for office - and B.O. could never have passed those minimums.
Detection and punishment of wrong-doing is vital if we are remain a free nation. Judicial Watch is needed and should be supported in their efforts to do this. Deliberate efforts to cheat in an election should be considered treason (a capital offense) and punished accordingly. Deliberately lying to the public by candidates or those who publish political advertising during an election should be considered treason and punished accordingly. Completely honest elections are the backbone of the American system of government. Yet, Americans have tolerated some of most insidious lies and cheating during elections. This toleration must stop if America is to survive as a free nation.
When intimidation is used, it must be exposed and punished. Freedom of speech is vital for a nation to remain free.
Voter registration fraud and fraudulent voting should be discovered and punished severely. Photo IDs and thoroughly checking the voters' credentials are essential. Early voting should be stopped altogether except in extreme cases where the individual cannot be present at the polls. Too much information can be provided between an early vote and the voting at the polls - and the voter should not vote until that information has been provided to him or her. People should not be allowed to vote unless they have lived for at least six months in the place where they are voting. If they have moved, they can vote in the place from which they have moved by using an absentee ballot.
When it is discovered that a state has not conformed to federal law regarding voting, as was the case in Ohio, the political party of those who are in office in that state should be penalized with huge fines taken from their campaign funds. Campaign finance laws should be enforced and severe penalties should be meted out to those who break these laws. Ballots should always be secret and labor unions must be forced to see that they are.
The economics and methods of how capitalism is supposed to work must be taught so that its advantages can be understood. True capitalism has never failed in any way, but it has been hurt through adulteration by socialistic methods such as income tax, a poor system of social security, allowing various monopolies and near-monopolies to exist, the bribing of our legislators, and more. Unfortunately, even many of our legislators do not understand the economic principles of capitalism and why they work automatically as opposed the constant manipulation than is the trademark of socialism. Capitalism is a free-market system that is based upon incentives and tradition. Socialism is a government monopoly that is administered by committees and dictators. Capitalism, when unimpeded, creates a free and prosperous nation which must defend its borders against the excess numbers of people who want live within it. Socialism creates a nation which must defend its borders from those excess numbers of people who wish to escape from it. This is historical fact and it speaks for itself.
The only way a free democratic republic can survive is through education that is factual. It would appear that public schools are no longer the answer because they have been taken over by the communists and their unions. Furthermore, they are monopolies which do not allow freedom of choice in education for the majority of the public. The answer appears to be private schools, vouchers for those who wish to send their children to those schools, and home schooling - all of which the teachers' unions strongly oppose. As for the colleges, several states have now passed legislation that is designed to force faculty members to teach their subjects as they were supposedly hired to do and as the parents of the students expect them to do - and to refrain from any attempt to exert political influence on the students. This is at least a part of the solution.
For the primaries, the Republicans should choose a candidate that they have thoroughly investigated - for instance, one who has never taken money from George Soros or his minions. Although McCain may have been a legitimate candidate, he acted more like a straight man for Obama during his campaign.
For the general election, (1) the Republican candidate should have his staff discover everything about his opponents. During the election, the media would not publish anything about Saul Alinsky or Obama being a member of socialist party. It was McCain's duty to discover that his opponent is a neo-communist (Alinskyite) and tell people - so that we would not have a President who's first duty is to change the U.S. Constitution and take away our first and second amendments. (2) The Republican candidate should not make agreements with the opposition. McCain and Obama made an agreement to take only public financing. Obama failed to keep his promise as any Alinskyite would do (they are taught that being honorable and keeping promises are weaknesses). There was also an agreement not to use "personal attacks", and Obama labeled any references to his past pattern of anti-American friends as "personal attacks" that were "irrelevant". McCain stupidly accepted this "logic" and failed to do his duty to the citizens of the United States. There can be no compromises with communists - they will never keep their word any more than Hitler kept his.
The lies of the neo-communist media must be exposed over and over again until the neo-communist media lose all credibility. This is slowly happening now. The result will be either a trend toward truth from each news organization or its bankruptcy.
