By Jim Simpson | Monday, October 27th, 2008 at 3:41 am
or, Barack Obama and the Radical Left’s Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
[NOTE: I am indebted to the incredible efforts of many bloggers, who did the yeoman's work of ferreting out many of the hard-to-find facts in this article. I particularly want to thank David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks team, Trevor Loudon of New Zeal blog, Cliff Kincaid and Herb Romerstein, and others too numerous to mention. Links to all their work are provided where appropriate.]
The United States of America is the world’s marketplace. Without the worldwide trade generated by American demand, the international marketplace will fail. Today we are witnessing an undeniable demonstration of this fact as world markets reel in response to our domestic financial crisis. This lesson must be burnt into our collective conscience. Our nation is the last repository of free market economic principles, and a fundamental change in our government toward socialism will spell worldwide economic disaster from which we may never recover.
Yet this is exactly the endgame of the American radical Left — increasingly indistinguishable from today’s Democrat Party — and offers the only internally consistent explanation for their historic obsession with divisive policy. From their early support of Hitler to their central role in the current financial crisis, the Left’s contribution to domestic and foreign policy at federal, state and local levels can only be described as wantonly destructive. Their takeover of schools and popular culture has been equally toxic. Their environmental radicalism has spawned the energy crisis, while offering no viable alternatives. It defies logic.
But there is logic, a deadly logic, and in the 1960s, two radicals gave it a name — the Cloward-Piven Strategy. As explained in my prior article, the goal was to create a groundswell of demands for public services to overwhelm government, create crisis and usher in a widespread call for fundamental economic reform at the federal level, with socialism the ultimate goal.
Cloward and Piven focused on welfare, voting, housing and immigration “rights.” But leftist positions on any issue, whether championing “equal rights,” “abortion rights,” “education rights,” rights to health care, rights to housing, legal protections of antisocial or even criminal behavior, to the point of absurdity, are intentionally divisive. They add new fiscal and regulatory burdens on government, and set new precedents that undermine the limited government concepts embedded in our Constitution, while conferring discriminatory special benefits on legally defined groups the rest of us are forced to pay for. They deliberately put our society at war with itself. And as Cloward and Piven made clear, the true purpose is not even to help those groups, but rather to duplicitously enlist them as part of an offensive to collapse our society from within!
Democrats embrace the rhetoric of “compassion,” but look past the rhetoric to the results. This country is polarized as never before because of their relentless agitation for extremist positions on every issue, and the outrageous tactics they use to promote them. But while radical Saul Alinsky’s tactics guide today’s Democrat electoral game plan, the Cloward-Piven Strategy describes the overarching goal of almost every leftwing organization/movement/ideal today.
How do they Survive?
These organizations rarely produce anything of value, yet are extremely adept at not only surviving but flourishing. Many receive their financial backbone from prominent philanthropies. They also receive subsidies and tax breaks with the help of friends in federal, state and local government. This fact is unknown to most voters, who would be outraged if they fully understood how their tax dollars were being spent. For example, the radical group, ACORN, responsible for widespread voter fraud this year, gets about 40 percent of its revenues from federal, state and local government.
The Left’s strategies could not survive the light of day. Our mass media is mostly to blame for this. Radicals require a sympathetic media to deliver their message in an acceptable fashion and actively suppress inconvenient facts that reveal these organizations’ true character and agenda. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is perhaps the most poignant current example of this. Without mass media’s shamelessly biased support, he would still be community organizing, or perhaps in jail.
It is a tangled web of radical interconnections with the ultimate goal being an end to our Constitutional framework, the fall of our Republic and its replacement with a radical vision of socialist utopia — finally removing the last major roadblock to world socialism.
These radical individuals are highly motivated, in many cases intelligent and talented, and sometimes even driven by what they would describe as altruistic motives. Yet the impacts of socialist central planning are inarguably destructive.
Marx may have had some interesting insights on history, but despite his ponderous three volume Das Kapital he was no economist. Instead, Kapital provided the intellectual excuse for Marx’s anarchistic Communist Manifesto.
