01/17/17

Will the Real Russian Agent Please Stand Up?

By: Cliff Kincaid – Accuracy in Media

The civil rights “icon,” Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), has suddenly discovered the dangers of Russian influence in the U.S. political process. He tells Chuck Todd of NBC News, “I don’t see this President-elect [Donald J. Trump] as a legitimate president. I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.”

It will be interesting to see if Lewis disavows Russian manipulation of the civil rights movement. The movement began as a reasonable demand for equal rights for blacks, but was manipulated by outside agitators associated with the Moscow-funded Communist Party USA into becoming an instrument of Russian foreign policy.

The sad truth about Martin Luther King, Jr. is that his original mission of equal rights for black Americans changed later in life when he was surrounded by pro-Moscow communist advisers who turned him against the Vietnam War. A noble effort to save South Vietnam from communism was eventually defeated, not by the communist enemy on the military battlefield but by a Democratic Party-controlled Congress which terminated assistance to the government in Saigon. Vietnam became, and remains, a communist dictatorship.

Lewis became one of many black pawns in this Soviet scheme when he wrote for Freedomways—a propaganda organ of the Communist Party USA, and Soviet front organizations such as the World Peace Council—for 25 years. Freedomways was influential in the black community.

Lewis wrote a 1965 Freedomways article, “Paul Robeson: Inspirer of Youth,” about the famous actor and singer who had been a member of the CPUSA and admirer of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. In one of his more controversial statements, Robeson said that “American Negroes would never go to war against Russia,” because blacks loved Russia so much.

Today, however, blacks like Lewis are suddenly finding the Russians to be odious and obnoxious because they are perceived to have supported Trump.

The communist penetration and manipulation of the civil rights movement has been documented in the Operation SOLO documents still on the FBI website. They demonstrate that the Soviet Union illegally provided funding, reportedly more than $28 million, to the Communist Party USA, which then provided some of it to Freedomways. The documents are based on FBI informants, Morris and Jack Childs, who had infiltrated the highest levels of the CPUSA and had participated in meetings with foreign communist parties.

The presidency of Barack Obama proves that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not the last black figure to be manipulated by Moscow. In Obama’s case, it was Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor and suspected Soviet espionage agent. Strangely, Davis was recommended as a father figure for Obama by Obama’s own grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, who was reputed to be a CIA officer monitoring Davis’s communist activities.

It’s funny how the CIA did not issue any public warnings or alerts about the Russian influence on Obama before he took office in 2008. Nothing surfaced in the press from the CIA about Obama’s communist connections in Hawaii or Chicago.

It’s also strange that Dunham’s FBI file was conveniently destroyed in 1997.

As Obama leaves the presidency, it is relevant to go back in history to 2007, when Marxist writer Gerald Horne gave a speech, “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party.” Horne mentioned how black CPUSA member Frank Marshall Davis had gone to Hawaii in 1948 and had become friends with a “Euro-American family” that included a child “who goes by the name of Barack Obama…”

Notice the odd use of the phrase “who goes by the name of Barack Obama.”

Horne had said, “In his best-selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father,’ [sic] the author [Barack Obama] speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as ‘Frank,’ as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation—though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion.”

Horne’s reference to African-Americans as “a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation” reflects Moscow’s successful effort to manipulate the civil rights movement and divert some of its members into pro-Moscow causes, such as abandoning the people of South Vietnam to communism.

For his part, Obama has abandoned the people of Crimea and eastern Ukraine to the Russians. It’s Obama, not Trump, who ordered the CIA to support Syrian “rebels” and jihadists, only to provoke a Russian military intervention that has left Russia and its allies with major gains in the Middle East.

By any objective measure, the Russians have benefited nicely from the Obama presidency. Yet it’s Trump who stands accused by the Democrats and their media allies (and some conservatives) of being pro-Russian.

Having been left with a weakened U.S. military and foreign policy disasters around the globe, it’s no wonder that Trump wants to see if the Russians can be persuaded to stop their aggression. It may be a false hope, but he seems to think it is worth talking about. In any case, a U.S. military confrontation with Russia in Europe or the Middle East doesn’t make any sense at this time.

