By: James Simpson
Five years ago, Jim Simpson informed America of the grand conspiratorial sabotage presenting Barack Obama for the United States Presidency.
That is, he presented much more than we already knew, to those who were already awake, aware, alarmed, and looking for more. And we have all continued to tell those who have not been willfully, unrepentantly, and fatally ignorant. This article also introduced to many the very old, Marxist and fascist (some would say Illuminist and Jacobin) strategy of collapsing a nation’s economy through government obligations and debt, recently reprised as the “Cloward-Piven strategy.”
Whether reviewing or reading for the first time, we have an opportunity to checkpoint. How have we been doing in our learning and in our informing America, despite the controlled media complex, over the last five years?
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
by James M. Simpson
America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.
Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama’s connections to his radical mentors — Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama’s radical connections since the beginning.
Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama’s life comprise a who’s who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.
But even this doesn’t fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.
In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress – with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?
One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.
I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent – the failure is deliberate. Don’t laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.
The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation mgazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:
“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)
Newsmax rounds out the picture:
Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.
In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:
By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.
No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:
- The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
- The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
- The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.
Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their “rights.” According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, “one person was on the welfare rolls… for every two working in the city’s private economy.”
According to another City Journal article titled “Compassion Gone Mad“:
The movement’s impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay’s first two years; spending doubled… The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.
The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO’s Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for “an effort at economic sabotage.” He also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.
Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals’ threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:
Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.
The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven’s thrill that “…the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.”
ACORN, the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear
In 1970, one of George Wiley’s protégés, Wade Rathke — like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) — was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn’t accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke’s group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income “rights.” Shortly thereafter they changed “Arkansas” to “Association of” and ACORN went nationwide.
Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing, voting rights, illegal immigration and other issues. According to ACORN’s website: “ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low-and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country,” It is perhaps the largest radical group in the U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity on many fronts.
On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and Piven since the early1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at the signing ceremony.
- Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
- Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
- Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.
In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has been frequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.
ACORN’s website brags: “Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote.” Project vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them are dead? For the 2008 cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops. Given their furious nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone.
Barack Obama ran ACORN’s Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive was credited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun elected. Newsmax reiterates Cloward and Piven’s aspirations for ACORN’s voter registration efforts:
By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation’s wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.
As I have written elsewhere, the Radical Left’s offensive to promote illegal immigration is “Cloward-Piven on steroids.” ACORN is at the forefront of this movement as well, and was a leading organization among a broad coalition of radical groups, including Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Service Employees International Union (ACORN founder Wade Rathke also runs a SEIU chapter), and others, that became the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. CCIR fortunately failed to gain passage for the 2007 illegal immigrant amnesty bill, but its goals have not changed.
The burden of illegal immigration on our already overstressed welfare system has been widely documented. Some towns in California have even been taken over by illegal immigrant drug cartels. The disease, crime and overcrowding brought by illegal immigrants places a heavy burden on every segment of society and every level of government, threatening to split this country apart at the seams. In the meantime, radical leftist efforts to grant illegal immigrants citizenship guarantee a huge pool of new democrat voters. With little border control, terrorists can also filter in.
Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.
His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists. According to the Wall Street Journal: “After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote…”
ACORN’s dual offensives on voting and illegal immigration are handy complements. Both swell the voter rolls with reliable democrats while assaulting the country ACORN seeks to destroy with overwhelming new problems.
And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago. It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter’s answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: “a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks.”
ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. Economist Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post:
In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining”-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.
In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications-but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.
ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.
As a New York Post article describes it:
A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.
Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.
Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.
The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.
Investor’s Business Daily added:
The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical “housing rights” groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)
Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit.”
And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN’s negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an “Affordable Housing Trust Fund,” granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.
Even now, unbelievably — on the brink of national disaster — Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported last night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!
This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN’s efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.
Enter Barack Obama
In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama’s Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.
The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who’s who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.
Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.
Most people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in “community organizing” from Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. But he did. In and of itself that marks his heritage and training as that of a radical activist. One really needs go no further. But we have.
Obama objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is being smeared with “guilt by association.” But they worked together at the Woods Fund. The Wall Street Journal added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail Obama’s work over five years with SDS bomber Bill Ayers on the board of a non-profit, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, to push a radical agenda on public school children. As Stanley Kurtz states:
“…the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.”
Also included in the mix is Theresa Heinz Kerry’s favorite charity, the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU, ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other radical group there is. ACORN’s Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center.