And the severe verdict of history on his perverted vision is without equal: over 100 million people murdered by their own governments in times of peace, more than all the wars of history combined. The rest face abject poverty, mass starvation, economic and environmental ruin, all overseen by smothering, indescribably brutal governments — a grey, barren existence for all but the apparatchiks.
So why are so many Westerners infatuated with this demented vision?
The high-minded types are driven by a galling sense of superiority. They are addicted to their own egos. They know better and can defy the verdict of history because people as smart as they are weren’t around when Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Ethiopia, Angola, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Congo, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., went Red.
But living well in affluent, capitalist America, it is all theoretical, so they can indulge their fantasies while promoting this destructive agenda with impunity. For these people ignorance is literally a blessing, for if they soberly analyzed their ego-driven beliefs, they would be embarrassed.
If you examine their pasts closely, you learn that most of these people also came from upper class backgrounds. PhD Chemistry Professor George Wiley, the black radical who led Cloward and Piven’s National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), was a well-to-do son of a Rhode Island family.
Wade Rathke, the NWRO veteran who started ACORN, was from a similarly well-to-do background, although he dropped out of Williams College.
Obama’s radical friend Bill Ayers’ family was very wealthy. Looking at his arrest photos, and listening to his smug self-righteousness, you really get the impression that he was little more than an arrogant, spoiled brat, with a titanic sense of entitlement that allowed him to rationalize mass murder.
This is a familiar story throughout the American left and indeed with many of the most infamous communist leaders around the world. For example, Communist China’s first leader, Mao Zedong, the inspiration for Ayers and many other radicals, was the son of the wealthiest man in his home town.
According to the incredible biography, Mao: the Unknown Story, he was lazy, arrogant, and refused to work, despite his father’s repeated attempts to find him suitable employment. He finally saw an opportunity for real advancement working for the Soviets. During the Long March he was carried by porters.
As young idealists, many of these people are initially snared into this ideology by the exaggerated sense of self-importance that is often a characteristic of youth. But we all have to live, and as they grow up they discover that the radical profession can be a pretty lucrative racket. Despite their high-minded rhetoric about saving the poor and oppressed, communists and socialists are what I call entrepreneurial parasites.
Consider what they demand of us: sacrifice of all worldly goods to the state, penurious, barren lifstyles, slavish observance of their dictates and full-time commitment to the well-being of the state, while our jobs, careers, industries, the environment, even our lives are threatened. But how do they live?
Obama’s pal Ayers, who describes himself as a “small ‘c’ communist,” lives in a lavish home, in the upscale Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, with a six-figure (or more) income. It is easy to see how, given the open spigot of money his organizations receive from the various non-profit funds he’s ingratiated himself to. Bill Ayers father, Tom, had been CEO of Commonwealth Edison, so he’s used to money, and later developments in his career point to a hand up from Daddy.
Barack lives in Hyde Park too. It is difficult to find anyone in the American Marxist elite who doesn’t fully enjoy the fruits of capitalism in his or her personal life. In fact, Obama’s early career seems to have been centered on dispensing foundation money as a means to secure his career in politics. Here are two perfect examples
But much more about this later.
Marxist austerity is only meant for the rest of us.
This taste for wealth is not limited to American socialists. Every socialist dictator from Stalin to Saddam has lived in opulent surroundings with multiple estates, scores of servants and every kind of luxury and indulgence available to them.
See, for example, Gorbachev’s dacha in Foros, Crimea; a testament to communist modesty if ever there was one. Same with all the leaders of communist countries. Indeed, Bulgarian defector Georgi Markov was murdered for his extensive reporting on the opulent, decadent lifestyles of Bulgarian Communist leaders. It’s a good racket, if you don’t mind blood.
|Gorbachev’s Crimea Dacha|
|One of Saddam’s Many, Many Palaces||Stalin’s Modest Dacha in Sochi|
While socialist leaders live in lavish style, in every country where socialist policies are imposed, they measurably worsen the lives of everyday citizens in direct proportion to their scope. Even countries with vast natural resources, like Russia, founder because their economies are constructed on the fatally flawed economic principles of socialism.
Despite this, they still manage to live on, in many cases hanging by mere threads for years.
The dirty little secret of socialism is that it cannot survive without capitalism — capitalist countries provide the resources necessary for these socialist governments to continue. In addition to providing a market for their goods, Western nations keep socialist countries afloat through grants and loans from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development and other governmental institutions, as well as huge investments by private companies.
Even China, widely misunderstood as the next “free market,” only practices market economics one-way in international trade while maintaining iron fist central planning internally, and could not maintain its current level of economic growth without the markets provided by the United States and other Western countries.
Finally, there is a vast network of American enterprises, owned covertly by foreign dictators, whose true purpose is to provide underground income for these leaders and their socialist governments, while offering convenient cover for industrial and military spies. This fact is rarely mentioned and largely unknown.
At its core, socialism can only be parasitic. It cannot survive without its capitalist host. Therefore, if the United States becomes a socialist country, worldwide capital will soon dry up. Remaining market economies around the world will succumb either to their own internal socialist movements or direct military threat from abroad. Without the protective umbrella of American military might, they will have no other choice.
Without the markets and resources capitalist economies provide, the many socialist countries that have survived on our largesse until now will find their income stream shut off. The world will plunge into an unprecedented, cataclysmic depression. This depression will be of indeterminate length because the wherewithal for recovery — a large capitalist economy — will no longer exist. With a world controlled by parasites, the host will die.
At this point even the parasites will be in danger. The socialists’ internationalist agenda truly is a Conspiracy of the Lemmings. It is not merely a criminal conspiracy, it is criminally insane.
Barack Hussein Obama has been chosen as standard bearer to bring this agenda to fruition here. If he is elected we can expect a sea change in Washington. But it will not be for the better. The socialist economic agenda he has publicly articulated is enough in the current financial crisis to plunge our economy into deep recession. The disarmament agenda he has publicly articulated is enough to strip us of the meager defenses we currently have against a rogue missile attack, and Iran has already telegraphed plans to launch such an attack.
Obama’s Radical Roots
Are we beating this subject to death? Sorry, we have to. And there’s much more, if you still need convincing. Obama hates being “associated” with radical individuals and organizations. But the truth is he hasn’t been associated with them at all, he has been immersed in them. He is one of them. And it goes back to his youth.
There is no doubt that “Frank” in Obama’s Dreams from My Father is longtime communist Frank Marshall Davis. It is probable that Davis convinced Obama to initiate his career in radical-friendly Chicago — birthplace of the American Communist Party — where Davis was a very active communist party member before moving to Hawaii.
Obama was inspired by Chicago’s first black mayor, Harold Washington, even writing for a job in his administration. Washington’s successful campaign relied on a coalition of the American Communist Party, Democratic Socialists of America and other radicals. Washington may have been a secret communist party member himself.
Finally the riddle of Obama’s forged birth certificate may be solved. There is reason to believe that Davis is in fact Obama’s father. If so, it explains a lot about Obama’s very radical political orientation. But it is not necessary in order to make the connections.
From Obama’s earliest days as a community organizer and throughout his political career, he has been involved with and supported by a broad network of radical groups. It is likely that he was similarly influenced in college, but since he won’t release any information about classes, grades, teachers, clubs or affiliations — no information whatsoever — we don’t have a complete picture. More about this later.
Who Sent You?
There is an old story about getting into Chicago politics that ends with the quote: “We don’t want nobody that nobody sent.” According to this article, the person who “sent” Obama was former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers. The reasons are many and compelling.
Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) — Ayers chaired the Chicago School Reform Collaborative which was responsible for recruiting Barack Obama to chair the board of CAC in 1995. Barack remained chairman until 1999 and stayed with the board until CAC folded in 2001. Obama and Ayers shared the same 50 X 50 3rd floor office for three years when Obama chaired the CAC. How is it they didn’t know each other?