We’ve asked the question before, and it’s worthwhile to ask it again, as Obama leaves the presidency. Why was Gerald Horne’s speech about the history and “future” of the CPUSA? Was he saying something about Obama that only he and other CPUSA insiders knew? Did Horne know something special about Obama’s relationship with Davis? Indeed, had information about Obama been provided by Davis to other CPUSA members? And what did the CIA know about Obama’s communist connections to Davis and others?

Horne anticipated that Obama would go down in history because he understood that the CPUSA had been working in the black community for decades, laying the groundwork for Obama’s candidacy.

If Lewis really wants to expose Russian influence, let’s begin with an inquiry into how the CPUSA targeted black intellectuals, entertainers and politicians, by using a CPUSA-controlled and Soviet-funded journal called Freedomways. We can also take a look at Barack Obama’s connection to a Russian agent by the name of Frank Marshall Davis.

Somehow I doubt that John Lewis and his media sycophants will want to conduct a probe into that.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

12/16/16

Balanced Budget Amendment: The Solution? Or Deathblow?

By: Publius Huldah

The BBA Made Simple

Say you want your Butler to buy some groceries; so you give him your credit card.  You can:

  1. Give him an ENUMERATED LIST of what you want him to buy: 1 chicken, 5# of apples, two heads of cabbage, a 2# sack of brown rice, and a dozen eggs.  Whatever amount he spends for these enumerated items will be charged to you.
  1. Tell him he may spend on whatever he wants, and ask him to please don’t spend more than 18% of your weekly income. But whatever amount he decides to spend (on pork and other things) will be charged to you.

The first illustrates how our Constitution is written:  The items on which Congress is authorized to spend money are listed – enumerated – in the Constitution.  To see the list, go HERE.

The second illustrates how a balanced budget amendment (BBA) works:  It creates a completely new constitutional authority to spend on whatever the federal government wants to spend money on.  And there is no enforceable limit on the amount of spending.

Our Constitution Limits Spending to the Enumerated Powers

Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want.  If Congress obeyed our Constitution, they would limit spending to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money, excessive federal spending is not the result of a defective Constitution, but of disregarding the existing constitutional limitations on federal spending.

Because everyone has ignored these existing limitations for so long, we now have a national debt of some $20 trillion plus a hundred or so trillion in unfunded liabilities. 1

Various factions are now telling conservatives that the only way to stop out of control federal spending is with a BBA.

Obviously, that is not true.  The constitutional answer is to downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.  Eliminate federal departments (Education, Energy, Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, etc., etc., etc.), for which there is no constitutional authority.  2

Since our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government, most of what they’ve spent money on since the early 1900s is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

Yet our Constitution is still legally in place; and can be dusted off, read, and enforced by a Repentant People.  They can shrink the federal government to the size established by the Constitution which created it. 3

Using the Federal “Budget” to Snap the Trap on an Unsuspecting People

Our Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.

Spending is to be limited by the enumerated powers.  Pursuant to Art. I, §9, clause 7, the Treasury is to publish periodic Statements and Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditures.  Since the list of objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money is so short, it would be a simple matter to monitor federal spending and receipts.

But since the unconstitutional Budget & Accounting Act of 1921, Presidents and Congress have been putting into the “budget” whatever they want to spend money on.

Do you see that if the federal government is given constitutional authority (via a BBA) to spend money on whatever they want, they are ipso facto granted constitutional authority to exert power over whatever they want?

Oh, Americans!  False friends lead you astray and confuse the path you should take.  Under the pretext of imposing “fiscal responsibility” with a BBA, they would legalize the totalitarian dictatorship which has been developing in this Country for 100 years.

Creating the all-powerful federal government by Amendment

A BBA changes the standard for spending from whether the object is an enumerated power to whatever the federal government wants to spend money on. 4

So a BBA would transform the federal government created by our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to one of general and unlimited powers because it would authorize Congress to appropriate funds for – and hence have power over – whatever they or the President decide to put in the budget!

A BBA Doesn’t Reduce Federal Spending

A BBA wouldn’t reduce federal spending because:

  • All versions permit spending limits to be waived when Congress votes to waive them; and
  • Congress can always “balance the budget” with tax increases. Compact for America’s “balanced budget amendment” delegates massive new taxing authority to Congress:  it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) in addition to keeping the income tax.

Typical Misconceptions

Americans think, “I have to balance my budget; so the federal government should have to balance theirs.”

They overlook the profound distinctions between the economies of their own family unit and that of the national government of a Federation of States.  Our federal Constitution sets up a system where Congress is to appropriate funds only to carry out the enumerated powers; and the bills are to be paid with receipts from excise taxes and import tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by a direct assessment on the States apportioned according to population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).

Americans also think that since States have balanced budget amendments, the federal government should have one.  They overlook the profound distinction between the federal Constitution and State Constitutions:  5

  • The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of enumerated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.
  • But State Constitutions created State governments of general and almost unlimited powers. Accordingly, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything.  So State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.

Conclusion

A BBA would have the opposite effect of what you have been told.  Instead of limiting the federal government, it legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers; transforms the federal government into one which has power over whatever they decide to spend money on; and does nothing to reduce federal spending.

Twenty-eight States have already passed applications for a BBA.  Go HERE to check the status of your State.  Warn your friends and State Legislators.  For a model your State can use to rescind its previous applications, go HERE and look under “Take Action” column, or contact me.  Do not let the malignant elite complete their revolution by replacing our Constitution.

Endnotes:

1 State governments are voracious consumers of federal funds.  THIS shows what percentage of your State’s revenue is from federal funds.  Contrary to what RINO State Legislators say, they don’t want federal spending reduced: They want to keep those federal dollars flooding in.

2 George Washington’s Cabinet had 4 members:  Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General.

3 Our federal Constitution is short and easy to understand.  The only way you can avoid being misled is to find out for yourself what it says.  Be a Berean (Acts 17:10-12).

4 Amendments change all language to the contrary in the existing Constitution.  Eg., the 13th Amendment changed Art. I, §2, clause 3 & Art. IV, §2, clause 3 because they were inconsistent with the 13th Amendment.

5 In Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from end), James Madison said:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

12/7/16

KiDS: Inside the Terror Factory — Make this film a reality

The Clarion Project

clarion

Expose the incitement of children and youth to extremism, hatred and violence.


KiDS: Inside the Terror Factory
A New Clarion Project Feature Film

kids2

What does the life of a typical 5 year-old child look like?

Starting kindergarten, learning how to ride a bike, and learning to read.

But not all 5-year-olds have such a simple, happy life…

kids

This is Isa Dare, a 5-year-old British boy. His mother, Grace, was radicalized at a British college and flew to ISIS territory in Syria, taking Isa with her.

ISIS is now using Isa as its ‘poster child.’ In February 2016, they released a video showing Isa standing next to an adult terrorist, who encourages him to press a button on a remote and blow up a car filled with ‘infidel spies.’

In a horrifying moment, Isa does what he’s told.

Sadly, Isa’s story is not unique. Our new feature film, KiDS, will spotlight stories of children who Islamists have used and abused to incite violence, radicalism and death. The film is currently in production, and we plan to launch in 2017.

***Watch the teaser HERE***

But we need your help to make this film a reality!

DOUBLE YOUR IMPACT

Each dollar you give is matched 1:1

We are running a crowdfunding campaign to complete production of the film, and every dollar donated is being matched 1:1 by generous matching donors. This means that for every $10 that you donate, we receive $20. $100 becomes $200.

Supporting this campaign, and sharing it with family and friends, will make an incredible difference. Any contribution you can make will go towards spreading our message, and educating the world about the horrors of Islamist indoctrination of children.

Many thanks,
Shoshana Palatnik, Producer

kids1

11/24/16

Sore Losers — The Framers didn’t want us to play this game

Carolyn Alder www.freedomformula.us  [email protected]

Gary and Carolyn Alder Authors of:  The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College 

electoral

The game ended over two weeks ago and yet the losers are still pouting, protesting, rioting, vandalizing, suspending college classes, threatening to secede, petitioning the Presidential Electors to vote for Hillary on Dec. 19th, and planning to flood down on Washington D.C with protests on Jan. 20th, 2017.

This is not just a game lost; but a war that has been going on over a year to capture the “White House.”  The battleground states became a battleground nation. Mr. Trump won the Electoral College battle, Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote battle; but who will win the war on Jan. 20th?

It won’t be the Constitution or the American Federation the Framers established.