Carl Davidson and the New Party
We have heard about Bomber Bill, but we hear little about fellow SDS member Carl Davidson. According to Discover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago’s New Party, a synthesis of CPUSA members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other radicals. Obama sought and received the New Party’s endorsement, and they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also developed a strong relationship with ACORN. As an excellent article on the New Party observes: “Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate.”
The chart also suggests the reason for George Soros’ fervent support of Obama. The President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier, founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As mentioned above, three other former SDS members had extensive contact with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely Aryeh Neier would have heard from his former colleagues of the promising new politician. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting the hugely successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain back their favored candidate, Barack Obama.
Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz’s excellent National Review article, “Inside Obama’s Acorn.” also describes Obama’s ACORN connection in detail. But I can’t improve on Obama’s own words:
I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career (emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. – Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)
In another excellent article on Obama’s ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging question:
It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
I ask you, is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership positions within ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is it possible ACORN would put Obama in leadership positions without clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it possible that this most radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for?
As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead organizer for ACORN’s Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN’s successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN’s representative in lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns — both with money and campaign workers; it is doubtful that he was unaware of ACORN’s true goals. It is doubtful he was unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony for newly-elected Illinois Senator, Barack Obama. Mudd called, the Congressional Black Caucus “our family” and “the conscience of Fannie Mae.”
In 2005, Republicans sought to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by Fannie and Freddie.
In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?
His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.
Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama’s V.P. search after this gem came out:
An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report from September 2004 found that, during Johnson’s tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998. A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson’s compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.
Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of “Obama’s political circle.” Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books.
Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama’s presidential campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn’t seem to have come out of it too badly.
As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.
Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard that would result from the government making implicit guarantees to underwrite private sector financial risk? They should have known that freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure to ensue. I think they did.
Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!
God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave.
This article is actually the Part II in a critically important series. You may read the rest, from a page I suggest be bookmarked, “James Simpson’s Cloward-Piven, Manufactured Crisis Articles.” (Please be very sure to understand Part III.) — AW
Meet modern-day Paul Revere, Trevor Loudon — author, political researcher and activist who inspires patriots to take back America!
“The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress” is like no other book written on American politics. The book exposes, in layman’s terms, the comprehensive communist, socialist and extreme progressive infiltration of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.
The book profiles fourteen Senators and more than fifty Representatives and their ties to the Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, Workers World Party, and The Institute for Policy Studies, Council for a Livable World and other radical anti-American organizations. Trevor has done the hard work to connect the dots of why the U.S. Congress has moved further and further left over our lifetime and you won’t want to miss him.
We look forward to seeing you there! Bring a friend!
The SE Michigan 9.12 Tea Party & Romeo Area Tea Party
Monday, Oct 7, 2013
The Palazzo Grande
54660 Van Dyke
Shelby Township, MI 48316
Questions? Contact: Regina Thompson
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Cross-Posted at Right Wing News and Gateway Pundit
Here it comes… the next move in the DC two step:
House Republicans will vote to pass a one-year delay of Obamacare in exchange for funding the government, a plan that drastically increases the chances of a government shutdown this Tuesday.
The decision was announced by the GOP leadership in a closed meeting Saturday afternoon, according to sources present. Republicans will also pass a separate bill to fund U.S. troops if the government shuts down, GOP lawmakers said. The House’s funding measure will keep the government open until mid-December.
Additionally, Republicans will adopt a “conscience clause” that delays until 2015 an Obamacare requirement that employers cover birth control as part of their health-insurance packages.
The move puts Senate Democrats and the White House at loggerheads with House Republicans, a standoff that could lead to the first government shutdown since 1995.
Although Cantor and other Republicans claim to have had enough of the disunity and infighting within the GOP ranks (they are still trying to contain Ted Cruz and the Tea Party and put us in our place), Americans have watched this political sausage being made and won’t forget. We won’t forget as these Progressive Republicans tried to butter their bread on both sides of the aisle. There will be no going home with the American voter after this party. Brace yourself for one very ugly political hangover.
“We’ve had enough of the disunity in our party,” Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told the meeting of House Republicans Saturday afternoon. “The headlines are Republicans fighting Republicans. This will unite us. This protects the people who sent us here from Obamacare.”
House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said it would be the “fastest whip check in history,” as every member raised their hand, saying they would support the bill.
I say, shut. it. down. Shut it all down. You screwed us on Obamacare and a myriad of other issues. Shut it down or America will shut you down. 2014 and 2016 cometh – time to clean the political chambers of Progressives. Stop the insane spending and the destruction of America with the help of those we sent to Washington to protect our interests. A Tea Party coalition is forming and a political earthquake is coming.
By: Aeneas Lavinium
The following can also be found on the OSCE website at http://www.osce.org/odihr/105881
International Civil Liberties Alliance
OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2013
Working Session II – Review of the implementation of commitments on promotion of mutual respect and understanding: – Combatting intolerance and discrimination against Muslims
The International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) has been spending a great deal of time within the current OSCE Human Dimension meeting (Warsaw 2013) trying to clarify the meaning of the term “Islamophobia”. Unfortunately, despite our diligent efforts no one has been able to provide us with an unambiguous and politically neutral definition.
ICLA believes that the undefined nature of the term “Islamophobia” stereotypes and demonises any and all people who voice concerns about sharia law. As such we believe that the continued use of the term in this undefined form is actually a barrier to cooperation and dialogue and that it does little to solve the serious problem of discrimination against Muslims.
The exclusion of ICLA and other stakeholders from the meetings that were convened to put together an OSCE booklet that had the subtitle “Addressing Islamophobia Through Education” was missed opportunity for serious dialogue on this important issue. If all stakeholders had been involved then people with divergent views would have come closer together and an honest and politically neutral definition of Islamophobia could have been devised.
We believe that it is important to urgently address the matter of the definition of Islamophobia because the lack of a clear definition impacts negatively on many basic human rights that are claimed to be protected in international law. In addition to the obvious area of freedom of expression it also impacts negatively on things like freedom of assembly.
The International Civil Liberties Alliance is concerned about human rights abuses that can arise from certain aspects of sharia law. Increasingly any person or organization that has legitimate concerns in this area is unfairly labeled “Islamophobic”. This can impact negatively on freedom of assembly because a lack of definition contributes to the likelihood of them being physically or verbally abused, being unfairly demonized, being sacked from their jobs, and being subject to overzealous policing.
We therefore make the following recommendations:
(1) That the OSCE provide an official definition of the term “Islamophobia” including a comprehensive list of what Islamophobia is not. This would go a long way to helping organisations like ICLA to articulate their messages in the most sensitive way possible.
(2) That the OSCE organize a much more diverse range of stakeholders to come together to create a revised booklet for educators that is both fair and politically neutral. For such an important publication to achieve what it purports to want to achieve, it has to be more inclusive with regard to those who compile it.
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Cross-Posted at Right Wing News
CBN News: Ted Cruz alongside Rev. Rob Schenck (from Faith and Action) and Rev. Frazier White (a Democrat and Obama supporter) praying for Saeed Abedini, who has been in an Iranian prison for one year. He is being persecuted for his faith in Jesus Christ.
This week, I had the honor and privilege of meeting one of my closest friends for the first time face to face — Trevor Loudon. We have worked together for years now on his first two books and will work together on many more. The next three years, with the ensuing two election cycles, will be the most grueling and crucial battles Americans have ever faced. Trevor Loudon is a patriot who has tirelessly fought for our freedoms from coast to coast. Both of us will fight until we can fight no more. Make sure you get a copy of Trevor’s latest book: “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress.” Trevor exposes the underbelly of American politics and the Marxist infiltration that has brought us to the brink of disaster. Listen to a very wise Kiwi speaking in Oklahoma:
We want the Progressives on the Right to know that your exposure is next. We will be thoroughly researching and documenting you. As this last week has shown, there are quite a few who have betrayed America and what the Conservative majority expected of them on Obamacare. Let’s name names:
- Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
- John Cornyn (R-TX)
- Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
- Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
- John Barrasso (R-WY)
- John Hoeven (R-ND)
- Roy Blunt (R-MO)
- Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
- John Boozman (R-AR)
- Mike Johanns (R-NE)
- Richard Burr (R-NC)
- Ron Johnson (R-WI)
- Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
- Mark Kirk (R-IL)
- Jeff Chiesa (R-NJ)
- John McCain (R-AZ)
- Dan Coats (R-IN)
- Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
- Tom Coburn (R-OK)
- Lisa Murkowksi (R-AK)
- Thad Cochran (R-MS)
- John Thune (R-SD)
- Susan Collins (R-ME)
- Roger Wicker (R-MS)
- Bob Corker (R-TN)
In turn, we want to thank those that took a principled stand: Senators Vitter, Paul, Crapo, Enzi, Fischer, Roberts, Scott, Heller, Grassley, Toomey, Moran, Rubio, Shelby, Risch, Inhofe, Portman, and Sessions for standing with Cruz and Lee. We will remember what you did when the crunch came. Count on it.
As Sarah Palin said, 2014 is right around the corner:
Americans are getting slammed by Obamacare right now. Workforces are decimated as health care prices rise. Public opinion is on our side. If now was not the time to unite and fight it, when was? Those who are attacking Cruz and Lee’s efforts have forgotten how negotiations are won.
Use as an example the negotiations a governor of energy-rich Alaska must engage in with powerful multinational oil tycoons. In my experience, I found that the key to achieving success for the people you’re elected to serve is to take a firm position, stand solid, and negotiate from there when the other guy is ready to take you seriously. You fight as hard as you can with whatever small edge you’ve got until the other guy respects you enough to wise up, sit down, and come to a mutually acceptable agreement. You get nothing at all if you preemptively surrender before the battle even commences.
Imagine how much stronger the GOP’s hand would have been if every Republican (and those Democrats who’ve finally admitted Obamacare’s devastating flaws) stood together against cloture in order to prevent Harry Reid from cutting off debate and stripping Obamacare defunding from the bill?
Not only would there have been pressure on red state Democrats up for re-election to join the right cause, there would have been pressure on Reid and the White House to negotiate agreements. Even if the GOP couldn’t have defunded all of Obamacare, they could have negotiated some relief for average Americans who now feel they can do nothing but brace for the coming train wreck. We average Americans know we’ll never get the exemptions and favors Obama gave his political cronies and Congress, but any relief for the middle class would have been welcomed.
But Republicans got nothing from squabbling with each other and denouncing (on and off the record) the brave men who tried to do something.
How right she is. As the GOP looks towards its next steps on the debt ceiling and the faux dance of shutting down the government, patriots are watching — closely. We haven’t given up, gotten bored and walked away. Much as the Progressives on both sides of the aisle would like, we are still here and still fighting.
The attacks on Ted Cruz and the Tea Party are intensifying — from the Right and the Left — witness the likes of Peter King, John McCain and Tom Harkin:
As the clock ticks down toward a possible government shutdown, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, isn’t holding back.
On the Senate floor before 10 a.m. Friday, the senator gave a speech describing how American politics have reached the level at which “a small group of willful men and women who have a certain ideology”—read: the tea party and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas—have been able to take over the congressional budget debate in the last week. “Since they can’t get their way,” Harkin said, “they’re going to create this confusion and discourse and hope that the public will be so mixed up in who is to blame for this, that they’ll blame both sides.”
This isn’t just congressional business as usual, Harkin said. It’s much, much more dire:
It’s dangerous. It’s very dangerous. I believe, Mr. President, we are at one of the most dangerous points in our history right now. Every bit as dangerous as the break-up of the Union before the Civil War.
This isn’t the first time the senator has spoken out about the spiraling budget and the fight over Obamacare. Harkin suggested Thursday that Cruz looked “foolish” for his “little tirade” that lasted from Tuesday afternoon until Wednesday morning. Harkin called out Cruz as being part of “the most extreme tea-party wing” of his party, and for his “ideology-driven obstructionism.”
I respectively suggest that Senator Harkin stuff it.
Between being bought off, corrupt or just plain spineless, the RINOs attacking Cruz are disgusting. Their defeatist, roll-over-and-wet-yourself leadership is sickening. I loved a quote from Cruz during the filibuster; he hearkened back to Nazi Germany for those who have declared that Obamacare could not be defeated:
If we go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany—look, we saw it in Britain. Neville Chamberlain told the British people: Accept the Nazis. Yes, they will dominate the continent of Europe, but that is not our problem. Let’s appease them. Why? Because it can’t be done. We cannot possibly stand against them.
In America there were voices who listened to that; I suspect the same pundits who said it couldn’t be done. If this had happened in the 1940s, we would have been listening to them. Even then they would have made television. They would have gotten beyond the carrier pigeons and letters and they would have been on TV saying: You cannot defeat the Germans.
Trevor Loudon came up with a brilliant idea of envisioning a Cruz Coalition. He floated the idea in Oklahoma and it was met with thunderous applause. Consider the following Conservative Dream Team:
- President – Ted Cruz
- Vice President – Allen West
- Secretary of State – John Bolton
- Secretary of Treasury – Rand Paul
- Secretary of Defense – Lieutenant General William G. Boykin
- Secretary of Justice – Mike Lee
- Secretary of Interior – Ted Nugent
- Secretary of Agriculture – Steve King
- Secretary of Commerce – Jeff Sessions
- Secretary of Labor – Michele Bachmann
- Secretary of Health and Human Services – Dr. Benjamin Carson
- Secretary of Transportation – David Vitter
- Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – Scott Walker
- Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs – Jim Inhofe
- Secretary of Homeland Security – Louie Gohmert
- Secretary of Education – David Barton
- Secretary of Energy – Sarah Palin
These are just suggestions. Every Conservative faction gets something out of this lineup. It is one that young and old, Libertarian and Independent can get behind. It takes a foreigner and a true friend to America to point out the obvious on how to fight back. As Trevor says, others could rise at any moment. But these are the ones we came up with for now. Why shouldn’t we have a Conservative Coalition? The Left does this all the time. Now is the time to organize and fight. Now is the time to throw at them the strongest leaders we have.
Remember, the American Revolution wasn’t won until the very end — almost the final battle. And it was divine intervention that won the war and freedom for this nation. Don’t you think it could happen again? We do. Help us envision the Cruz Coalition and feel free to make your own suggestions.
Update: Rick Perry has been replaced in the above list with David Vitter of Louisiana as a suggested Secretary of Transportation. Why? Because, I just heard on Tammy Bruce that Rick Perry came out vocally against Ted Cruz, saying that Obamacare should not be defunded, but fixed. You can’t fix it. This is the incorrect stance and we do not view it as Conservative in nature.
Four people tragically died in the Benghazi, Libya attacks last September: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Ty Woods. Yet no one, to date, has been held accountable. “I appreciate the fact that this Citizens’ [Commission] is here, but I wish that it wasn’t necessary,” said Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods. “I wish that it was not necessary, because the truth voluntarily should have been presented by our Administration.”
Woods was speaking at the recent conference held by the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He was joined by Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), who passionately argued for a Select Committee to investigate the events that happened on September 11, 2012. “I think that Congress, if Congress fails to do this…will be complicit in the cover-up,” Congressman Wolf argued. “Now…one year has passed. Not one month, not two months, not three months, one year!”
The conference was organized by Accuracy in Media, and held at The Heritage Foundation. If you missed the conference, or want to learn more about it, please take a look at the program. The comments by the members of the commission, plus those of the featured speakers and the Q&A periods that followed, are all now up on this page on the website, in the order that they took place. Again, the videos of each of these excellent speeches are now posted online under the tab “September 16th conference.” Please watch some of the comments, and forward them to people you know who might be interested. The transcripts will be added in the near future.
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
A controversy has emerged over what Iranian President Rouhani said or did not say during a CNN interview about the Holocaust, with Jonathan S. Tobin of Commentary believing a semi-official Iranian news agency account.
Did Rouhani denounce the Holocaust by name or not?
Tobin says, “The official organ of the Iranian government [Fars News Agency] provided an exact translation of what he said and matched it with what CNN broadcast and then published on their website. When the two are compared it is clear that the network expanded on what he said to help convey the impression that he was condemning Holocaust denial when it is clear that he did no such thing.”
Tobin adds, “…there is no doubt that the news outlet airbrushed Rouhani’s comments to the point where they are far more acceptable for a Western audience. The actual remarks make it clear that Rouhani is as much of an agnostic about the extent of the Holocaust as [former Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. After all, Rouhani’s predecessor never said that no Jews were killed but said it was vastly exaggerated, the false argument that all Holocaust deniers try to make.”
Tobin went on, “It is up to CNN to explain this attempt to falsify the content of the interview that goes beyond the usual discrepancies that often pop up in translations and crosses over into editorial malfeasance.”
The Washington Free Beacon said that CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, who conducted the interview, has “regularly praised Rouhani for his supposedly moderate positions,” providing a motive for altering the interview to make Rouhani look good.
Amanpour’s Iranian background and coverage of the country’s fanatical Islamic regime has caused many to think she has a bias.
In 2000, as we noted at the time, a group called the American-Iranian Council held a special event featuring Amanpour and a screening of her documentary, “Revolutionary Journey,” in which Amanpour returned to the country “to tell us about all the wonderful changes going on there.” The Arab-American Institute gave her an award earlier this year.
There is no evidence the government of Iran has changed in the areas of foreign policy, the military and the judiciary. But Amanpour seems determined to encourage changes in U.S. policy toward Iran. However, allegedly distorting an interview in order to bring about those changes in U.S. foreign policy toward Iran is something else entirely.
Blogger Ruth King writes, “We’ll leave it to CNN to account for its translation, and why it made Mr. Rouhani seem so much more conciliatory than he was. Meantime, points for honesty go to the journalists at Fars, who for reasons that probably range from solidarity to self-preservation, aren’t disposed to whitewash their President’s ideological predilections.”
These are serious charges. But are they true? Or did Fars have its own motivation for distorting the comments?
CNN’s transcript quotes Rouhani as saying:
“I have said before that I am not a historian personally and that when it comes to speaking of the dimensions of the Holocaust as such, it is the historians that should reflect on it. But in general, I can tell you that any crime or—that happens in history against humanity, including the crime that the Nazis committed towards the Jews, as well as non-Jewish people, is reprehensible and condemnable, as far as we are concerned.”
“Iran’s New President Condemns Holocaust as a Crime” is how The New York Times covered the interview.
The Fars News Agency claimed that CNN “fabricated” that part of the interview. It stated flatly, “American news channel CNN fabricated the remarks made by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in response to the network’s question about the Holocaust.”
Fars says Rouhani never mentioned the word “holocaust.” It says the exact English translation of Rouhani’s remarks is as follows:
“I have said before that I am not a historian and historians should specify, state and explain the aspects of historical events, but generally we fully condemn any kind of crime committed against humanity throughout the history, including the crime committed by the Nazis both against the Jews and non-Jews, the same way that if today any crime is committed against any nation or any religion or any people or any belief, we condemn that crime and genocide. Therefore, what the Nazis did is condemned, (but) the aspects that you talk about, clarification of these aspects is a duty of the historians and researchers. I am not a history scholar.”
A subsequent New York Times story noted that the translation of the interview by the Fars News Agency “resembles more closely the way Mr. Ahmadinejad used to discuss the issue.”
CNN told The Washington Free Beacon that there was no mistranslation and that the translator who worked on the interview was hired by the Iranian government. The Jewish newspaper, The Algemeiner, reported that a CNN spokesperson told them, “The translator was hired by the Iranians and we re-voiced/dubbed exactly as she translated.”
CNN has now posted the transcript, video and audio of the interview.
But the handling of the interview and its coverage by CNN did raise questions.
CNN on September 25 ran a story by Josh Levs and Mick Krever under the headline, “Iran’s new president: Yes, the Holocaust happened,” (with a time stamp of 10:06 am) saying, “Iran’s new president has acknowledged the Holocaust, furthering the stark contrast between himself and his predecessor.” Later in the day, however, the story changed to “Iran president acknowledges Holocaust, talks Syria and Twitter,” and begins, “Iran’s new president has acknowledged that Nazis killed Jews, furthering the stark contrast between himself and his predecessor, who called the Holocaust a ‘myth.’”
Note that the second story does not explicitly claim he mentioned the word “holocaust.”
David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee, told the Times, “Assuming the accuracy of the translation, for me his comments are duly noted. But he’s only acknowledging, and rather belatedly, the universally acknowledged truth of the last 70 years. That does not warrant a standing ovation.”
His point about “assuming the accuracy of the translation” is important. It reflects the continuing questions about whether the interview was manipulated to serve a certain purpose. But manipulated by whom? Today’s Wall Street Journal, in an editorial, says: “Our independent translation of Mr. Rouhani’s comments confirms that Fars, not CNN, got the Farsi right.”
In the end, perhaps CNN and Fars have each done a fair amount of manipulation. It is ironic that Fars is believed by some to have more credibility than CNN.
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].
By: Aeneas Lavinium
Our friends at Stresemann-Stiftung and BPE co-hosted an excellent side event at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation in Warsaw. The slides from the presentation can be found below. It would be helpful if those sympathetic to values of the International Civil Liberties Alliance as expressed in our Mission Statement could go to the slideshow site (HERE) and ‘like’ the presentation.
The OSCE considers freedom of expression a fundamental human right. This freedom may only be limited in order to safeguard other basic rights, such as human dignity, for a very good reason: freedom of expression is the foundation for other human rights, especially freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly as well as academic freedom. Without the freedom to voice opinions publicly and freely receive information, all other freedoms would not exist.
The side event addressed the constitutional implementation of freedom of expression in the OSCE region. The primary focus will be on the treatment of freedom of expression as a negative and individual right, which with respect to the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UNDHR) can only be granted to humans. Competing concepts of group rights as well as hate speech and blasphemy laws will be considered in light of the UNDHR and individual rights.