Perhaps the most important step is exposure worldwide of Alinsky's methods. This should allow those in the United States and other nations to see that they have been duped. The communists and their sympathizers can be recognized by their actions. Having been recognized, they can be dealt with effectively. Alinsky used subterfuge and concealment to succeed. Once his methods and his minions have been exposed, they will stand naked in front of the world. Because B.O. has used Alinsky's tactics to make the black community, other minorities, the young people, and the middle class, pawns in his attempt to take over America for the neo-communists, there may eventually be a backlash against B.O. and others of the communist left. As has been mentioned before, the actions of the neo-communists give them away regardless what they call themselves - and people dislike being used so ruthlessly. This is especially true for the blacks who wanted an outstanding black president and, instead, have been betrayed by a half-black neo-communist who lied and cheated during the election. [The term neo-communist is used because Alinsky was a genius who developed communist theory more in keeping with the modern world than is Marxism - and Alinsky is the mentor of the communists in America.]
Back-up article shown here as a public service. This type of thing is and was common in fascist and communist nations as the thugocracy takes over all media and uses it for state propaganda purposes.
October 11, 2008, 12:00 AM
By Michael Barone
‘I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors,” Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. “I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people’s faces. They seem determined to shut people up.
That’s what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg’s WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago — papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.
Obama fans jammed WGN’s phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg’s example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.
Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were “false.” I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the “fairness doctrine” on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can’t abide having citizens hear contrary views.
To their credit, some liberal old-timers — like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey — voted against the “fairness doctrine,” in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the “fairness doctrine” to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.
Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. Saturday Night Live ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC’s Website and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
Then there’s the Democrats’ “card check” legislation, which would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions’ strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees’ homes — we know where you live — and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.
Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.
Today’s liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.
Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.
Actually, in the essay which follows, Horowitz is incorrect about B.O. being a Machiavelian liar. B.O. studied Saul Alinsky's philosophy, strategy, and tactics which are much more sophisticated that those Machiavelli. Alinsky's books Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals are still available and should be studied for us to understand the workings of B.O. diabolical mind. B.O. is an Alinskyan liar which is far more dangerous. Indeed, if there is an anti-Christ, and you want to see what he does, just watch B.O.
Excerpts from another source - on B.O.'s tactics.
A candidate may well change his... position on, say, universal health care or Bosnia.
But he... cannot change the fact – if it happens to be a fact –
that he ... is a pathological liar. – Christopher Hitchens
“This idiot woman, this blind, short-sighted ignoramus, this pretentious clod, mocks basic research and the international research community.” Is this a description of Rosie O’Donnell explaining that metals don’t melt and 9/11 was an inside job? A swipe at Green Party presidential aspirant Cynthia McKinney explaining how the Jews were responsible? A shot at Gloria Steinem for defending partial birth abortion under the delusion that a living child is actually a disposable “fetus”? No, this is a psychotic attack on Governor Sarah Palin by an Obama supporter. Palin’s sin? Her opposition to earmarks, in particular an earmark for olive fruit fly research. The same earmark recently provided my good friend Christopher Hitchens to express his contempt for Palin and justify his endorsement of her opponents.
While not as vitriolic as his attacks on Mother Teresa and Princess Di, Hitchens’ assault on Palin is characteristically extreme. In a display of liberal snobbery in Slate – "Sarah Palin’s War On Science: The GOP Ticket’s Appalling Contempt For Knowledge And Learning" – Hitchens explains to readers the benefits of fruit fly research (as though anyone – even a small town bumpkin like Alaska’s governor – wouldn’t have learned about fruit flies in high school biology). Fruit fly research allows us to study the DNA of living organisms, “which makes it useful in studying disease.” This ranks Palin as a hypocrite in Hitchens' eyes since her “signature issue” is disability and special needs: “She might even have had some researcher tell her that there is a Drosophila-based center for research into autism at the University of North Carolina.” Thanks for the tip Hitch.
But when Palin attacked the earmark, she wasn’t campaigning against fruit fly research. She was campaigning against earmarks – the $18-billion-a- year scam under which forces taxpayers to underwrite personal favors that congressmen perform for their “constituents,” like giant agribusiness corporations. Such earmarks are transparent bribes since they are bound to encourage constituents who receive them to fund congressional campaigns. The fruit fly earmark was the project of a California congressman named Mike Thompson; the service provided was to the California agribusiness community, which was looking for taxpayer help with a fruit fly problem that threatened their designs to turn olive trees into a profit. The earmark was not about autistic kids. It was about a corrupt patronage system used to benefit one congressman and the olive oil industry.
Of course, Hitchens is smart enough to smell the rat in his own argument. Without exactly explaining what the earmark was for, he writes: “The fruit fly can also be a menace to American agriculture, so any financing of research into its habits and mutations is money well-spent.” Christopher! This isn’t about DNA, and not all research is fundable. This is a welfare handout to giant corporations. Instead of going to funding sources where projects are peer-reviewed, they can appeal to one pliable congressman, likely to appreciate their ability to help his re-election.
In an earlier Slate column (“Vote for Obama”), Hitchens described McCain’s selection of Palin as “the most insulting thing a politician” could do and therefore, apparently, a cause to throw the Iraqis and his country under the bus. Of course, the author of the religion-bashing book, God Is Not Great, is not really enraged at Palin because of her concern about earmarks. His contempt is for the fact that she believes in a Deity, and a moral law higher than a California congressman. Even this contempt coming from Hitchens is puzzling, since the chief sin Hitchens ascribes to the religious in his polemical book is presuming to speak in the name of God. Since Palin readily concedes her inability to read the Creator’s mind, she should get a pass.
But she doesn’t.
Instead, Hitchens suggests that with Palin “the contempt for science may be something a little more sinister… She is known to favor the teaching of creationism in schools….” Well, not exactly. As Hitchens himself explains, she has not advocated imposing Creationism on the schools. She merely wants to “smuggle” the doctrine through the door in “the innocent disguise of ‘teaching the argument.’” Oh. She wants students to be made aware of the discussion over evolution, whereas Hitchens wants the fact that some members of the scientific community believe in Intelligent Design to be suppressed – and this in the name of “knowledge and learning”!
Hitchens is normally able to make the sharpest distinctions, but this ability is strikingly absent from these electoral ruminations. Perhaps his instincts have been blunted by the new company he is keeping among the bigoted hysterics of the political left, to whom distinctions appear as mere distractions from the righteous Path of Truth. “The Republican Party has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic, and a proud boastful ignoramus,” writes Hitchens, adding that on November 4, those who care for the Constitution and reason will “repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.” The wickedness and stupidity are more aptly reflected in baseless, mean-spirited remarks like this.
Anti-God is not great either, Christopher. While you refuse to cut Governor Palin slack in an election season, look at the gaping latitude you provide to her opponents. Obama’s election (should it come to pass) will not put him a heartbeat away from the presidency but anoint him commander-in-chief. This makes your burden of responsibility that much greater, particularly since as a man of the left you understand exactly who Obama is.
Some years ago, you wrote a memorable book about Bill Clinton called No One Left To Lie To. When you wrote it, you shared many of Clinton’s political agendas but parted ways with him over his moral corruption. Your defection turned on the issue of presidential character. You were repelled by Clinton’s easy ways with the truth. But Obama’s lies make Clinton’s pale by comparison.
Consider that Obama’s closest counselor and spiritual guide over a twenty year period is a racist kook, a Jew-hating, terrorist-loving acolyte of Farrakhan. When confronted with this fact, Obama responded he had no idea who Jeremiah Wright really was. What Clinton lie comes close to that in brazen coolness? Or this one: My name is Barack Hussein Obama; I grew up the son of a Muslim father and went to a Muslim school in an Islamic state, but I wasn’t raised as a Muslim – I’ve always been a Christian. I do not believe being raised as a Muslim should matter. But I believe the lie should.
For his entire adult life, Obama’s closest political allies have been pro-Soviet progressives like state senator Alice Palmer who chose Obama as the politically appropriate figure whom she chose to inherit her state senate seat; or anti-American radicals like Bill Ayers, who organized a terrorist army in the 1970s with the intention of launching a race war in America, and bringing down the “empire.” Others may be under the illusion that the Weather Underground was organized to protest the Vietnam War. But you know better. Ayers and his comrades were still bombing during the year of America’s bicentennial, 1976, and into the Jimmy Carter administration. They were still in the trenches four years after our withdrawal from Vietnam, because their agenda was a war to destroy the imperial beast, America.
“I was eight years old when Ayers set his bombs.” (More likely 16.) But Ayers’ reputation was legend in the Hyde Park “liberal” community, where Obama met him and embraced him as a political comrade and ally. It was in Ayers’ living room that Obama launched his campaign for Alice Palmer’s left-wing seat. It was Ayers’ father who got Obama his job at the law firm of Sidley Austin, and it was Ayers himself who hired Obama to spend the $50 million Ayers had raised to finance an army of anti-American radicals drawn from ACORN and other nihilistic groups to recruit Chicago school children to their political causes.
When confronted by his association with Ayers, Obama had another characteristic memory lapse. Ayers was just a “guy in the neighborhood” whose children went to school with his. What other crucial facts about his life and what other essential clues to his character has Obama lied about? Or perhaps more appropriately: What has he not lied about? Syrian criminal Tony Reszko, who gave him his house (and received what political favors in return)? If you ask Obama, he never read all those front page stories about Rezsko’s indictments.
And of course, nobody ever bothered to ask Obama why a pro-Soviet trooper like Alice Palmer would want to give her senate seat to him rather than some other worthy. But we can pretty well guess Obama’s answer if they had.
When you peel away the subterfuges and get down to the facts, what you are left with is a life-long radical posing as a political liberal to win the trust of a larger constituency. Schizophrenic disjunctions make up his political character. He is a ruthless machine politician, who chose the Daley mafia over inner city school kids and crushed an incipient reform movement he himself had been part of. When the chips were down his loyalty was to the machine; but when he runs for office it is as a political progressive. In his heart, he is an economic radical distressed that the Constitution presents obstacles to socialist theft; but when he runs for office he inhabits the persona of an economic centrist. The balancing act is superb. His chief economic adviser this presidential run is Austan Goolsbee, an economic centrist, while Paul Volcker a much admired conservative has joined his campaign. Both men would do a Republican administration proud. But once in power will he follow their advice?
The economy is probably not where your heart is. Consider, then, the global war against Islamic fanatics, which is far from over. These are not people who want to “teach the argument” in public schools, like Sarah Palin. Their remedy for disagreement is not discussion but decapitation. Where is Obama on the war between barbarism and civilization? He was for keeping Saddam Hussein in power, when the entire Clinton national security team was against it. He was for capitulation on the battlefield once the war started, which would have left the Iraqis to the tender mercies of al-Zarqawi and crew.
In foreign policy, generally, his deceptions are world class. In practice he has spent his political life in league with anti-American, “anti-war” radicals who make no secrets among their friends as to the nature of their agendas. As a sitting U.S. Senator, he was a white flag appeaser. But as a candidate poseur he is able to pull off the credible impression that he is a foreign policy realist.
And maybe he is. Or maybe he’s not any of these things, because all that anyone knows for certain about Barack Obama – the only thing anyone knows for certain – is that he is not what he seems. What we do know, because we have the performances on tape is that he is the most seamless liar since Bill himself – smoother by far. Who is the real Barack Obama? Who can tell? We don’t really know anything about this man’s intentions, and what we do know about his deeds is bad.
We know that he is a man without loyalty. Wright, Ayers, Grandma – throw them under the bus (although perhaps only temporarily, while expedience requires it). When his benefactor Alice Palmer changed her mind about passing him her senate seat, he refused to give it back. When she and two other black candidates attempted to challenge him in the primaries, he went to court to prevent them from running at all. He preferred to disenfranchise their supporters than win in an election. When TV anchors posed uncomfortable questions to him and his running mate, he had his campaign threaten their stations with reprisals. Michael Barone has written eloquently about the emerging “Obama thugocracy.” What counter-evidence could you possibly produce against this concern? You have embraced a Machiavellian liar and world class charmer, remarkably disciplined as a political actor, breathtakingly able to put on many faces. Should he become president, will you or anyone else be able to call him to account?
Here is another thing to think about. Consider what those who have known him best and longest think of all these bobbings, weavings, and deceptions on the issues – issues fundamental to America’s future. Despite his tacks to the center, his brave words about standing up to Iran and his claims to be ready to defend Israel’s democracy, every anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-Iranian Communist in America is supporting Barack Obama; every pro-Palestinian leftist, every former Weatherman terrorist – many of whom are active in his campaign (some even on his official website); every Sixties leftist and all their disciples whose hope all their lives has been that America would lose its wars, because in their perverse view America is the Great Satan, the imperial master of global capitalism; every black racist follower of Louis Farrakhan, who said recently that when Obama speaks you are “hearing the voice of the messiah”; every “anti-war” activist who wanted us to leave Saddam in power and then lose the war in Iraq; everyone who believes that America is the bad guy and that our enemies are justly aggrieved; every member of ACORN, the chief product of the anti-American Sixties left, which thinks nothing of conducting massive electoral fraud because it has massive contempt for the American way. Every one of these radical forces without exception and without defection is pulling for Barack Obama, along with al-Jazeera and Vladimir Putin and the religious fanatics of Hamas and the PLO. Have you asked yourself what it is that you think you know, that they don’t?
Of course all these leftists with their hostile agendas may be mistaken about Barack Obama. His distinctive talent, after all, is to appear all things to all men and women. In the end, Obama may be so faithless, and disloyal, and unprincipled, as to turn his back on everything he has ever stood for and everyone who has ever supported him for the last twenty years. He may throw them all under the bus along with Reverend Wright, radical Ayers, and racist Grandma. But how certain can you be of counting on that? Can you even be sure that Wright and Ayers will not be invited back into the fold once the prize is achieved? What is it that you know that the anti-American, anti-Israel left in this country (and abroad), who are also supporting Obama, do not?
I am stunned that you would give all these facts a pass in casting your vote for the mysterious stranger, and use Sarah Palin’s mild, mainstream religious faith as an excuse to condemn her and endorse him. Unlike Obama’s political commitments, Palin’s faith has been a consistently private aspect of her life. (Is there an act of her governorship you can point to that was dictated by the “religious fanaticism” you ascribe to her on the basis of a single appearance she made in a church she has long since left? There is none.) I am not so much surprised as dispirited by your thoughtless attacks on the religious faith of this woman, who has the support of Democrats and Republicans in her state, and who is seeking high office in a nation whose core principle, as you know better than most, is religious tolerance.
Perhaps it is precisely a misapplication of America’s tolerance that is the problem here. Perhaps it is this misuse of a good thing that itself has given rise to the passionate hatreds that are directed unfairly at Palin and McCain. These hatreds are justified by their protagonists as a defense in behalf of the first presidential candidate who is black. Perhaps in the rush to elect a black president, there is too much tolerance for lies, too much willingness to give a pass to Obama on matters on which he should not get a pass – to ignore so many obviously troubling facts.
I am dispirited that you who wrote so movingly about your own post-9/11 love for this country would attack in such an unrestrained and incoherent manner a woman whose candor in expressing similar love has earned her the contempt of the left. Leftists of course refuse to consider themselves nationalists, or patriotic defenders of a tolerant country. They think of themselves as “international citizens” whose allegiances are to international courts, and organizations, and to a United Nations dominated by dictators and racists, by women-hating, gay-hating, Jew-hating, Christian-hating and, yes, atheist-hating regimes. All of this doesn’t matter to them when they are faced with truly dangerous individuals like Sarah Palin.
Think again, Christopher. Vote for Obama if you want to, but don’t debase yourself by thinking (and hating) in lockstep like the left. Since your adoption of this country, you have written thoughtful appreciations of several of its Founders. You know, more than most, that religious freedom – and respect – is the foundation of all the freedoms we enjoy in this country, including the freedom of people to hate it. One thing you can count on from John McCain and Sarah Palin is that they will defend their country and its Constitution against enemies global and domestic who despise it, and seek its demise. What can you count on from Barack Obama?