Were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump the most outstanding individuals and statesmen this nation could produce? This ludicrous and shameful behavior is what party politics and mass democracy has done to us.

Doesn’t this election cycle, if nothing else, prove that we need a better way to elect this high office?

The Framers did not want a democracy.  They  rejected the idea of a popular vote to elect the President.  The notes from the Constitutional Convention, describe many options that were discussed at length on several occasions as to how the office of the chief Executive, the President of the Union of States should be chosenTo share a couple example of their objection to a popular election:

“ Mr. GERRY. (Elbridge Gerry, MA) A popular election in this case is radically vicious [violent]. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union & acting in Concert to delude them into any appointment.” [1]

Mr. Gerry also spoke of the “excesses” and “evils” of democracy expressing his opposition this way, “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want [lack] virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots.  In Mass. it had been fully confirmed by experience that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute.” [2]

Col George Mason delegate from Virginia, also known as the father of the Bill of Rights, put it this way, “It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would to refer a trial of colours to a blind man.” [3]

Roger Sherman of Connecticut said, “that the president ought to be elected by Congress, since he feared that direct election of presidents by the people would lead to the creation of a monarchy.” [4]

If the Framers did not want a popularly elected president or democracy –what did they want?

They wanted to design a structure of government to control the national level of government, safeguard freedom, protect individual liberty, establish justice and promote prosperity. They did not go from a confederation of states to a consolidated central government.

The Framers intelligently designed the greatest political document ever created–the Constitution of the United States.  It defined a modified American Federation; a “more perfect Union”–not a democracy.  The Constitution added one house (but only one house) to be elected by the people.  The Articles of Confederation had no assembly elected by the people.

They also added an Executive Branch with specific limited responsibilities and a detailed method for filling that office.  Article II of the Constitution carefully outlines every step.  It was a compound process using one group outside of government influence (independent Presidential Electors) to recommend the most outstanding presidential possibilities; and a second group inside government (the House of Representatives) to make the final election by the States, each state having one vote.

The concept of having one body nominate a group of candidates from which another body will make a final selection is consistent with Resolution # 5 of the Virginia Plan and not an uncommon practice. [5]

Both the nomination and the election came under the jurisdiction of the States.  The States would choose the method of appointment of the Electors and the States having an equal voice—one vote each, would elect the President.  (An American Federation again.)

A “short cut” was provided in case a majority of Electors recommended the same individuals; then there was no need to go to the House. For a more detailed examination of the presidential election process see:  A Far Superior Process [6]

Some of the delegates in the Convention thought the Congress would often make the final election. George Mason for example, stated “that nineteen times in twenty the President would be chosen by the Senate, an improper body for the purpose.”  However, on Sept. 4th when the final election was changed from the Senate to the House, it pleased many delegates.   Mr. Madison records: “Col: Mason liked the latter mode best as lessening the aristocratic influence of the Senate.” [7]

However, because political party machinations sought to manipulate and control the Presidential Electors, and always force a majority, we soon lost the independence of the Electors and the Executive Branch.  The first Branch to fall victim to party politics and democracy was the Executive, facilitated by the 12th Amendment. The Senate was the second casualty of party control and democracy with the 17th Amendment.  The State’s lost the voice of their State Government and the American Federation crumbled to the ground.

President George Washington in his farewell address earnestly pleaded and warned the country in the most solemn manner not to resort to political parties; that sooner or later, the despotism and spirit of revenge would result in the ruins of Public Liberty. (Sept. 19, 1796)

We claim that constitutional government was destroyed by party government.  See our book: The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College

The Constitution was intelligently designed to control the government, not to control the people.

However, the Constitution does not have any control over party politics, but party politics has a lot of control over the people and the government.

[1] http://userpages.umbc.edu/~bouton/History101/ConstitutionalConvention.htm

[2]  United States—Formation of the Union Documents Illustrative of the Union of the American States  p.125 https://archive.org/details/documentsillustr00libr

[3] Jul 17, 1787 United States—Formation of the Union pg.127 https://archive.org/details/documentsillustr00libr

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college/?utm_term=.e160bfe685e2

[5] May 31st, 1787 United States—Formation of the Union p.127 https://archive.org/details/documentsillustr00libr

[6] http://noisyroom.net/blog/2016/03/03/if-your-nominating-process-resembles-a-circus-you-get-clowns-in-the-white-house-the-framers-designed-a-far-superior-process-the-original-electoral-college/

[7] United States—Formation of the Union p. 678 https://archive.org/details/documentsillustr00libr

09/20/16

Coptic Pope muzzles US Copts in favor of Al-Sisi

By: Dr. Ashraf Ramelah | Voice of the Copts

copticEgyptian Copts in the diaspora of New York and New Jersey must decide to obey a call by Orthodox Pope Tawadros II of Egypt for a NYC rally at the UN General Assembly in support of President Al-Sisi’s speech on September 20. An official statement by the Coptic Church indicated that Bishop Beeman of Nakada and Qus and Bishop Yuanis of Assuit were sent to the US to arrange and promote Coptic crowd support prior to the president’s arrival.

The statement said that “We, all Egyptians loyal to our home land, must welcome the president and strengthen him in all the work he does for the good of Egypt.” Because “the Pope has great interest in the success of this visit,” the message urged that Copts do everything possible to ensure the success of this visit, adding, “It is good for Egypt and all Egyptians.” The statement concluded by saying that “Egyptian leaders of evangelical churches in America demand the same support of their followers and should rally for the president.”

The reaction of Copts to this idea is split, and the issue is complex. Statements coming from Bishop Beeman in New Jersey last week accused Copts of causing 60 percent of sectarian violence in Egypt by their insubordination within the church community, offering no explanation or references. Copts are angered and disappointed to receive this criticism and view it as pressure to perform.

Makrius Saweres, priest of the Saint George Church in Jersey City, is demanding that all Copts in the tristate area gather to welcome Al-Sisi on the sidewalks near the UN, warning that, “any wrong doing on the part of the Copts in America [during this event] such as insulting or minimizing the role of the president will reflect on Copts in Egypt.” By this he meant that Copts will pay a dire consequence, as usual, in their Egyptian home towns if they speak their minds.

Many might rather protest against Al-Sisi with this opportunity, but such a timely reminder of violence back home is now an effective muzzle. Furthermore, showing up at all to gather as religious authorities suggest is risky business given the possibility of Muslim Brotherhood gangs doing the same. This could lead to a direct clash between Copts supporting Al-Sisi and Islamists against him. We can’t ignore that Egypt’s Islamists (MB and Salafi) consider Copts behind the fall of Morsi’s regime. Should conflict here take place it could in turn lead to copycat clashes in Egypt. Various potential scenarios in New York could bring sectarian ramifications to Copts in Egypt. Once again, Coptic religious leaders conspiring with the regime in Egypt score political points on the backs of their people.

The Coptic community inside or outside of Egypt never delegated their spiritual leaders as political spokespersons. But this is not new to Copts who were once discouraged by US Coptic Church leaders on orders from Pope Shenuda from protesting against the former Egyptian President Mubarak during his visits to the US. The “alliance” between Shenuda and Mubarak can now be similarly seen here between Tawadros II and Al-Sisi despite Tawadros’ promise upon his installation to be hands-off of political issues, which admittedly are outside of his role.

Even if this plan to support Al-Sisi through an organized rally were appropriate and now needed, it should be initiated and led through the diplomatic channels of the embassies. In which case, both Christian and Muslim supporters of Al Sisi would be included in this call to action. As it stands now, it separates Egyptians by religion even though the Pope’s message declared this to be good for Egypt and “all Egyptians.”

Mobilizing Copts in support of Al-Sisi’s UN General Assembly speech focusing on international issues and not the internal affairs of Egypt has no relevancy. There is absolutely no gain by it except for the power gained by Pope Tawadros II in his political maneuvering, which unfortunately does not calculate for the safety and well-being of his people.

09/19/16

It’s the Marxism, Not the Birtherism

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

marxism

The Washington Post is not sloppy; it is dishonest. Forget Kenya or Hawaii as Barack Obama’s birthplace. The issue is that he was mentored by a communist named Frank Marshall Davis, who taught him that blacks had a “reason to hate” and that Christianity was the white man’s religion. Davis essentially raised Obama in Hawaii for seven years of his young life, when he was smoking dope in the “Choom Gang” and learning how to be a revolutionary. That’s why Obama left Hawaii to admittedly hang out with “Marxist professors.” Davis had taught him well.

The rest is history, except that the Post and other liberal media have sanitized history in order to conceal the Marxist nature of Obama’s proposed “fundamental transformation” of America.

In Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, Davis was “Frank,” a mysterious figure with only a first name who had served as his mentor. Later, the identity of “Frank” was shown to be Davis by Trevor Loudon and Accuracy in Media. Davis had a 600-page FBI file and had been on the FBI’s Security Index for 19 years. That was the smoking gun in Obama’s life story, not the place where he was born. His birthplace was always a secondary issue.

The “birther” issue is now being used by Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama and their media allies to get black people riled up. It’s part of their get-out-the-vote drive. Not surprisingly, the Post and other media play right along with it. They realize Obama has done little for black people. So they have to demonize Trump.

The Post’s Jenna Johnson reported on Friday afternoon that Hillary Clinton “said Trump owes Obama an apology for promoting a false theory about his birthplace. She did not directly address the Trump assertion that her own 2008 campaign promoted the same theory, but her current campaign flatly rejected that claim.”

This appeared under the headline, “Trump admits Obama was born in U.S., but falsely blames Clinton for starting rumors.”

Do you remember Johnson? She was the co-author of a Post story asserting that Trump was sexist for talking about whether Hillary was physically fit to be president. That story appeared one day before Hillary collapsed while leaving the 9/11 memorial in New York City.

One day it’s sexism, another day it’s racism.

Actually, Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle did admit that a Clinton staffer had spread the claim that Obama was born outside of the United States. Hillary did not personally apologize to Barack Obama for that. Yet now the cry is for Trump, who questioned the place of his birth, to personally apologize to Obama.

All of this is just racial politics. Hillary knows that most blacks are not as enthusiastic about her as they were for Obama. So she has to get them up in arms. On cue, the Congressional Black Caucus has called on Trump, not Hillary, to apologize. The group’s political action committee has already endorsed Hillary for president.

Obama should apologize to the American people for failing to tell us the truth, and nothing but the truth, about Frank Marshall Davis. First, he covered up the identity of “Frank.” Then, when the truth came out, his campaign said Davis was just a civil rights activist.

The Post still won’t tell the truth about the Obama-Davis relationship, eight years after we disclosed it, because the reporter they assigned to do the job was himself a red-diaper baby who had personal and family reasons to conceal the truth.

After Patti Solis Doyle admitted that a Clinton staffer had spread the claim that Obama was born outside of the United States, James Asher, the former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief, claimed that Clinton aide and ally Sidney Blumenthal had told him about it. He said Blumenthal raised the issue with him “face to face.”

This is very significant. Blumenthal had also raised the Frank Marshall Davis issue during the 2008 campaign. That was never retracted because it was true. The media ignored it for that very reason. They didn’t want to sink Obama’s campaign for the presidency. They still don’t want to bring it up.

The “birther” issue is getting more traction, even though it’s mostly beside the point, because Hillary thinks she can exploit it politically.

Hillary ignores “Frank” now, for obvious reasons, because she needs Obama’s help with the blacks to get elected in November. Blumenthal has to know how damaging the “Frank” connection is to Obama because he cited our work on the subject in 2008. Today, however, Hillary Clinton needs Obama. So Davis is a non-issue.

Coming to her aid is Michelle Obama, saying, “There were those who questioned and continue to question for the past eight years, up through this very day, whether my husband was even born in this country. Well, during his time in office, I think Barack has answered those questions with the example he set by going high when they go low.”

He hasn’t answered the questions about “Frank” because the press corps has never asked.

Tell us all about “Frank,” Mr. President. Tell us about the meaning of your poem to Davis titled, “Pop,” which included strange lines about stains and smells on shorts.

There are indeed very important questions remaining about “where” this president came from. The “where” is not the physical place, but the psychological and mental space in Barack Obama’s young mind that was once filled with communist notions by Frank Marshall Davis. Everything that he has done politically can be explained by the Davis influence.

Even Blumenthal knew there was a story there. It is the cover-up that changed the course of American history and put the United States on the course to becoming a socialist state.

Obama’s foundation advises us that he has changed America, but that the work is not yet done. “As President Obama has said, the change we seek will take longer than one presidency,” the foundation tells us.

You ain’t seen nothing yet! Frank Marshall Davis lives on through Barack Hussein Obama.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

09/17/16

New Book Exposes “Marxist Madrassas” in Higher Education

New Book Exposes “Marxist Madrassas” in Higher Education and Advocates Online Learning Revolution to Save Students Money and Provide Marketable Skills

Available at: Amazon.com

marxists

For immediate release                   Contact: Cliff Kincaid, [email protected]

A groundbreaking new book on campus radicalism titled Marxist Madrassas examines the educational background of Mrs. Hillary Clinton, in a chapter titled, “From Goldwater Girl to Marxist,” and looks at the far-left influences at Harvard and Columbia that have guided President Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the United States.

“If you want to change society, change academia,” says co-author Cliff Kincaid, a long-time journalist and media critic.  “Changing academia will save our culture and our nation.”

Kincaid, who was himself banned from a college campus because of his conservative views, examines the dangerous inroads Marxist totalitarianism has made at a number of universities. He also documents the useless but expensive degrees in such areas as “Queer Studies” being foisted on students. Kincaid’s own son, who moved to South Korea to find a job, contributes a chapter on how students can take advantage of the education online learning revolution and get marketable skills.

With the publication of Marxist Madrassas, available through Amazon.com, Kincaid’s educational non-profit, America’s Survival, Inc., wants to help spark a revolution in academia and offer low-cost and affordable learning options for students who are serious about getting good jobs. “Journalism has been changed through the Internet revolution,” Kincaid notes, “but the brick-and-mortar schools have maintained their liberal monopoly in education. This must change.”

A chapter on the creation of a “New Student Movement” looks at how the hard-core left is now attempting to turn students with college debt and despair about the future into a socialist army demanding federal bailouts. Many of them turned out for the “Bernie Sanders Revolution” demanding the taxpayers repay the $1.3 trillion in college debt they owe. “These young people need freedom and hope, not socialism,” Kincaid says.

In addition to exploiting students in debt and despair and censoring conservative views on campus, the book says radical movements are using college campuses to wage campaigns against Israel and Jewish students.

Marxist Madrassas, which is must reading for students and parents, also examines higher tuition rates stemming from superfluous “diversity” programs and overpaid administrators with nothing better to do than reengineer the social views of young people. The case of former Harvard Professor and now far-left Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who falsely claimed Indian heritage to get a teaching job, is among the cases examined in this regard.

Dr. Tina Trent, a scholar who comments frequently on educational issues, writes the final section of the new book on how anti-free speech attitudes on campus are being spread to society at large. She suggests there is a plan to turn the United States into a European-style socialist state where freedom of speech is suppressed because it is considered offensive to left-wing special interest groups.

Kincaid’s educational non-profit, America’s Survival, Inc., has published several books on current issues and maintains a series of websites devoted to such topics as George Soros, leftist influence on the Roman Catholic Church, radical Muslim infiltration of America, and corruption in the journalism business. His main home page is www.usasurvival.org.

Available at: Amazon.com

09/13/16

Egyptian youths escape Sharia inferno

By: Dr. Ashraf Ramelah | Voice of the Copts

Al Minya youth

Al Minya youth

Mocking Islam or mocking the prophet of Islam spells doom. In Egypt you will be arrested, home and property confiscated, and coerced to “force emigrate” from your town. Then count on a five-year prison term. This was exactly the penalty for four Coptic Christian school boys, ages 14 through 17, and their teacher.

Modernity grazed the 7th century when a lost cell phone turned up in the hands of a sectarian street thug ready for Sharia justice against its owner. The sim card showed a video of a 36-second skit mocking ISIS terrorists praying to Allah. Away from home on a school trip, the boys used their teacher’s phone to record the funny scene they acted out, thinking ISIS was fair game and knowing that Islam was not. Unfortunately for them, the cell phone was lost or stolen and missing for a solid year. Found by Muslims who became offended by the “blasphemy”, the Egyptian courts overlooked the violent retaliation by the gang prompted to attack homes and businesses and instead arrested the boys and their teacher.

On the same day Muslims struck the town, the police were notified and arrested the four Coptic boys and their teacher. Before their convictions by the courts, the Christian blasphemers were forced to apologize. One month later, on May 27, 2015, the boys were released on bail, and February of this year they were sentenced to prison for five years. They were allowed to pay a two thousand pound fee per student to temporarily suspend the verdict’s start date because they were not present at the sentencing.

This last fact was a big factor in reversing their fortune. The boys were facing the devastation of their remaining adolescence. They would soon be housed behind bars in cells with jihadists, possibly members of the Muslim Brotherhood or worse. The prospect was bleak, but all is well now thanks to anonymous channels.
The hidden hand of a courageous heart behind the scenes knowing the complexity of such matters delivered the four boys from an Egyptian inferno. They were enabled to tackle security to obtain their passports and move through customs bound for Turkey (a country with bad diplomatic relations with Egypt). As tragic, glaring examples of religious tyranny and “refugee” status as defined by the U.N., the boys have now arrived in Switzerland where their request for religious asylum was granted.

Upon arrival to safety in the West, one of the boys told a news reporter, “There was no reason to be treated like that; all was a joke, but now we may have an opportunity for a better life.”

Egyptian authorities are alarmed from reactions around the world related to the story and the negative publicity. The state is now bombarded with criticisms of the regime and its court system broadcast by brave media hosts in Egypt. The conversation goes on with some saying the boys were wrong to escape their sentencing; it would have been better for them to respect the courts, honor their country, and serve their time.

Of course the goal of Sadat and Saudi Arabia is clear; as stated decades earlier, the Middle East must be cleansed of Christians. The question remains; will Islam succeed?

09/12/16

The Terrible Legacy of 9/11

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

911

[Editor’s note: I was asked (along with their other contributing editors) by the outstanding website Family Security Matters, to offer up our thoughts on how we “view the significance of 9/11, fifteen years on.” Here was my response, which they posted over the weekend.   Roger Aronoff]

As we approach the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., the tragedy is that the Islamic jihadists are winning too many battles around the world, and have forced the West and its partners to abridge freedoms in pursuit of security. And despite the claims of the Obama administration, the U.S. is not succeeding in leading a coalition of nations to defeat the enemy, which it identifies as ISIL. In fact, ISIL, more commonly known as ISIS, is now operating fully in 18 countries—a three-fold increase in just two years—according to a National Counterterrorism Center report leaked to NBC News in August.

The fact is, after nearly eight years of Obama and Secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry, things have gotten much worse in many hot spots across the globe. Through the work of our Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB), we have concluded that Obama came to the White House seeking to empower the Muslim Brotherhood in North Africa, and the Iranian Shi’ite regime in the Persian Gulf region. Because of our unsigned nuclear “deal” with Iran, we have few options when it comes to restraining their behavior. We pretend that we have a common interest with both Russia and Iran, which is to defeat ISIS. But ISIS is just one manifestation of the jihadist ideology that seeks dominance, and submission, as it slaughters tens of thousands of people in its long, drawn out death march.

When the U.S. removed its remaining troops from Iraq in 2011, President Obama announced that “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” That was the same year that the so-called “Arab Spring” led to the fall of America’s ally in Egypt, the start of the Syrian civil war, and the West’s war against Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, who had abandoned his WMD program and was fighting against al Qaeda. That is when America switched sides in the Global War on Terror, as we documented in our first CCB report, and further supported in our second report back in June. Benghazi turned out to be a pile-up of scandal, failed policy and dereliction of duty.

Today we have Libya as a failed state, dominated by jihadist groups; Syria as the home base of ISIS and the scene of what even The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof calledObama’s “worst mistake,” comparing it to Rwanda, with close to a half a million dead; and an emboldened Iran, regularly humiliating America because it can, since it has received an estimated $100 billion in formerly frozen funds, and there is no signed deal for which they can be held accountable. In addition, peace between Israel and the Palestinians is less likely than when President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton came to power.

Meanwhile, the corrupt news media pretend that Obama has been a successful foreign policy president, when, in fact, he has been a disaster. Fifteen years after 9/11, the frequency of terrorist and jihadist attacks is such that they are quickly forgotten in a fog of war that is rapidly enveloping the world.

This article was originally published on the website of Family Security Matters.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.