In addition to his work on CAC, Ayers ran the Small Schools Workshop out of the same address. Another former SDSer, Mike Klonsky, co-chaired the Workshop and shared that office as well. Remember that name. Despite Chicago’s failing schools, this project was intended to create charter schools focused not on basic skills, but developing young anti-capitalist partisans.
As chairman of CAC, working from the same office, Obama gave over $1 million to the Small Schools Workshop run by Ayers and Klonsky. Oh yes, Klonksy’s wife Susan worked there too. She was also a former SDS member. Just one big happy family. Obama apparently also managed to show his appreciation to Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s causes with CAC largesse.
But Obama’s relationship with Ayers may go back much further than that. According to NationMaster.com encyclopedia:
The [Chicago School Reform] Collaborative was the operative on the ground body of the Challenge. It was made up of representatives of various constituencies in the Chicago school reform movement. That reform movement had begun in 1987 in the wake of an unpopular strike by Chicago teachers. Bill Ayers was active in that reform effort through a group called the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools, or ABCs. ABCs was an alliance of various activists and reform groups that included the Developing Communities Project which Barack Obama headed up at the time as well as Chicago United, a business sector group, that was headed up by Thomas Ayers, father of Bill Ayers. (Emphases mine.)
Thomas Ayers was the liberal former CEO of the Consolidated Edison (ConEd) power utility and was very active in Chicago education issues. ConEd was a client of Sidley & Austin, a prestigious Chicago law firm, and senior partner Howard Trienens was chief counsel to ConEd. Trienens also worked with Tom Ayers on the Board of Northwestern University. Bernardine Dohrn worked at Sidley until 1988, despite no law license or experience and was hired, according to Trienens, as a favor to “friends.” She subsequently got a teaching job at Northwestern. Another favor?
Obama left for Harvard in 1988 but returned the next summer to intern with Sidley. How did he get that job? Michelle Robinson (Obama) also worked for Sidley at the time and was Obama’s supervisor. They were married in 1992. Given the time they spent at the same firm, Michelle probably knew Bernardine as well.
Barack later became chairman of the board of the Woods Fund (1999-2002). In this position he funneled millions to ACORN and other radical groups. The Woods family ran the fund until 1990, when it was taken over by George Kelm, who moved it politically to the left. Frank Woods Jr., the Fund administrator until 1980 also headed an Illinois coal company, Sahara Coal, which supplied ConEd, so it is likely the Ayers family was already familiar with the Fund and its principals.
Obama also served on the Board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994-2001. This organization funds a large number of gun control groups and did so during Obama’s tenure. The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was also one of Joyce’s grant recipients. Obama worked for them too. During Obama’s time at Woods and Joyce, those funds gave another $900 thousand to Small Schools. They also funded Bill Ayers’ brother John’s organization, Leadership for Quality Education, to the tune of $761,000. Obama worked on that board too! One very happy family.
Despite receiving almost $2 million in funding, the Small Schools Workshop and all of the other CAC initiatives were failures. Now, you could argue that Obama was only one Board member. But on the Woods board at least he was one of six. Bill Ayers was another. To suggest he didn’t know about Ayers ideology and aspirations would be to accuse him of abandoning his fiduciary responsibility. Would you expect that kind of incompetence from a Presidential candidate?
Just for perspective, watch and hear what a former FBI assistant director has to say about Ayers. Or watch this hilarious video where Ayers calls the police to avoid an O’Reilly Factor reporter. As Bill O’Reilly observed, given that Ayers tried to bomb the police years ago, that is indeed ironic.
But the most chilling of all is the testimony given by FBI informant Larry Grathwohl. See it here in this clip from a 1982 documentary. The Weather Underground planned to build re-education camps in the American Southwest. Those who wouldn’t submit to the program would be murdered. The Underground estimated they would have to kill about 25 million Americans. Grathwohl was assigned to Bill Ayers. Following is a summary of his impressions:
Grathwohl found Ayers hard to love; he seemed self-important, a controller of subordinates, the type who loved to give orders. Ayers was a key leader. Grathwohl, a government informant, wrote that Ayers had helped direct a pair of attempted police building bombings in Detroit in February 1970. After doing his assigned job in reconnaissance, Grathwohl disagreed with Mr. Ayers over the placement of one bomb, which could easily kill black patrons who favored an adjacent restaurant, but that Ayers dismissed such sentimentality as unrevolutionary. The informant was glad to be dismissed from the operation by Ayers. Forty-four sticks of dynamite were then formed into two bombs and put into place, before Grathwohl’s information allowed police to dismantle both. Ayers’ memoir — which freely admits to incompleteness — says nothing of this episode, or Detroit, or the month of February 1970.
A big question about Obama’s early life is who paid for it? Who paid for his Columbia and Harvard educations? Who were his patrons? One was Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour. Mansour, who’s name in an earlier life was Don Warden, is a virulently racist black nationalist with ties to the Saudi royal family, specifically Prince Alaweed. After 9-11 Alaweed offered $10 million to New York City but was turned down by Mayor Giuliani when Alaweed suggested we were to blame for 9-11. See a video about Mansour here. For someone who never heard Rev. Wright’s hateful speeches, Obama sure knows how to pick ‘em. Newsmax has a good backgrounder, here.
Another patron is Tony Rezko. His relationship with Obama seems to have been a fairly straight forward you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours scenario. Obama’s law firm worked on Rezko projects and Obama helped Rezko businesses with legislation and Woods Fund grants. There’s more to this story, but I’d have to write a book.
Obama’s Radical Support Network
Obama has been groomed and supported by such a large number of radical groups it is difficult to chart it all. But the following list represents the best known and significant groups that have provided the intellectual grounding for his ideology and the material support for his political campaigns:
Democratic Socialists of America — The DSA describes itself as “the largest socialist organization in the U.S. and principle U.S. affiliate of the socialist international” which traces its roots to Marx’s first organization. DSA has endorsed Obama and provided an army of on-the-ground campaign workers. Their members are even boasting credit for the success of his ground game. This organization is probably the largest base of Obama’s support.
Here is what the DSA has to say in their endorsement of Obama for President:
While recognizing the critical limitations of the Obama candidacy and the American political system, DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency in November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda. (Emphasis added.)
WorldNetDaily did an expose on the DSA in 1999, revealing their direct link with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which Nancy Pelosi was a prominent member. Following this revelation, DSA edited its website, removing the links between the two organizations and some other damaging information. As WND relates:
Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring “The Internationale,” the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on the site was “Red Revolution” sung to the tune of “Red Robin.” The lyrics went: “When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there’ll be no more lootin’ when we start shootin’ that Wall Street throng. …” Another song removed after WorldNetDaily’s expose was “Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?” The lyrics went: “Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We’ll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie.” (Emphasis mine.)
Newsflash to you “middle class” families that Obama is trying to woo with tax cut promises, you are the bourgeoisie!
Communist Party USA (CPUSA) — Started in Chicago in 1919, the American Communist Party was under the control of the Soviet KGB until 1989, and perhaps after. While the CPUSA provides fertile recruiting ground for espionage agents in government and business, its main purpose was to provide the Soviets or “Russians” if you prefer, a back door entrance into our political system. The Communist Party supports a political platform virtually identical to Obama’s in many aspects. See the chart below. There is, of course, no doubt about who they support, and their endorsement largely parrots what DSA has to say.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) — This group needs no introduction. In addition to being at the heart of the mortgage meltdown, ACORN is being cited once again for widespread voter fraud in 15 states. Given ACORN’s boast of registering 1.5 million new voters this year, it is possible this election could be decided by fraudulent votes. In the meantime, it has been revealed that the Obama Campaign has paid at least $800,000 to an ACORN subsidiary for get-out-the-vote efforts. That the media has overlooked this glaring conflict of interest is astounding. Meanwhile, Obama has lied through his teeth about his longstanding ties to the group.
Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS) — Another CPUSA splinter group with many Communist Party members and a hodgepodge of others. Prominent Obama patron Carl Davidson was a member, who went on to rise in prominence in the New Party, which Obama joined.
New Party — A political party that promoted electoral fusion, formed of DSA, ACORN, CCDS and CPUSA members. Barack joined the New Party early in his political career and according to the DSA “encouraged NPers to join his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.” So not only was he a member of an avowedly socialist organization, he encouraged its members to work with him. Cloward Piven Strategy co-author Frances Fox Piven was also a New Party member. Carl Davidson was also a prominent member and early supporter of Obama. The New Party folded when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling against electoral fusion, but many members were instrumental in creating the umbrella group, Progressives for Obama.
Students for a Democratic Society (recently revived) — This newly reformed SDS has 130 or more chapters in the U.S. as of this writing and was designed to attract young radicals into the fold. This SDS was behind much of the violence at the Republican Party convention in Minnesota.
Movement for a Democratic Society — Yet another new party, this time created for the SDS old-timers. MDS and SDS are mutually supportive, with MDS supplying the brains and SDS supplying the brawn. This organization includes the old SDS members we are getting to know: Ayers, Dohrn, Davidson, Klonsky, and many others. Most of the radicals closely associated with Obama have an SDS past. This group founded Progressives for Obama.
Black Radical Congress — Founded in 1998 in Chicago by some New Party leaders and other black radicals. Endorsed by prominent CPUSA members and has many ties to that group. Member Bill Fletcher was a co-founder of Progressives for Obama.
Progressives for Obama — Founded by Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Barbara Ehrenreich and Danny Glover. Carl Davidson is webmaster. All but Glover are MDS members. Glover is considered a socialist although he is not a listed DSA member.
New Black Panther Party — A friendly bunch as you can see from their website. All you need to do is watch this video. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Interestingly, the endorsement formerly posted on Obama’s website, visible in the video and here, has been removed. The Panthers explain this embarrassment here. These people are real losers.
Radical Individuals Who Shaped Obama’s Agenda
Frank Marshall Davis — Communist Party member who was investigated by the FBI for 19 years. He had perhaps the most profound effect on Obama and probably pointed him toward Chicago.
Carl Davidson — SDS, MDS, CPUSA, CCDS, leadership position in New Party, supported Obama early on. Davidson’s recently declassified FBI file reveals that he traveled to Cuba and worked with the Cubans during the Vietnam War to sabotage our war effort. He was a traitor.
Mike Klonsky — SDS, led the Maoist Communist Party (Marxist/Leninist). Klonsky’s FBI file shows the same activity.
Tom Hayden — SDS, MDS, Founder of Progressives for Obama. He was also the subject of FBI surveillance.
Bill Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn — Need we say more about them? Read about their treasonous interaction with Cuban intelligence here.
A report has come out summarizing everything these people did. You can read it here: Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection.
Frances Fox Piven, longtime DSA member, who also served on the boards of the ACLU and the DSA, was the co-author of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. She was one of the original signatories of Progressives for Obama. She was also a New Party member. Her husband, Richard Cloward, died in 2001, so fortunately he can do no more damage than he already has.
Obama’s Policy Positions Indistinguishable from Communists and Socialists
Obama’s website offers a much more “nuanced” explanation of his policies, but on the critical issues listed below, there is remarkable similarity to the Communist and Socialist positions on almost every issue. In fact, one might easily conclude he was inspired by them, since they were there first and their positions almost never change.
Obama has openly admitted that he wants to raise top marginal tax rates back to “Reagan Era” levels, although his most recent campaign literature says “Clinton Era” levels.
As this video makes startlingly clear, Obama promises to make deep cuts in defense spending and gut our defense posture, regardless of the more “nuanced” tone of his website. Obama is unequivocal in his call for universal health insurance, although once again, his website muddies this fact with promises of tax credits for private insurance. His preference for the UN and other international bodies not particularly friendly to the U.S. is well known.
Obama fully supports the very deceptively named “Employee Free Choice Act,” which abolishes the secret ballot and forces employees to reveal how they vote on union issues. A setup for union intimidation, this unprecedented legislation is truly Orwellian. If you want some shocking perspective, even Nixon-era, far left former presidential candidate George McGovern has gone on the warpath against this very anti-democratic legislation, with an article, a commercial and multiple TV interviews.
Radical Help Waiting in the Wings
There is a ready pool of radicals waiting to push Obama’s agenda in Congress.
Congressional Progressive Caucus — As the largest partisan caucus in the House of Representatives, with 71 members it comprises about 1/3 of all House Democrats. Avowed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) retains his membership. The Caucus maintained a formal relationship with the DSA until 1999, when an article by WorldNetDaily exposed the links between the two.
Congressional Black Caucus — At the center of the mortgage crisis, the congressional black caucus welcomed the newly minted Senator Obama in 2005 with a sickeningly toadying speech by the CEO of Fannie Mae. As we all know by now, Obama received more money from Fannie Mae in his three short years as Senator than anyone other than Finance Chairman Chris Dodd. Why? No one has asked!
Some have conjectured that Obama may not really be all that radical himself. Maybe somehow he has just played along with these groups to get their support. I doubt it, but even were it true, so what? It should be painfully apparent to anyone reading this that Obama has committed himself too deeply and owes too much to too many to abandon the radical path he has taken. Isn’t that why they supported him in the first place?
What did Biden Mean?
Last week, Joe Biden made some astounding comments on the campaign trail, not once, but twice, on two different occasions. Following are Biden’s words, as quoted by Amanda Carpenter. There were two separate statements, of equal import as far as I am concerned, and I will try to interpret each in turn:
- “Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy,” Biden said. “I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
- “Gird your loins,” Biden warned. “We’re gonna win with your help, God willing, we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy.“
Regarding the first statement, moronic as it was of him to say so, Biden is right. Our enemies will certainly see vulnerability with Obama as President. Now, as to his remark that “…it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right,” I believe that what he means is that Obama will back down from any confrontation. Here’s why.
Both Barack and Biden are anti-war. But to truly understand the anti-war movement you have to go back to the beginning and get correct working definitions.
If you recall during the Vietnam War, America’s peace activists never had a problem with the North Vietnamese’ flagrant violations of peace agreements, their double-dealing in negotiations, their torture of U.S. POWs, their mass murder of South Vietnamese after we pulled out, or their genocidal holocaust against the indigenous tribes that is ongoing to this day. The silence is deafening.
Our enemies seemingly can do no wrong. Even when al Zarkawi began beheading Americans in Iraq, who did the “peace activists” blame? They certainly weren’t calling for his head!
It seems inconsistent that a “peace” movement’s “anti-war” stance would be so overtly pro-war when it comes to our enemies. But there is a rational, logical explanation, believe it or not.
From their earliest days, Soviet communists always professed an ardent desire for “peace.” They have been relentless in making that claim. However, they have a unique definition of peace. Lenin said:
“As long as capitalism and Socialism exist, we cannot live in peace… In the end, one or the other will triumph.”
“The Soviet definition of Peace is unique and incompatible with Western definitions. Defense, in this peculiar Soviet sense, means offense. Peace means the destruction of all non-socialist states… peaceful coexistence was a strategy for irreconcilable struggle, political and military, with capitalism. Peaceful coexistence remains Soviet strategy today.”
To the Soviets, “peace” is defined as that point in history when all Soviet enemies, real or potential, are utterly destroyed. This definition does not only refer to external enemies. It includes all enemies. Thus, while maintaining an offensive posture to the world, in Soviet Russia, Lenin and Stalin murdered 40 million of their own. In China, Mao and his monsters murdered 70 million; Vietnam, 2 million; Cambodia, 2 million; Soviet-controlled Afghanistan, 1 million; Saddam’s Iraq, at least 300,000; and so on. All other communist countries do the same. It is communist doctrine to obliterate any and all enemies, real or imagined — within, and when possible, without.
Western “peace” activists fully understand the Soviet definition, and therefore believe that “world peace” can only be achieved when all the enemies of socialism are destroyed — in other words, when the entire world becomes socialist. Since peace activists are almost all socialists themselves, by working for socialism, they are automatically working for world peace.
Finally, many of the so-called “peace” activists were overtly pro-war. Bill Ayers’ 1974 diatribe “Prairie Fire” specifically stated that they were not anti-war at all, but in favor of Communist victory in the Vietnam War.
But even if you take the most benign view of “peace activism,” properly understood, it means that peace activists will seek capitulation to the communist juggernaut, if only to avoid the war that is otherwise certain to come.
Now, I know what you are saying, that communism is supposedly dead. The Soviet juggernaut was defeated by Reagan, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), etc. Ignoring for a moment the Chinese Communist elephant in the tent, Cuba, North Korea, Syria and all the other unrepentant communist countries, or the fact that communism has been enjoying a worldwide resurgence lately and the mounting fear that Russia never really abandoned it, regardless, socialists in this country and elsewhere remain determined to see capitalism fall — it is their raison d’etre — and America is the last bastion of capitalism.
Remember, this is the ultimate goal of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and it matters little how they get there.
So Socialist Obama, believing as he does that the answer to everything is socialism, will do everything possible to undermine our defense posture, as he has already promised. And because he is interested in replacing our capitalist society with a socialist one, if we are attacked he will not fight. As he has promised, he will prefer to “negotiate without preconditions.” Hence Biden’s statement that “…it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
If the aggressor is one of the large communist countries, he will capitulate. But what happens if the aggressor is Iran? For some reason he is unafraid of a Muslim Caliphate. Perhaps that is because he knows, like some of the rest of us, that the Muslims and Leftists are working together to destroy this country.
Biden’s second comment, ending with the line, “This is a systemic problem (emphasis mine) we have with this economy,” is also chilling. It suggests he believes the capitalist system is the problem — not a big surprise if you accept my argument that this ticket believes in socialism. And you cannot conclude differently if you acknowledge that Obama’s economic policies are socialist to the core. It reaffirms what we have been predicting for a while now: a President Obama will quickly begin moving this country into the socialist camp with his socialist economic policies.
Both statements reinforce the impression that we are in for bad times if Obama is elected — bad times most Americans cannot begin to imagine. Thanks for the heads up, Joe.
This election may well be the most important in our nation’s history. An Obama presidency could not come at a worse time. The world economy stands on the edge of an abyss. If enacted, Obama’s socialist class warfare economic policies will push it right over the edge and we could see the nightmare scenario outlined above come to fruition.
And now I’ll tell you why I think they have pulled out all the stops. From eye-popping, unprecedented bias in the media to biased opinion polls, from unprecedented levels of questionable donations, including illegal foreign money flowing into Obama’s campaign coffers, to astronomical levels of voter registration fraud, there has never been an election season like this. They are going for broke because they believe that this is the last time they will ever have to do it. With majorities in both houses of Congress and a leftist in the White House, they will finally own the store completely. They are hoping to never have to give it up again.
When Obama said, “We are the ones We have been waiting for,” he was talking about “we the communists.”
I can only hope and pray that it is not too late for our great country.
Do not vote for Barack Obama!
The Complete Cloward-Piven Series
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III — print copy
Hate Crimes Legislation — Back Door Censorship
Send a link: Tell a friend about this.|
Link to this post: Permalink
Send us your link: Trackback link
Filed under: Uncategorized|
Tags: Alinsky, Barack Obama, Cloward, Cloward-Piven Strategy, crisis, economic crisis, manufactured crisis, Piven, Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky, Socialism, Strategy
9 Responses to “The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings”