The People’s Cube: Southern Poverty Law Center is a Hate Group

splc_hate_groupTruth Revolt, Feb. 22, 2017:

From our friend Oleg Atbashian, creative force behind the brilliant satirical site The People’s Cube comes this brilliant non-satirical commentary on one of the left’s favorite attack dogs, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Don’t miss this.

The word “haters” is a very loaded term, and a nonsensical one to boot. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), for example, claims to be the ultimate arbiter of “hate,” “haters,” “hate groups,” and “hate crimes.” This 501(c)(3) nonprofit collects handsome sums of money under the pretext of keeping what they call a hatewatch. At the end of 2016 their endowment stood at $302.8 million. That means they have a direct financial interest in painting a picture of a widespread organized hatred in the United States, which “proves” their importance and scares the donors into parting with even more of their money.

As of this writing, the official SPLC list contains 917 “hate groups” – a strikingly high number that makes one wonder just how arbitrary their criteria of “hate” are. A closer look at the numbers and at the SPLC interactive Hate Map shows a bizarre mix of patriot, Christian, and conservative groups, including ACT for America and Center for Security Policy, lumped together with KKK, neo-Nazis, and black separatists.

A “chilling” SPLC chart shows a 197 percent increase in “anti-Muslim hate groups,” with top three featured “extremists” being – wait for it – David Yerushalmi, Robert Spencer, and Frank Gaffney Jr.

This author, who happens to be friends with Robert Spencer and has had the pleasure of shaking hands with David Yerushalmi and Frank Gaffney, can testify that these three gentlemen are highly intelligent, rational, accomplished, and good-natured people without any signs of “extremism” one would expect from such a characterization.

Just what exactly makes one a “hater” in the eyes of the SPLC?

They would argue that a “hater” is a member of a “hate group” who commits “hate crimes” and/or engages in “hate speech.” The key word here is “hate.” Apparently, to make it easier for the SPLC donors to part with their tax-deductible dollars, they are led to believe that America is so full of hateful, one-dimensional psychopaths that if it weren’t for the SPLC’s courageous efforts, the above donors would be hanging from trees, their families raped, and their estates pillaged and burned.

No doubt, the donors only want to protect their families and their communities out of great love. It’s a natural human trait: if you love something, you hate those who endanger the things you love. But here’s the thing: doesn’t the irrational fear and hatred of conservative groups make these SPLC donors “haters” and “conservaphobes”? And doesn’t this make the SPLC itself a “hate group” that engages in “hate speech” against some of America’s most upstanding citizens with whom they disagree ideologically? In fact, doesn’t their effort to mislead people into hating their fellow citizens qualify as a “hate crime”? Why not? By what objective criteria can this be determined?

Is it acceptable for an American citizen, who loves his family and his country, to hate those who mean them harm? Not according to the SPLC, whose “hate watchers” document all such patriotic utterances as “hate speech.” How far does this principle go? Do American soldiers and intelligence operatives who capture and kill Islamic extremists commit “hate crimes” and does that make the U.S. Department of Defense an “anti-Muslim hate group”? Why not?

Curiously enough, the SPLC list of “hate groups” excludes any existing jihadist groups or associations. Neither does it include the anti-Semitic SJP groups with over 126 chapters at American universities. Is the SPLC losing money by not expanding its “hate group” list? Or is it rather saving money by appeasing certain deep-pocketed donors with an anti-Israel agenda?

Even more telling is the absence of violent left-wing groups on that list – especially those responsible for the recent riots in Washington, D.C., Berkeley, and elsewhere. If these don’t qualify as “hate groups” that engage in “hate speech” and commit “hate crimes” then none of these terms has any meaning at all.

One suspects that in the SPLC book of virtues, violent leftist and Islamic extremists are probably listed as “love groups” that engage in “love speech” and commit “love crimes.” It is quite obvious that the SPLC considers itself a “love group.”

That, in the SPLC mind, gives it the moral license to dehumanize conservatives by implying that they have nothing but hatred in their dark, shriveled hearts, and that they have no other motivation than a burning, all-consuming hatred towards women and minorities. How else can we interpret the SPLC’s effort to reduce the entire life’s work and intellectual accomplishments of their fellow citizens to a single disparaging word, “hate”?

This can go both ways, though. Looking at the motivation of leftist groups and their icons, one could say that the SPLC’s portrayal of conservatives is a mere projection of their own condition.
Until now conservatives didn’t call the left “haters” because this was not their game. The best they could do was to quote Matthew 7:5: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” But that cumbersome phrase doesn’t fit into a 140-character Tweet, unlike the pithy and effective “hate speech.”

But that is changing. Encouraged by President Trump’s example, conservatives have begun to talk back, causing the SPLC “hate counter” to go through the roof.

In SPLC’s own words, all “hate groups” are characterized by “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” That perfectly describes the left’s own beliefs and practices, starting with the original attacking and maligning of all business owners, bankers, traders, and their top-level employees (the so-called “bourgeois class”) as parasites and vicious oppressors.

Hasn’t Barack Obama attacked and maligned white blue collar workers in the flyover country as “bitter clingers”? The SPLC definition makes him a hater. Hasn’t Hillary Clinton attacked and maligned a significant portion of Americans as “deplorables”? She must be a hater. Hasn’t the “mainstream” media attacked and maligned Trump supporters as racist, sexist, uneducated bigots? That makes the “mainstream” media a “hate group.”

A wide array of leftist groups is currently busy spreading hatred among Americans by attacking, maligning, dividing, and pitting classes of people against each other: the poor against the rich, women against men, blacks against whites, gays against straights, transgendered against cisgendered, minorities against majorities, blue states against red states, the north against the south, nature against humans… Entire classes of people are being attacked and maligned for their immutable characteristics. The entire human race is being demonized for being a carbon-based life form.

The left has become the largest and most powerful “movement of hate” the world has ever known.

They’ll tell you that “in order to qualify as a ‘hater’ one must be in a position of power,” but such excuses no longer work. The left is the power. Having taken over the media, education, publishing, entertainment, most corporations and charities, all government bureaucracies, and even some churches, let alone what is now called the “deep state,” the left is unabashedly flexing its muscles, trying to show Donald Trump who the real boss is, unwittingly abandoning the old game of pretense and making it known that the left is no longer the underdog and hasn’t been one in a long time.

Though the leftists still cling to their masks of valiant rebels, Americans increasingly see them for who they really are – deposed despots who’ll stop at nothing to get their power back. The true rebels of today are fighting the leftist establishment. The left loves being in control and hates the American people who threaten to take it away.

Here are some quotes from a revered leftist icon, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, whose image is emblazoned on countless T-shirts around American campuses.

To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the paredón [execution wall].

Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine.

Granted, Che was a revolutionary who loved big ideas and hated those who stood in their way. The same applies to some of the leftist leaders in America today. Some other leaders hate the “deplorables” for their refusal to submit to their dictate. But what explains the unprecedented hatred coming from those at the bottom of the leftist food chain, who have neither the big ideas not the power?

The latter include most Democrats, government workers, welfare recipients, establishment media, certain unions, career politicians, crony capitalists, and other beneficiaries of the corrupt redistributive hierarchy that is now endangered by Trump’s presidency. They love their unearned material and emotional comfort; while that great passion stays under the radar, their hatred of anyone who wants to disrupt it is rather conspicuous. You haven’t seen a hater until you’ve tried to take drugs away from a drug addict.

Thus the left has become the reactionary force of today. Paradoxically enough, in an abstract semantic way, the leftists are now the true “conservatives” as they try to “conserve” the existing system that ensures their comforts. At the same time, the traditional “American conservatives” who have been “conserving” the ideas of America’s founding, have now become the true revolutionary vanguard.

Until recently, many conservatives dismissed the left as bumbling incompetent fools, who weren’t smart enough to experience cognitive dissonance.

How is it possible to hold so many mutually exclusive beliefs?

  • To preach tolerance and be so intolerant?
  • To grieve for terror victims and justify terrorism?
  • To stand up for workers and destroy their jobs?
  • To march for peace and defend the militants?
  • To denounce corruption and vote for the corrupt?
  • To espouse non-violence and commit violent acts?
  • To speak of liberties and promote government dictate?
  • To bolster feminism and deride successful women?
  • To cheer gays and aid the gay-bashers in the Middle East?
  • To champion minorities as a group and hold them down as individuals?
  • To care about the children and mutilate their minds?
  • To denounce guns and hire armed bodyguards?
  • To support the troops and side with their murderers?
  • To demand love and be full of hate?

As it turns out, those are not contradictions; they contain a very consistent logic. The key to cracking this logic is a statement attributed to Karl Marx, which, regardless of whether he wrote it or not, is perfectly aligned with the moral philosophy of progressivism:

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

This also clarifies the Orwellian leftist slogan, “no justice, no peace.” In other words, true love awaits those who join the march towards socialism over the bodies of fallen enemies. With all the talk of love and unity coming from the left, we have yet to hear a call to start loving and stop hating the enemies of socialism. “Love trumps hate” is for suckers. “Trample or be trampled” is more like it. There can be no peace and there can be no love between the left and their opponents.

For more insight into the real meaning of love and hate coming from the left, watch this 5-minute animated video.

LOVE and HATE

Written by Oleg Atbashian. Narrated, animated, and produced by James Lorenz.

UTT Throwback Thursday: Flynn, The Shadow Government & America’s Second Civil War

Understanding the Threat, Feb. 16, 2017:

Today’s UTT Throwback Thursday looks all the way back to…Monday, when UTT identified the threat of the Shadow Government and the penetration of America’s national security and governmental decision-making apparatus by jihadi, hard-left/Marxist, and other enemies.

flynn3

The resignation of General Michael Flynn is another salvo in America’s Second Civil War, which is now underway in earnest.  This was a victory for our enemies and, if harsh action is not taken immediately, our enemies will be emboldened to be more aggressive.

The battle lines in America’s Second Civil War have been drawn between the enemies of liberty and principles upon which our fore-fathers built this nation, against those willing to stand and defend all that is right and just about the original ideals of this land we call America as detailed in the Declaration of Independence.

Those involved in General Flynn’s resignation, especially the media and individuals in the intelligence community who illegally leaked highly classified material, lied and are continuing to lie about the contacts between General Flynn and the Russians, among other details.  They did this and are continuing their efforts to intentionally thwart the orders of the President of the United States, as did the judges ruling against the law on President Trump’s Executive Order regarding closing immigration from seven hostile nations.

The hard-left/Marxists and Jihadis are working together to destroy the American government and society and both have overtly stated so.  They are being directly aided by many media outlets and reporters as well as by establishment Republicans who seem to want to maintain status quo rather than defend the Republic and adhere to their sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Those involved and supporting such subversive activities should be identified and fired and, where possible, prosecuted.  Judges ruling against U.S. law and the Constitution, including those on the Supreme Court, should be impeached.

President Trump faces a true and imminently dangerous threat to the Republic, and comparisons to Lincoln’s leadership burdens during America’s first Civil War are not unfounded.

For several years, UTT has been briefing and teaching leaders in law enforcement and government about the flourishing operational and strategic relationship between the international hard-left/Marxist movement and the Jihadi Movement.

obama

From the ground level in Ferguson and Dallas to the hundreds of George Soros funded organizations internationally seeking to financially bring down the United States, to the Global Islamic Movement using these organizations and individuals as tools to build their caliphate under sharia, the Flynn resignation is a major pivot point for the enemy.  It shows them they can defeat the United States from the inside out.

Now we have a likely prospect for the President’s new National Security Advisor in Admiral Harward. Does he strategically understand the magnitude of the threats facing the Republic, and does he have the stomach for what must be done to achieve victory?

UTT reaffirms this war will be won or lost at the local level.  Courageous sheriffs and pastors who will speak the truth, prepare their communities, and root out the threats facing our Constitutional Republic county by county is the second major step towards victory.

The first is training and education.  UTT stands ready to help your community.

Escape From the Life of Julia

Attendees say the Pledge of Allegiance before the arrival of President-elect Donald Trump during the first stop of his post-election tour, Thursday, Dec. 1, 2016, in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Attendees say the Pledge of Allegiance before the arrival of President-elect Donald Trump during the first stop of his post-election tour, Thursday, Dec. 1, 2016, in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

You might be thinking this topic doesn’t fit on a counter jihad site but the momentous implications of Donald Trump defeating the political establishment include disrupting the advance of statism that the unholy alliance of Islam and leftists depend on to gain power. I love Claudia Rosett and wish she were Trump’s choice for ambassador to the UN.

PJ Media, by Claudia Rosett, December 2, 2016:

There were plenty of flaws in the victory speech with which President-elect Donald Trump just kicked off his “Thank You Tour” of swing states. I hope he’ll stick with his free-market plans to cut taxes and scrap regulations and jettison his state-planning proposal to punish companies for leaving the country (prosperity will come of free markets, not of presidentially directed industrial policy). And Shakespeare he’s not; nor, for that matter, is he a Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan.

But when Trump stood up in front of that Cincinnati crowd, looked into the cameras of national television, and proclaimed “America will start winning again bigly,” what came over me — not for the first time since Nov. 8th — was a sweeping sense of relief.

Yes, there are yuge problems looming, at home and abroad. President Obama has guaranteed us cliff-hanger crises ahead, with his eight years of central planning, profligate spending, politicized law, apologies for America, betrayal of our allies, pandering to our enemies, and postmodern”narratives” designed to emulsify all common sense (Obama’s erstwhile legacy deal for an “exclusively peaceful” Iranian nuclear program comes to mind).

Trump, even if he pursues the wisest of plans with the best of intentions, will have his hands full. We don’t yet know how he will govern in practice. It’s likely he’s not quite sure either.

But here’s something that really is huge. With last month’s election, as underscored by the crowd celebrating Trump in Cincinnati, this country now has a fighting chance to escape the Life of Julia.

You remember “The Life of Julia”? Julia was the faceless female figure in the interactive slide show — or “online tool”  — rolled out by Obama’s re-election campaign in mid-2012, to advertise the many ways in which Obama’s brand of state-paternalism promised to usher women through life. The original campaign production has since vanished from the internet, but articles about it remain, and one enterprising soul has dug up the original Julia slides and pieced them together on YouTube. It’s a pretty good summary of where Obama has been taking America; a fundamental transformation into a statist gray zone that was the basic issue on the ballot this November.

To recap, Julia at age three prepares for kindergarten in a Head Start program improved by Obama. Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program “implemented by President Obama.” For college, she is one of millions of students receiving a Pell Grant, and her family benefits from “President Obama’s American Opportunity Tax Credit.” During college, she has surgery, which is covered by Obama’s healthcare reform, which lets her stay on her parents’ plan till she is 26.

At 23, Julia starts a career as a web designer, her “equal pay” assured by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. She can dispense with worries about paying down her student loans, because Obama has “capped income-based student loan payments and kept interest rates low” (yes, this is the same program that now has taxpayers on the hook for $108 billion in losses, and counting). Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance perforce covers her birth control and preventive care, and when she decides at 31 to have a child — with no visible spouse, partner or other family arrangement in sight —   Obama’s “healthcare reform” covers all maternity costs.

At 42, Julia starts her own web business — with a loan from the Small Business Administration. At 65 she enrolls in Medicare. At 67 she retires on Social Security, and thanks to her government checks (which miraculously pay for everything she needs) she can while away the rest of her time on earth volunteering at a “community garden.”

Poor Julia. Not only does she have no face, but she has virtually no individuality– even in retirement, she tends the community’s garden, not her own. She is basically a ward — and a phantasm — of the state. She spends more than six decades going from one federal program, handout, and subsidy, to the next.

Missing entirely from this vision of state-curated womanhood was any mention of the real cost, or who will cover it. As David Harsanyi asked, in a 2012 article for Human Events, “Who the hell is ‘Julia,’ and why am I paying for her whole life?

Though, as Harsanyi also noted, the financial cost to others of Julia’s state-chaperoned life is just part of the toll. There is also the deadening of the spirit — Julia’s, and ours:

What we are left with is a celebration of how a woman can live her entire life by leaning on government intervention, dependency and other people’s money rather than her own initiative or hard work. It is, I’d say, implicitly un-American, in the sense that it celebrates a mindset we have — outwardly at least — shunned.

I’d add that it’s not just women who have been designated under Obama for a life in which all roads lead to Big Brother; it’s all Americans. It’s Pajama Boy in his zip-up plaid onesie, drinking hot chocolate in his parents’ finished basement while enthusing about state-mandated health insurance. It’s the millions who have dropped out of the labor force, the taxpayers who are dunned to support the dole, the would-be employees and employers who instead of joining forces on their own terms to create wealth in the marketplace are spending their time — unemployed and out of business — trying to navigate the regulatory, redistributive maze that is the real life of Julia.

In a state in which central planners call the shots, we are less and less free to choose. Individual enterprise becomes desperately unrewarding, or even illegal. Freedom fades, and bureaucratic dictates supplant the information and incentives that are part of free markets. Economic growth declines, and people fight over access to the favors of the state elite and their bureaucratic retinue, the overlords who decide who gets what slice of the shrinking vegetarian meatloaf.

That’s the real life of Julia, the direction in which the country has been heading for too many years now, while Obama has scolded Americans that whatever they earn, or achieve, or invent, belongs — cradle-to-grave — to someone else: “You didn’t build that.”

To watch America in recent years spiraling down into the life of Julia has been excruciating. This is a country made great not by conquest, or constraints, or cross-subsidies, but by freedom and free enterprise. Long before the welfare state offered free amenities (courtesy of American taxpayers), it was freedom that drew people to America, and fueled the melting pot — the real form of “inclusivity” — once they arrived. Our true iconic figures — if you plumb the American spirit — are not Julia and Pajama Boy, but sharpshooter Annie Oakley and that out-sized folklore lumberjack of the Western frontier, Paul Bunyan. This is the country that led the way to victory in World War II, and during the Cold War stood — and in some places fought — as a bulwark of freedom.

This is the country that 30 years ago inspired the talented American newsman and humorist P.J. O’Rourke to write a brilliant and politically incorrect retort to a European critic, at the end of an article titled “Among the Euro-Weenies.” O’Rourke’s language is not for children, but below is an excerpt that will give you the gist. He’s in London, at the lit-glitz Groucho Club, listening to a European who has just been saying that Americans know nothing about war because their country has never been invaded. O’Rourke doubles down, replying:

Let me tell you who those bad guys are. They’re us. WE BE BAD… We’re three-quarters grizzly bear and two-thirds car wreck and descended from a stock market crash on our mother’s side. You can take your Germany, France, and Spain, roll them all together and it wouldn’t give us room to park our cars. We’re the big boys, Jack, the original, giant, economy-sized, new and improved butt-kickers of all time.

That is the American energy and spirit — and humor — that seems to be stirring again, after the descent toward the cramped and somnolent life of Julia.

I don’t think this American spirit is racist, or xenophobic, or misogynist, or any of the other -ists and -ics and -isms that have been tossed around during the recent election campaign, and hurled at Trump in particular. I think we are seeing America shaking off the shadow of Julia, and seeking to recover its strength, and its wits.

To recover fully is a tall order. There is by now a vast and many-layered web of entitlements and regulations that will be hard to unspin, and tempting for those now in power to preserve. There are enormous debts coming due, and there is an urgent need to restore America’s lost muscle and credibility abroad.

How far Trump might lead, or in precisely what direction, where he will falter and in what he will succeed — all these things are still unclear. Personally, I prefer the cadence of “liberty and justice for all” to such locutions as “winning again bigly.” But if Trump manages to shrink the Obama state and drain the Washington swamp, especially if he does it bigly, that would be a huge leap in the direction of liberty and justice. At least he is pointing, broadly, in the right direction. Americans have, at least for now, changed the trajectory that was dooming us to the Life of Julia. That alone is a deliverance.

Also see:

***

I can’t resist including this video. Merry Christmas everyone!!!

This 9/11 Anniversary is a Call to Action

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 9, 2016:

It has been fifteen (15) years since September 11, 2001.  It is a day seared in our hearts and minds.

911

Today, we are far from where we thought we would be 15 years after the jihadi attacks of 9/11.  America lost two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we lost thousands of American lives since 9/11.  Many have allowed themselves to be lied to about the true nature of the threat without any evidence they care about their ignorance.

Our leaders in both political parties have betrayed us and brought the Republic to a gravely dangerous point in our history.  Some say we are on the brink of destruction.

This weekend is meant to remember the dead of September 11, 2001, but it is also a time for Americans to dedicate themselves to defending freedom without apology.  It is a time to recall our duties as citizen soldiers, stand in the gap and refuse to surrender one more inch to tyranny and evil.

The cry once again is “Freedom.”

Freedom to speak your mind without concern for whom might be offended.

Freedom to declare the truth about America’s founding as a nation created by God’s divine providence.

Freedom to declare our rights come from God, and no man nor any government nor any tyrannical movement can take them from us.

But Freedom must be fought for.  We are at war whether you like it or not, and this fight requires mature adults who understand what is at stake to step up and engage wherever needed.

And our time is short.

The culmination of decades of work by the hard left/Marxist and Islamic jihadi Movements in the U.S. is coming to fruition right now. The enemy is on the move.  The Marxists and Jihadis are concentrating their forces.

Marxism, Communism and Socialism are evil systems.  They necessarily enslave people and, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, they are systems where few hold power over the masses – and the masses suffer greatly under that tyranny.

Islam obliges jihad (warfare against non-Muslims) until sharia is the law of the land.  This totalitarian system also enslaves and murders those who do not subscribe to its doctrines.

The cry now must be “Freedom.”

f

The four key pillars of our society – Religion, Politics, Education, Media (free press?) – have been nearly obliterated by the hard-left/Marxists.  The Islamic Movement wages their war against Freedom on the very ground given to them by these Marxists.

Action at the local level needs to be taken now.

It is time to take our schools back.  Our universities may be unrecoverable, but our elementary and junior high schools are not.  Teachers teaching lies about America’s history should be aggressively made to teach the truth or bounced out of school.  The Bible should be, once again, the primary text for teaching morality and good character, among other things.

Christian Pastors who preach that any/all behavior is okay, Islam is peaceful, and that we should never offend others, are denying the faith of our founders and undermining the principles of “the law of nature (Natural Law) and nature’s God (Holy Scripture)” upon which our legal system and government are founded.  Such Pastors should be tossed out of their churches by their ears.  That is not “mean,” it is loving to all the people being corrupted by their evil teachings.

Elected officials who continue to violate their Oaths of Office must be held accountable to the people, who are the sovereign in the United States of America.  It begins at the local level.

Media outlets and reporters who continue to be mouthpieces for both the Marxist and Islamic Movements must be held to account.  Whether station sponsors are petitioned or the individual reporters shamed into speaking truth or quitting, action must be taken.

The two most important groups of people in returning the Republic to order and freedom are Sheriffs (most powerful law enforcement officers in America) and Pastors.  If a sheriff and the citizens (motivated by their Pastors) in any given U.S. county or parish understand the dangers we face, they can legally, aggressively, and thoughtfully identify and dismantle the Marxist and Islamic network in their area.

County by county and state by state we can build fortresses of Freedom.

If battle frightens you and you just want peace, you can have it in an instant.  You can surrender.  But we in a battle for the soul of our Republic and that requires action and it requires a fight.

Yes, this Presidential election is critical, and some people may feel a victory for Mr. Trump may not be victory for conservative Patriots. But a defeat for Mr. Trump will be a defeat for all of us.

However, this is a counterinsurgency and the focus of main effort is at the local level.

On this 9/11 anniversary, the cry once again is “Freedom.”  This is not a slogan nor is it hyperbole.  We are in a war and we need to start acting like it.

Lets put Freedom back on the offensive – where it belongs.

Judge Jeanine: ‘It’s Time to Take Our Country Back’

Fox News Insider, June 26, 2016:

On “Justice” last night, Judge Jeanine Pirro said the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union is just the beginning of a worldwide revolution, and the next stop is the U.S.

“The world is changing, and all you elite establishment, ruling class, condescending Washington bigwigs, who think you know better than ordinary Americans, are out,” Judge Jeanine said. “Start packing. Your days are numbered.”

She said that millions of American citizens who are unhappy with the direction of the country will catapult Donald Trump into the White House.

“It’s time to take the country back,” Judge Jeanine said.

“Every week, I speak to you in front of a backdrop. But it’s so much more than that. It’s the American flag. It represents the spilled blood and treasure of those who gave up everything for this great nation. It stands for freedom, equality and justice. And I’m damn proud of it.”

Watch Judge Jeanine’s opening statement above and read a full transcript below.


What happened in England is going to happen again. Next stop: the United States. Next president: Donald J. Trump.

What happened in the U.K. is just the beginning. The world is changing, and all you elite establishment, ruling class, condescending Washington bigwigs who think you know better than ordinary Americans are out. Start packing. Your days are numbered.

I told you this election was a revolution – but even I didn’t know how big it would be.

It’s worldwide. The headlines scream it. The working class who toil everyday to pay their rent and put food on their families’ tables are tired of being lectured by the fat cats in Washington and Brussels who preach what we need and when we need it. The Brits in a monumental upset made their voices heard this week voting to exit the European Union. You know the place with open borders being overrun by immigrants as they watch their economies falter. Similarly, Americans fed up with this “we are the world” dance will catapult Donald Trump to the White House.

News flash: we don’t want an internationalist country, world banks, globalization of our economy, a country with no border and no identity. You are not allowed to change the identity of this country. Americans want a nation-state, our own country with a history of freedom combined with responsibility. And yet our proud history – even our money – is being rewritten to accommodate a new world view.

We are so beaten down by political correctness that most of us are numb to the surrender of America.

And as for those naysayers. The ones who say Donald Trump just can’t win, listen up: those naysayers in England, got it all wrong. Prime Minister Cameron got it all wrong you know-the one who criticized Donald trump for his temporary ban on Muslims… And now he’s out. Obama too got it all wrong– jetting to England as if he were the world’s dictator-telling the Brits what’s good for them. And while we’re at it– Hillary Clinton got it wrong on just about everything, except her bank account.

When the president of the United States – a country founded on Judeo Christian ethics – tells Christians at a prayer breakfast no less, to get off their high horse, after Christians get their heads cut off-not even willing to mention Islamic extremism when the president of the united states allows hordes of immigrants who’s names– let alone backgrounds – we don’t even know – as ISIS proudly announces they are infiltrating these refugees… When states are not even notified who the federal government is sending to live in their neighborhoods, flying in unknowns from central America and the middle east en masse, who demand Sharia law in place of American law – then we are in the wilderness, folks.

And I don’t want to hear that Americans need to be more humble that we need more humility that my free speech needs to be tamped down so as not to offend another’s’ religion.

Nowhere does our Constitution say we cannot say something about another’s religion. Nowhere does our Constitution say we cannot say anything that offends someone. And by the way nowhere does it say I can’t have a gun. Do not use our Constitution against us while you use the same Constitution to shield those who violate our laws, showering them with all the rights and benefits but none of the responsibilities.

When our president’s first response to an American getting his head cut off is to show up in a golf cart and then keep on golfing-when he and his attorney generals response to Americans being killed by Muslim terrorists is to stand up for Muslims, then it’s time to take our country back

And don’t tell me that to not take these people in is not who we are. I know who we are.

My grandfather was part of the greatest generation that stormed the beach in Normandy. My dad saw the plume in Nagasaki. And later died because of it. No. Don’t you preach to me. I know who we are and I know who I am. I am an unapologetic nationalist. I am an unapologetic American.

And that Statue of Liberty – give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses

We never had a problem taking them in from the beginning. We are the most generous country in the world. I’ve sworn in newly naturalized citizens for years and have never been more proud of America. But they have to do it legally. They have to swear allegiance to America, follow our laws, and not be exempt from arrest because of their illegal status, as they are in sanctuary cities.

Even the Supreme Court had to stop the president, who attempted to ban the deportation of four million illegals and give them an automatic right to work here.

When a man running for president proudly carries with him the sword of socialism and when a woman running for president accepts monies from countries that kill gays and stone women to death for her family’s so called charity, when their holdings are invested in the Cayman Islands, and her husband is middle man to some of the world’s biggest deals, as they feather their nest at the expense of America, it’s time to take the country back.

No, I don’t believe in globalization. I don’t believe in this international mumbo jumbo. I don’t believe in self-denigration. I believe in our nation-state. I believe in borders. And I believe in the law, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that outlines the character of who we are. Every week, I speak to you in front of a backdrop. But it’s so much more than that. It’s the American flag. It represents the spilled blood and treasure of those who gave up everything for this great nation. It stands for freedom, equality and justice. And I’m damn proud of it.

o-AMERICAN-FLAG-facebook

Sweden’s Populist Surge

Muslim immigration has changed the face of Sweden.

Muslim immigration has changed the face of Sweden.

MEF, by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
August 26, 2015

According to the most recent poll, the innocuously-named but ferociously anti-establishment Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna or SD) has the largest support of any political party in Sweden. This news has potentially momentous implications not just for Sweden but for all Europe.

Sweden is a special place. One of the richest and most peaceful countries in the world (it has not been engaged in armed conflict for two centuries), until recently it was a remarkably homogenous society where socialism, with its optimistic assumption that people are born good and circumstances make them bad, worked and the government enjoyed great prestige. Swedish pride in the country’s accomplishments translates into an ethical superiority symbolized by the oft-heard claim to be a “moral superpower.”

1629

This heritage has also inspired an intolerance of dissent, however; “Be quiet, follow the consensus, let the bureaucrats carry it out.” The country has become so notorious for its stifling faux-unanimity that I actually heard a Dane recently ask at a public forum, “Why has Sweden turned into the North Korea of Scandinavia?”

Swedish history militates against hard-headed, flexible responses to problems.

Also, Sweden’s history creates a no-crisis mentality that militates against the hard-headed, flexible responses needed to cope with current problems the country now faces, especially those connected to waves of mainly Muslim immigrants. As one interlocutor put it to me in Stockholm earlier this month, “Past success has led to current failure.” For example, security in Sweden is well below what might find in a country like Bolivia, with few inclinations to make improvements, rendering Islamist violence all but inevitable.

In this stultification, the SD stands out because it offers the only political alternative. Proof of this came in December 2014, when the SD appeared to have the swing vote in a crucial budget vote between the left and right blocs in the country’s unicameral legislature, the Riksdag – until all the other seven parties joined together in a grand coalition to deny it any influence.

A subway ad in Stockholm illustrates the Sweden Democrats' messaging.

A subway ad in Stockholm illustrates the Sweden Democrats’ messaging.

As this act of desperation suggests, the Sweden Democrats offer a populist – and not, as usually described, a “far right” – brew of policies anathema to all the legacy parties: Foremost, it calls for assimilating legal immigrants, expelling the illegals, and reducing future immigration by at least 90 percent. It also forwards a number of other policies (concerning crime, defense, the European Union, and Israel) far outside the Swedish consensus and utterly obnoxious to the other parties.

With good reason, the establishment hates and fears the SD, pedantically finding any possible fault with the party, starting with its alleged neo-fascist past (though fascist connections are not unique to SD) and going on to the tiniest foibles of its leadership.

Supporting the SD remains taboo. The national police commissioner once tweeted about “vomiting” on seeing the SD’s leader; naturally, his staff dare not acknowledge their supporting for the party. But one officer estimated for me that 50 percent of the police vote SD.

sweden

Despite being ostracized, the SD increasingly connects with Swedes (including some immigrants), giving it substantial electoral gains, roughly doubling its parliamentary vote every four years: from 0.4 percent in 1998 to 1.3 percent in 2002, 2.9 percent in 2006, 5.7 percent in 2010, and 12.9 percent in September 2014. And now, less than a year later, a YouGov poll shows it having nearly doubled again, to 25.2 percent, meaning that it leads the governing Social Democrats (who have only 23.4 percent support) and the major (nominally) right-wing party, the Moderates (with 21 percent).

The political climate in Sweden has shifted. Ideas once outside the mainstream now receive a hearing.

No less important, I learned in Stockholm, the intellectual and political climate has shifted. Journalists, policy specialists, and politicians all noted that ideas outside the mainstream just a year ago now receive a hearing. For example, four major newspapers have questioned the consensus in favor of high immigration. Beside the surging SD vote, this shift results from several factors: the shocking rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has altered the debate; continued upset at the December compact that excluded the SD from having its due parliamentary influence; and the receding memory of Anders Behring Breivik’s 2011 murderous rampage in Norway.

In all, it appears that denial and censorship can only continue for so long before the instinct of self-preservation kicks in. The Western country most prone to national suicide is possibly waking up from its stupor. If this change can take place in Sweden, the “North Korea of Scandinavia,” it can, and likely will, occur elsewhere in Europe.

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

***

Stockholm Syndrome: Sweden Offers Taxpayer-Funded Benefits To Lure ‘Alienated’ Jihadists Home

Jihadis-from-Europe-Militant-Website-AP-Photo-640x480Breitbartby SIMON KENT, May 18, 2015:

Sweden knows how to save the world from Islamic State (IS) terrorists as they tire of beheadings, crucifixions, murders and random acts of extrajudicial killing. Just be very, very nice to them.

According to WND news service, a programme to help jaded IS fighters rejoin society has started in Sweden’s Örebro Municipality, where jihadists can obtain “psychological help to overcome traumatic experiences they may have suffered while fighting in Iraq and Syria.”

The Swedish newspaper Expressen reports that councillor Rasmus Persson advocates offering terrorists jobs so they don’t “feel alienated” as they endure their post-battlefield existential funk. At the same time Stockholm has released a document outlining its “strategy against violent extremism.”

Here is a translated excerpt from that nine-page guide to helping jihadists when they return home.

Post-perspective: When a person wishes to leave a violent extremist grouping or coming home from combat overseas, it is crucial to provide customized inclusion efforts. Even then, it is important to have a local cooperation between various actors. Voluntary organizations can provide targeted support and advice. Even faith communities working with advice, but also psychosocial support.

When it comes to people who participated in combat there is likely to be great need of health efforts. Therefore, it is important to establish cooperation between social services, social psychiatry and drug units, as well as health centers and psychiatric services (trauma, PTSD, etc.)

When it comes to security, it is important that cooperation between social services, income support, employment and other efforts by the Labour Department, as well as assistance with job placement.
Finally, the accommodation issue is a prerequisite that must work. Therefore, cooperative housing companies needs to be included in the post-perspective.”

Councillor Persson agrees. He told the news program Tvärsnytt, “We have discussed how we should work for these guys who have come back, and to prevent them from returning to the fighting, and that they should be helped to process the traumatic experiences they have been through.”

All this fast-tracked past the queue of law-abiding immigrants and indigenous Swedes. Such conspicuous acts of kindness to avowed Islamic murderers are not cheap, either. That’s why Sweden’s official coordinator against violent extremism, Mona Sahlin – a former leader of the Social Democrat Party – advocates using taxpayer funds to underwrite the services.

WND reports one Swedish soldier stationed in Kabul during his third mission in Afghanistan is not so sure the plan will work or even if it is available to those on the front line taking the fight to IS. He posted a challenge on Facebook and asked that Sweden extend the program to its own warriors returning from active duty.

“In a few months, I’m back in Sweden after being deployed in Afghanistan, against the Taliban and others who have really jeopardizing development in this very sore country,” Frederick Brandberg wrote. “There is no permanent job waiting for me when I come home.”

Brandberg added: “It would be wonderful if I was met with a comparable program after my homecoming, after which I could feel safe in having a regular job, with monthly income and a social stable situation in the society where I wouldn’t need to wonder whether I’m wanted or not.”

In November 2014, the Swedish government estimated between 250 and 300 of its citizens have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS.

Just two months ago, Sweden’s national job agency fired all of its own contracted “immigrant resettlement assistants” because they were recruiting fighters for ISIS.

How to Destroy a Country – Part Three

a rippled union flag background representing the united kingdomLiberty GB, June 10, 2014, by Paul Weston:

The following article is the final part of a three-part series outlining the background of the leftist assault on Britain and Western Civilisation. Part One can be viewed here, Part Two here.

Segregate the Generations

In the course of a political argument, an ancient lady was told by her grandson that she came from a different generation, to which she replied: “No, I come from a different civilisation.”

Quite so. There is little point in controlling the medium of Socialist education if the wisdom of the older ‘reactionary’ generations can still be passed down to the younger. In Africa, the tribal elders are respected and listened to, but in Britain those over a certain age are mocked at worst, or sidelined at best, because they come from a pre-revolutionary era. Those born after 1970 come from the post-revolutionary era, and never the twain shall meet. The educational and media establishments are run in the main by the young or the very young, all soaked in Marxist ideology, and their output is principally aimed only at the young. This is deliberately done in order to ensure the segregation of those who could present an alternative voice to their incessant and twisted Socialist propaganda.

Promote Conformity in the Guise of Individualism

Has there ever been such conformity amongst the youth of a democratic nation before? Most young people are politically correct. They have been reared to believe in themselves as individuals, and to hold their own self-esteem (their very high and often unearned self-esteem) as an intrinsic part of said individuality. But in reality they have been socially engineered into individuals who all believe the same thing. This is because the conformist herd is so much easier to control than the non-conformist individual, particularly so when the herd mentality just happens to be the ideology of the Socialist state. The heavily propagandised ideology shared by the vast majority of the young is not quite as compassionate as they think, however, because the stark reality of it guarantees their immediate cultural destruction, and their eventual racial destruction.

Create an Anarchic Youth

Remove the various traditions and taboos that bound previous societies together; deem discipline in schools to be an archaic bourgeois form of child abuse; promote the ideology of self before group and pleasure before duty; promote licentiousness through early-age sex education coupled with pornographic music videos à la MTV; downplay heterosexual marriage as one of many equally valid lifestyle choices; remove the taboo of illegitimacy and reward it through welfare payments; offer abortions to teenage girls without their parents’ knowledge; promote an ideology of “Me, me, me! Now, now, now!” above outmoded ideas such as sacrifice, thrift, duty, honour, morality, truth, decency and patriotism.

Destroy Competitiveness

This is dressed up with words like egalitarianism and equality, but what it really means is dragging everything down to the lowest common denominator, which is far easier than dragging people upwards. Grammar schools were ‘elitist’, and therefore had to be destroyed, even though the main beneficiaries were working class children. Competitive sport meant that for every winner there were several losers, so that too had to be sidelined in some state schools. But the rest of the world does not play by the same suicidal rules. China is already an economic superpower; how can we hope to compete when they worship elitism and strive for success, whilst we worship the lowest-common-denominator ideology of egalitarianism, and reward failure?

Destroy Self-Reliance

Building a dependent class is of great importance to left liberals. Firstly, the dependents will vote for the hand that feeds them the most, and secondly it enables the ruling elite to exercise control they could never dream of exercising over a non-dependent class. This explains why Britain’s public sector is favoured above the private sector by left liberals, and why the deliberate formation of a permanent state-dependent underclass seems to worry them so little. In 2008-9 the welfare payment bill was actually higher than the total P.A.Y.E. tax-receipts, however. And, quite astonishingly, there are more people registered as disabled (and claiming benefits) than were registered disabled immediately after World War One! This is obviously unsustainable, and confirms Alexander Tytler‘s view that democracies collapse when the money provided by the rulers in return for their vote eventually runs out, after which dictatorship inevitably follows. Tytler’s famous quote is as follows:

From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.

 

Destroy Democracy

Britain is no longer a truly democratic country. 80% of our new legislation is now enacted in Brussels at the behest of twenty-eight Commissioners whom we never elected and can never democratically remove from office. The British government is essentially just a puppet council, allowed to remain in place to reassure the gullible public that we still run our own affairs – which we don’t. In addition, the flooding of Britain by Third World immigrants was an undemocratic act. The electorate was never asked if we wished to transform Britain into a multi-ethnic, multicultural country. If we had been asked, we would have said “No!” And, just to rub salt into the wound, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for left liberal politicians – which, of course, is partially why they were imported in the first place.

The Labour Party’s introduction of postal voting also means our elections are now influenced by fraudulently obtained ballot papers not only in Britain’s large Muslim enclaves, but also – and this is completely surreal – via proxy votes in Pakistan and Bangladesh! In the 2010 British elections the Conservatives failed to win a majority by a very slim margin, leading Lady Warsi, a Conservative Muslim, to lay the blame squarely on Muslim electoral fraud. When British elections (such as they are, now the EU is the real power) are illegally influenced by Pakistanis in Mirpur, I think we can safely say our democracy is dead.

Introduce Mass Immigration

The white working class betrayed the hard Left when they failed to rise up in the much longed-for proletarian revolution, and they failed to rise up because they had become too affluent. The Marxist solution was to introduce a new, foreign-born ‘oppressed proletariat’ as a means to Socialism’s ongoing march toward total power. The number of Third World immigrants runs into the millions. This deliberate dilution of an indigenous people has never before happened on such a scale. If UN guidelines on genocide are taken quite literally, it amounts to the ethnic cleansing of the English.

White children are now a minority in London schools and in many schools within other British cities. Demographers predict the indigenous population will become a minority by around 2060, with the young suffering that fate even earlier. Feminist ideology has dramatically decreased the indigenous demographic whilst the Islamic population is doubling every decade through continued immigration and high birth rates. Islam is already a huge problem in Britain, yet, as their numbers grow, so will their demands on traditional Britain, which lives its life in a manner markedly different to life under sharia law – which surveys suggestsome 40% of British Muslims wish to see enacted.

Why do left liberals act as apologists for Islam? Hugh Fitzgerald puts it thus:

Nothing shows better the extreme hatred liberals have for Western Civilisation than their unashamed alliance with a movement (Islam) which is mortally opposed to liberalism’s sacred calves – women’s rights, gay rights, abortion and multiple cultures. Yet Islam and the liberal/ left are in harmony on the major issues. They are anti-Christian and anti-Jew, they are anti-democracy and anti-individual rights, they are anti-capitalist and they regard the individual as existing merely to serve the collective. Consequently, they have the same common enemy – Western Civilisation.

 

Promote Racial Division

The successful integration of happy foreigners with a happy indigenous population is hardly going to foment revolution, hence the ideology of multiculturalism which intentionally divides races and cultures. Multiculturalism was designed to destroy any sense of national pride and patriotism amongst the indigenous population, whilst actively encouraging the same amongst the incoming races and cultures. It also encourages ethnic minorities to believe their lack of success is due to (or if they are successful, in spite of) historical white imperialist oppression and current white Western institutional racism. This makes them united, vengeful, angry and strong. Multiculturalism actively instils guilt in the indigenous white population for our past oppression and current racism, which makes us apologetic, disunited and weak. We can only, it seems, be forgiven our historical racial sins once the ethnic minorities have matched or surpassed the demographic and political power of the indigenous people.

Destroy Native Resistance

New laws have been passed to criminalise those who dare to speak out against their territorial, racial and cultural dispossession. Children are brainwashed into ‘celebrating’ their dispossession with such Orwellian intent that thousands as young as three have been officially noted as possessing ‘racist’ tendencies –a situation we can only expect to worsen as the demographic gap between white and non-white inexorably narrows. Race is the biggest weapon the left liberals use in their war against traditional Britain, so resistance to that weapon is both criminalised and subsequently labelled the evil of all evils – RACISM – in order to strip us of our only peaceful defence mechanism. Of course there are some racist whites, but they are a statistical minority compared to the ethnic minorities who physically attack whites at a far greater ratio than vice-versa. The only true racists in Britain are the treasonous anti-white politicians, policemen and journalists who seek to cover up the real statistics about racial crime and racial hate.

Use Selective History to Counter Native Resistance

British education ignores the crimes of Communism and concentrates only on the crimes of Hitler, portraying him principally as a racist. The evils of Nazism can then be used as an attack against indigenous peoples who protest their cultural and territorial dispossession, by simply labelling the protestors as Nazi racists and therefore no better than Hitler himself. In reality the left liberals are as obsessed with race – in its diverse form – as Hitler and the Nazis were with race in its pure form. And they are using race with the express intention of achieving what Hitler failed to do – the absolute conquest of Britain, Europe and the West, at the expense of its indigenous peoples.

Distract the Population

This is a tried and tested principle dating back to the Roman times of bread and circuses. Just look at the output of the mainstream media, which deals in fantasy and trivia rather than reality and substance. This sadly works just as intended. The majority of Brits have been gradually sucked down into an infantile world of vapid celebrity worship, football, X Factor and gutter sensationalism, all promoted 24/7 by the media establishment. As a direct consequence, they have little interest in matters that really matter.

No doubt the left liberals will denounce this series of articles as the ranting of a right-wing conspiracy theorist. But facts are facts; the Communists did set out to subvert the capitalist West; the anti-Western ‘Critical Theory‘ of the Frankfurt school is now the ideology of the educational and media establishments; the left liberal politicians did set out to transform Britain via mass Third World immigration; our industry was destroyed, as have been our educational establishments etc. etc., and the people behind this destruction were and are Marxists, leftists or useful idiot liberals.

Every single one of the deliberately destructive policies I have outlined above could destroy a country over a lengthy period of time, even without the Third World invasion. When they are combined, however, and mass immigration is added to the mix, our destruction is not only assured, it is assured over a relatively small time-span.

Consequently, the speed of Britain’s destruction has been astonishingly fast. Anyone over the age of 40 or 50 will tell you that Britain today is not the Britain they were born into, and that Britain is simply not sustainable in its present condition. But the left liberals have made a terrible mistake. The future will not be one of Marxist revolution and permanent leftist control. Whilst mass Third World immigration may have been their main weapon of choice to destabilise the country, they simply did not reckon with such a rapidly expanding, cohesive and militant Islam.

The future of Britain can logically be one of only two options. A country dominated by Islam, or a country dominated by the right wing, which is rapidly growing as a wholly natural response to the combined threat of Islam and the Left. No one knows which side will emerge triumphant in the battle between Islam and the emerging right, but whichever it is, one thing is very strongly assured: they will hold no great regard for the left liberals – to put it very mildly indeed.

At the beginning of this series, I asked whether the appalling destruction carried out in the name of left-wing ideology was well-intentioned liberal stupidity, or brilliantly-planned leftist malevolence. Perhaps it really was done to realise György Lukács’s dream: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

Or perhaps it wasn’t. It is quite possible it was caused by liberal stupidity of criminal proportions, but all that really matters now is that the damage wreaked by the left liberals be redressed – and we have little time remaining in which to do so.

Barack Obama, the Socialist

Something for you to read while Obama accepts the nomination tonight

By John Perazzo:

Is Barack Obama a socialist? Many observers, from points all along the ideological spectrum, have been exceedingly reticent to describe him as such, as though there were insufficient evidence to make the case for a charge so impolite. In February, for instance, a Business Week headline stated bluntly that “it’s dumb to call Obama a socialist.” Four months later, the Associated Press published an article depicting the president merely as “a pragmatist within the Democratic Party mainstream,” and suggesting that “the persistent claim that Obama is a socialist lacks credence.” In July, a New York Times op-ed piece by film director Milos Forman said that Obama is “not even close” to being a socialist. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post casts Obama as no more radical than “a moderate Republican of the early 1990s.” Republican strategist Karl Rove cautions, “If you say he’s a socialist, [his supporters] go to defend him.” Leftist commentator Alan Colmes impugns those who “mischaracterize what Obama is doing as socialism, when there’s no government takeover” of the private sector. And Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly—noting that he has seen “no evidence that the president wants to seize private property, which is what communists do”—concludes that Obama “is not a socialist, he’s not a communist, he’s a social-justice anti-capitalist.”

But a careful look at Barack Obama’s life story, his actions, his closest alliances, his long-term objectives, and his words, shows that he has long been, quite demonstrably, a genuine socialist. The early groundwork for Obama’s socialist worldview was laid during his teen years, when he was mentored by the writer/poet Frank Marshall Davis, a longtime member of the Communist Party and the subject of a 601-page FBI file. The co-founder of a Communist-controlled newspaper that consistently echoed the Soviet party line, Davis had previously been involved with the American Peace Mobilization, described by Congress as not only “one of the most notorious and blatantly communist fronts ever organized in this country,” but also “one of the most seditious organizations which ever operated in the United States.” When Obama in 1979 headed off to Occidental College in California, Davis cautioned him not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh–.”

In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama recounts that he chose his friends “carefully” at Occidental, so as “to avoid being mistaken for a sellout.” Among those friends were all manner of radicals, including “the more politically active black students,” “the Chicanos,” “the Marxist Professors and the structural feminists.” Further, Obama writes that he and his similarly “alienated” college friends regularly discussed such topics as “neocolonialism, Franz Fanon [the socialist revolutionary], Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.” David Remnick’s highly sympathetic biography of Obama—The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obamaconfirms that the future president and many of his closest friends at Occidental were unquestionably socialists.

John C. Drew, an Occidental College graduate who knew Obama personally in the early 1980s, reports that the young Obama of that period was “already an ardent socialist Marxist revolutionary”; was highly “passionate” about “Marxist theory”; embraced an “uncompromising, Marxist socialist ideology”; harbored a “sincere commitment to Marxist revolutionary thought”; and was, in the final analysis, a “pure Marxist socialist” who “sincerely believed a Marxist socialist revolution was coming to turn everything around and to create a new, fairer and more just world.”

It was at that point, in the early Eighties, that something profoundly important happened to Barack Obama. He was drawn into the powerful orbit of a strand of socialism that had resolved, as the revolutionary communist Van Jones would later put it, “to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.” American socialists of that period, pained by the recent ascendancy of a conservative and popular presidential administration (Reagan), understood that no anti-capitalist revolution was going to take place in the United States anytime soon, and that, for the foreseeable future, no one was going to impose socialism on the populace “from above.” Consequently, many socialists in the U.S. put on a new face and pursued a new approach. As Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, explains, the aim now was “to get a kind of de facto public control over the economy from below”—through the work of community organizers dedicated to gradually infiltrating every conceivable American institution: schools and universities, churches, labor unions, the banking industry, the media, and a major political party. Toward that end, the renowned socialist Michael Harrington established the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to serve as a force that would work within the existing American political system—specifically, within the Democratic Party. Figuring that a move too far or too quick to the left would alienate moderate Democrats, the DSA sought to push the party leftward in a slow and gradual manner, on the theory that, over time, ever-increasing numbers of Democrats would become comfortable with socialism and would espouse it as their preferred ideology.

In Radical-in-Chief, Kurtz points out that this incrementalism became the modus operandi of the “democratic socialists” who embraced the ideals of Karl Marx but were convinced that a “peaceful” and gradual path represented “the only route to socialism that makes sense in America’s thoroughly democratic context.” They believed that “government ownership of the means of production”—the standard definition of socialism—could best be achieved by way of protracted evolution, not sudden revolution. Kurtz explains that socialists, far from agreeing unanimously on tactics and strategies, have always engaged in “never-ending factional disputes” about whether they ought to “eschew capitalist-tainted politics and foment revolution,” or instead “dive into America’s electoral system and try to turn its political currents” toward “a piecemeal transition to a socialist world.” At this point in his life, the twenty-something Obama made a calculated decision to embrace the DSA’s gradualist approach—under the deceptive banners of “liberalism,” “progressivism,” and “social justice.” By no means, however, did this approach represent a rejection of Marx and his socialist doctrines. Kurtz notes that Marx himself, who “expected to see capitalism overthrown by a violent socialist revolution,” was nonetheless “willing to compromise his long-term goals in pursuit of short-term gains, particularly when he thought this democratic maneuvering would position the communist movement for more radical breakthroughs in the future”; that Marx himself “recognized that not only his enemies, but even potential followers could be put off by his most radical plans”; and that, “depending on context, Marx [himself] withheld the full truth of who he was and what he hoped to achieve.”

This strategy of settling for incrementalism rather than sudden, sweeping revolution was displayed with vivid clarity during the healthcare debates of 2009-10. Obama was already on record as having stated emphatically, in a 2003 speech at an AFL-CIO event: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan”—i.e., a government-run system. But by 2007, with the White House clearly within his reach, Obama began to make allowances for the increasingly evident fact that a single-payer plan was not politically palatable to a large enough number of American voters. “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” he said in May 2007. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.” He made similar references to a “transition step” and “a transitional system” on other occasions during the campaign. In the summer of 2008, Obama declared that “if I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” but acknowledged that from a practical standpoint, such a result could only come about “over time.” Obamacare, then, was deliberately designed to be a stepping stone toward total government control of healthcare—a mere way station along the road toward the “radical ends” that the president ultimately sought to achieve.

In the early Eighties, Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University in New York. During his time in the Big Apple, he attended at least two Socialist Scholars Conferences, DSA-sponsored events that quickly grew into the largest annual gatherings of socialists in all of North America. It is particularly noteworthy that Obama attended the 1983 Socialist Scholars Conference, which was promoted as a celebration to “honor” the 100th anniversary of Karl Marx’s death.

In June 1985, a 24-year-old Obama moved to Chicago and took a community-organizing job with the Developing Communities Project, funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Viewing capitalism as a system steeped in injustice, CCHD states that “the causes of poverty are understood to be an aspect of ‘social sin’ rooted in our social and economic structures and institutions.” To address the problems allegedly spawned by capitalism, CCHD promotes transformative institutional change in the form of “alternative economic structures” that will “broaden the sharing of economic power.” The Catholic magazine Crisis observes that “the way the CCHD educates others about transformative change and empowerment” is very much “in line with the socialist and Marxist ideals so prevalent in community organizing.”

And what, exactly, is “community organizing”? Dr. Thomas Sowell, the eminent Hoover Institution Fellow, offers this concise explanation:

“For ‘community organizers’ … racial resentments are a stock in trade…. What does a community organizer do? What he does not do is organize a community. What he organizes are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.”

To be sure, the 2012 Obama campaign’s incessant emphasis on identity politics—seeking to divide the American people along lines of race, ethnicity, class, and gender—bears all the corrosive hallmarks of precisely the mindset that Dr. Sowell describes. Stanley Kurtz provides additional vital insights into the striking parallels that exist between the world of community organizing and the DSA’s gradualist approach toward socialism:

“Community organizing is a largely socialist profession. Particularly at the highest levels, America’s community organizers have adopted a deliberately stealthy posture—hiding their socialism behind a ‘populist’ front. These organizers strive to push America toward socialism in unobtrusive, incremental steps, calling themselves ‘pragmatic problem-solvers’ all the while.”

It is highly significant that three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Industrial Areas Foundation, founded by the famed godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, who advocated mankind’s “advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization … [to] a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful.” In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution”—where the ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent and moral confusion to spark the social upheaval that Marx and Engels predicted.
But Alinsky’s brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As author Richard Poe explains, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” Promoting a strategy that was wholly consistent with the DSA approach discussed above, Alinsky advised radical organizers and their disciples to quietly, unobtrusively gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to then introduce changes from those platforms.

Obama himself went on to teach workshops on the Alinsky method for several years. In 1990, eighteen years after Alinsky’s death, an essay penned by Obama was reprinted as a chapter in a book titled After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. And in 1998, Obama attended a performance of the play The Love Song of Saul Alinsky at the Terrapin Theater in Chicago. Following that performance, Obama took the stage and participated in a panel discussion about the show, along with several other socialists and communists such as Quentin Young and Heather Booth.

As a young community organizer, Obama had close connections to the Midwest Academy, a radical training ground for activists of his political ilk. Probably the most influential community-organizing-related entity in America at that time, the Midwest Academy worked closely with the DSA and synthesized Saul Alinsky’s organizing techniques with the practical considerations of electoral politics. Emphasizing “class consciousness” and “movement history,” the Academy’s training programs exposed students to the efforts and achievements of veteran activists from earlier decades. Recurring “socialism sessions,” taught by Heather Booth, encompassed everything from Marx and Engels through Michael Harrington’s democratic socialism and the factional struggles of the Students for a Democratic Society, a radical organization that aspired to remake America’s government in a Marxist image. Knowing that many Americans would be unreceptive to straightforward, hard-left advocacy, the Midwest Academy in its formative years was careful not to explicitly articulate its socialist ideals in its organizing and training activities. The group’s inner circle was wholly committed to building a socialist mass movement, but stealthily rather than overtly. As Midwest Academy trainer Steve Max and the prominent socialist Harry Boyte agreed in a private correspondence: “Every social proposal that we make must be [deceptively] couched in terms of how it will strengthen capitalism.” This strategy of hiding its own socialist agendas below the proverbial radar, earned the Academy the designation “crypto-socialist organization” from Stanley Kurtz.

“Nearly every thread of Obama’s career runs directly or indirectly through the Midwest Academy,” says Kurtz, and, as such, it represents “the hidden key to Barack Obama’s political career.” The author elaborates:

“Obama’s organizing mentors had ties to [the Midwest Academy]; Obama’s early funding was indirectly controlled by it; evidence strongly suggests that Obama himself received training there; both Barack and Michelle Obama ran a project called ‘Public Allies’ that was effectively an extension of the Midwest Academy; Obama’s first run for public office was sponsored by Academy veteran Alice Palmer; and Obama worked closely at two foundations for years with yet another veteran organizer from the Midwest Academy, Ken Rolling. Perhaps more important, Barack Obama’s approach to politics is clearly inspired by that of the Midwest Academy.”

Obama’s next major encounter with socialism took place within the sanctuary of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, pastored by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Best known for his undiluted contempt for the United States and its traditions, Wright has long been a proud prophet of black liberation theology, a movement that seeks to foment Marxist revolutionary fervor founded on racial solidarity, as opposed to the traditional Marxist emphasis on class solidarity.

According to black liberation theology, the New Testament gospels can be properly understood only as calls for racial activism and revolution aimed at overturning the existing, white-dominated, capitalist order, and installing, in its stead, a socialist utopia wherein blacks will unseat their white “oppressors” and become liberated from their deprivations—material and spiritual alike.

Beginning in the late 1980s, Obama spent fully 20 years attending Wright’s church, which openly promoted a “10-point vision” calling for “economic parity” and warning that “God … is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!” Impugning capitalism as a system whose inequities force “Third World people” to “live in grinding poverty,” Wright derides the United States as the “land of the greed and home of the slave.” For good measure, he has praised the socialist magazine Monthly Review for its “no-nonsense Marxism,” congratulating that publication for “dispel[ling] all the negative images we have been programmed to conjure up with just the mention of that word ‘socialism’ or ‘Marxism.’”

This same Jeremiah Wright served as a mentor to Barack Obama for two decades. So great was Obama’s regard for Wright, that Obama selected him not only to perform his wedding to Michelle Robinson in 1992, but also to baptize his two daughters later on. Perhaps Obama’s most significant show of support for Wright’s ministry was his donation of some $27,500 to Trinity Church during 2005-06. Another report indicates that from 2005-07, Obama gave a total of $53,770 to Trinity. People simply do not give such large sums of money to causes in which they do not thoroughly believe. Thus there is no reason in the world to suspect that Obama rejected any part of Wright’s message at any time between 1988 and early 2008. He disavowed Wright only when the latter’s bilious radicalism threatened to become a political liability to Obama’s ambition for the White House.

In the early to mid-1990s, Obama, now in his early thirties, worked with the (now defunct) community organization ACORN and its voter-mobilization arm, Project Vote. Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern explains that ACORN, professing a dedication to “the poor and powerless,” in fact promoted “a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor.” ACORN, Stern elaborates, organized people “to push for ever more government control of the economy” and to pursue “the ultra-Left’s familiar anti-capitalist redistributionism.” In 2010, former ACORN insider Anita MonCrief confirmed the organization’s unmistakably socialist orientation:

“As an ACORN insider my indoctrination as a socialist was a slow but steady progression from radical liberalism to embracing the stealth socialist methods that had made ACORN a powerful force in American electoral politics…. Inside ACORN offices across the country, young, idealistic liberals were being ingrained with the Saul Alinsky style of Organizing. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was never mentioned by name, but Alinsky’s tactics were used on employees and ACORN members. ACORN’s strategy of stealth socialism was aimed at gaining power through duplicity and somewhat assimilating into society…. I once asked Marcel Reid, former ACORN national board member and President of DC ACORN, how it was possible for ACORN to push its agenda and she replied, ‘We never use the word Socialism.’ ACORN’s appeal was to simply implement a Socialist agenda without ever saying the word.”

Smitten with Obama’s political and ideological makeup, ACORN in the early 1990s invited him to help train its staff in the tactics of community organizing. In 1995, Obama was one of a team of attorneys who sued, on ACORN’s behalf, for the implementation of a “Motor Voter” law in Illinois. Jim Edgar, the state’s Republican governor, opposed the law because he believed, quite correctly, that it could potentially breed widespread voter fraud. In a 2007 interview with ACORN representatives, then-presidential candidate Obama said enthusiastically: “You know you’ve got a friend in me. And I definitely welcome ACORN’s input…. Since I have been in the United States Senate I’ve been always a partner with ACORN as well…. I’ve been fighting with ACORN, alongside ACORN, on issues you care about my entire career.” Also during Obama’s presidential run, his campaign gave more than $800,000 to the ACORN front group Citizens’ Services, Inc., to fund voter-registration efforts. Obama’s relationship with ACORN remained rock-solid right up until the organization’s dissolution amid immense scandal (involving voter fraud, among other matters) in 2010.

It was in the mid-1990s that Obama first decided to try his hand at electoral politics, setting his sights initially on a state senate seat in Illinois. Remarkably, Obama launched his political career in the home of two well-connected Chicagoans, longtime activists who would help the fledgling politician make important contacts and enlarge his public profile. These two allies were the infamous Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, lifelong Marxists who in the 1960s and ’70s had been revolutionary leaders of the Weather Underground Organization, a domestic terror group (described by Ayers as “an American Red Army”) that aspired to transform the U.S., by means of violence and even mass murder, into a Communist country. In 1974 Ayers and Dohrn co-authored a book that openly advocated “revolutionary war” as “the only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism”; called for “a revolutionary communist party … to lead the struggle [to] seize power and build the new society”; and lauded socialism as the key to “the eradication of the social system based on profit.” Now, they were the key figures ushering Barack Obama into a political career.

Obama’s ties to Ayers and Dohrn were extensive and long-lasting. In 1995, Ayers appointed Obama as the first chairman of his newly created “school reform organization,” the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, whose stated educational objective was to “teach against oppression” as embodied in “America’s history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.” From 1999-2002, Obama served alongside Ayers on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which funded a host of left-wing groups and causes. The enduring nature of Obama’s friendly relationship with Ayers and Dohrn was evidenced by the fact that he attended a July Fourth barbecue at the couple’s home in 2005, even as the former terrorists continued to hold America—and capitalism—in utmost contempt.

Another key supporter of Obama’s 1996 entry into politics was Democratic state senator Alice Palmer of Illinois, who, as she prepared to run for Congress, hand-picked Obama as the person she hoped would fill her newly vacated state-senate seat. Toward that end, Palmer introduced Obama to party elders and donors as her preferred successor, and helped him gather the signatures required for getting his name placed on the ballot. Palmer’s background is highly noteworthy: A veteran of the Midwest Academy, she consistently supported the Soviet Union and spoke out against the United States during the Cold War. In the 1980s she served as an official of the U.S. Peace Council, which the FBI identified as a Communist front group. In 1986 she attended the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and expressed a high regard for the USSR’s system of “central planning.” And she applauded the Soviets for “carrying out a policy to resolve the inequalities between nationalities, inequalities that they say were inherited from capitalist and czarist rule.”

During his state senate campaign in 1996, the 35-year-old Obama actively sought the endorsement of the so-called New Party, a socialist political coalition whose objective was to promote the election of left-wing public officials—most often Democrats. The New Party’s short-term goal was to gradually, incrementally move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of a new socialist third party. As Stanley Kurtz puts it, the New Party “is best understood as an attempt to build a mass-based political front for a largely socialist party leadership.” New Party co-founder Joel Rogers once penned a piece in the Marxist journal New Left Review,wherein he made it clear that the organization was a socialist enterprise at its core. Not only was Obama successful in obtaining the New Party’s endorsement, but he also used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers, and by 1996 Obama himself had become a New Party member.

Yet another important Obama ally in 1996 was Carl Davidson, a major player in the Chicago branch of the New Party.
Davidson is a lifelong Marxist who in the 1960s served as a national secretary of the Students for a Democratic Society. In 1969 Davidson helped launch the Venceremos Brigades, which covertly transported hundreds of young Americans to Cuba to help harvest sugar cane and learn guerrilla warfare techniques from the communist government of Fidel Castro.
In 1988 Davidson founded Networking for Democracy, a program that encouraged American high-school students to engage in “mass action” aimed at “tearing down the old structures of race and class privilege” in the United States “and around the world.” And in 1992 Davidson became a leader of the newly formed Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an outgrowth of the Communist Party USA.

Obama’s commitment to the redistribution of wealth—an unmistakable hallmark of socialism—is deep, longstanding, and well-documented. He articulated that commitment with particular clarity during a guest appearance on Chicago’s WBEZ public radio in 2001, when he was a 40-year-old Illinois state senator. In that radio interview, Obama lauded the ability of community organizations “to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” He lamented, however, that the Supreme Court had “never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society”; that the Court had not been able to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution,” a document that unfortunately “doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf”; and that he himself was “not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts,” even though he found it easy to “come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

When Obama ran for president in 2008, he formed a Black Advisory Council that included Professor Cornel West—a longtime member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a former supporter of the now-defunct New Party, and an avid admirer of Jeremiah Wright.
Identifying himself as a “progressive socialist,” West contends that “Marxist thought is an indispensable tradition for freedom fighters.” Viewing capitalism as the root cause of America’s “unbridled grasp at power, wealth and status,” West warns: “Free-market fundamentalism trivializes the concern for public interest. It puts fear and insecurity in the hearts of anxiety-ridden workers. It also makes money-driven, poll-obsessed elected officials deferential to corporate goals of profit—often at the cost of the common good.” When Obama appeared with Professor West at a Harlem, New York campaign fundraiser, West introduced him as “my brother and my companion and comrade.” Obama, in response, called West “a genius, a public intellectual, a preacher, [and] an oracle.”

Obama’s socialist orientation is further manifest in a number of his political appointments as President. For example:

  • Obama named Van Jones, a longtime revolutionary communist who famously declared that “we [are] gonna change the whole [economic] system,” as his “green jobs czar” in 2009;
  • he appointed Carol Browner, a former “commissioner” of the Socialist International, as his “environment czar”;
  • he appointed John Holdren, who not only views capitalism as a system that is inherently destructive of the environment, but strongly favors the redistribution of wealth, both within the U.S. and across international borders, as his “science czar”;
  • he named Hilda Solis, a former officer of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (the socialist wing of the House of Representatives), as his labor secretary;
  • and he chose Anita Dunn, a woman who has cited Mao Zedong as one of her “favorite political philosophers,” to serve as White House communications director.

Also worth mentioning are Obama’s two closest political advisors. Valerie Jarrett, the daughter-in-law of a journalist with ties to the Communist Party, was largely responsible for persuading the communist Van Jones, whom she admired tremendously, to join the Obama Administration in 2009. And David Axelrod, the chief architect of Obama’s political campaigns, was mentored, as a young man, by the lifelong communist David Canter. Axelrod’s other mentor, Don Rose, was a member of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, an organization replete with communists and Sixties radicals. Rose also belonged to the Alliance to End Repression—a suspected Communist Party front—and he did some press work for the Students for a Democratic Society.

Read the rest at Front Page

 

Dreams from My Real Father:  Director Joel Gilbert at National Press Club, Washington DC: