07/25/15

The Religious Origins of the Sanctuary Movement

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Thanks to Donald Trump, the major media are being forced to cover the illegal immigration movement, such as the proliferation of “sanctuary cities” across the U.S. that attract criminal aliens, give them legal protection, and let them back out on the streets to commit more crimes. But the really taboo topic is how these sanctuary cities grew out of a movement started by the Catholic Church and other churches.

Over 200 cities, counties and states provide safe-haven to illegal aliens as sanctuary cities, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reports. What has not yet been reported is that the Catholic Church, which gave President Obama his start in “community organizing” in Chicago, has been promoting the sanctuary movement for more than two decades.

What’s more, in April, a delegation of U.S. Catholic bishops staged a church service along the U.S.-Mexico border and distributed Communion through the border fence. At the same time, Pope Francis said a “racist and xenophobic” attitude was keeping immigrants out of the United States.

No wonder the pope’s approval ratings have been falling in the United States.  Overall, Gallup reports that it’s now at 59 percent, down from 76 percent in early 2014. Among conservatives, it’s fallen from 72 percent approval to 45 percent (a drop of 27 points).

“Few people are aware that this extreme left branch of the Catholic Church played a large part in birthing the sanctuary movement,” says James Simpson, author of the new book, The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.

Simpson says Catholic Charities, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and its grant-making arm, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, are prominent elements of the open borders movement.

The sanctuary movement has its roots in the attempted communist takeover of Latin America.

With the support of elements of the Roman Catholic Church, the Communist Sandinistas had taken power in Nicaragua in 1979. At the time, communist terrorists known as the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) were threatening a violent takeover of neighboring El Salvador. President Ronald Reagan’s policies of overt and covert aid for the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, known as the Contras, forced the defeat of the Sandinistas, leaving the FMLN in disarray. In 1983, Reagan ordered the liberation of Grenada, an island in the Caribbean, from communist thugs.

Groups like the Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) were promoting the sanctuary movement for the purpose of facilitating the entry into the U.S. of illegal aliens who were supposedly being repressed by pro-American governments and movements in the region. The U.S. Catholic Bishops openly supported the sanctuary movement, even issuing a statement in 1985 denouncing the criminal indictments of those caught smuggling illegal aliens and violating the law.  Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits the transportation or harboring of illegal aliens.

Two Roman Catholic priests and three nuns were among those under indictment in one case on 71 counts of conspiracy to smuggle illegal aliens into the United States. One of the Catholic priests indicted in the scheme was Father Ramon Dagoberto Quinones, a Mexican citizen. He was among those convicted of conspiracy in the case.

Illegal alien rally

Through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, an arm of the Bishops, the church has funded Casa de Maryland, an illegal alien support group which was behind the May 1, 2010, “May Day” rally in Washington, D.C. in favor of “immigrant rights.” Photographs taken by this writer showed Mexican immigrants wearing Che Guevara T-shirts, and Spanish-language communist books and literature being provided to rally participants.

Illegal alien rally 2

An academic paper, “The Acme of the Catholic Left: Catholic Activists in the US Sanctuary Movement, 1982-1992,” states that lay Catholics and Catholic religious figures were “active participants” in the network protecting illegals. The paper said, “Near the peak of national participation in August 1988, of an estimated 464 sanctuaries around the country, 78 were Catholic communities—the largest number provided by any single denomination.”

A “New Sanctuary Movement” emerged in 2007, with goals similar to the old group. In May, the far-left Nation magazine ran a glowing profile of this new movement, saying it was “revived” by many of the same “communities of faith” and churches behind it in the 1980s.

One group that worked to find churches that would provide sanctuary to immigrants in fear of deportation is called Interfaith Worker Justice, led by Kim Bobo, who was quoted by PBS in 2007 as saying, “We believe what we are doing is really calling forth a higher law, which is really God’s law, of caring for the immigrant.”

But conservative Catholic Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute says Interfaith Worker Justice is run by “committed Marxist socialists,” and that Bobo is “highly active and involved with the Democratic Socialists of America,” a group which backed Obama’s political career.

07/21/15

Social Engineering Is a Lot Like Socialism

By: Nancy Salvato

Recently, two articles gave me pause. The first by Alana Semuels, “How Chicago is Trying to Integrate its Suburbs” caught my attention because I spent many formative years in Glenview, the suburb highlighted in the article. Reading about the new low income housing there, a collaboration between the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and Regional Housing Initiative (RHI), I recalled a conversation with a long term resident and respected member of the community (prior to the shut-down of the naval air base and subsequent redevelopment), one in which she explained that Glenview, a Chicago suburb, got around a previous Section 8 requirement by building low income senior housing. She had no qualms about the community’s position in this matter. Many middle class communities felt this way about Section 8 moving into their neighborhoods. In a SPOA article called The Great Housing Experiment That Failed, the author writes:

Starting back in 1977, families living in housing projects began to be relocated to middle-class suburban neighborhoods with good public schools. If these families could see a different way of life, the middle-class way of life, they could learn to live like the middle class – or so everyone thought…But then the crime rate started to go up in suburbia where they moved. As one former housing project tenant said: “You move from one place to another and you bring the element with you. You got some [people] trying to make it just like the projects.”

Landlords in more affluent suburbs did not want to rent to Section 8 tenants. Erin Eberlin writes in, “Disadvantages of Renting to Section 8 Tenants”

There is a stigma that Section 8 tenants are very destructive. There have been horror stories about floors being destroyed, cabinets being pulled off the walls, toilets being cracked, garbage and filth everywhere and many more people living in the unit than are listed on the lease… Tenants who do not collect rental assistance may be turned off by the fact that you allow Section 8 tenants in your property. They may believe that you are a “slumlord,” that the property will be dirty or that the tenants will be disrespectful and noisy.

In “Let’s End Housing Vouchers” Howard Husock provides insight into why Section 8 vouchers have failed in integrating classes of people.

Better neighborhoods are not better because of something in the water but because people have built and sustained them by their efforts, their values, and their commitments. Voucher appropriations are based not only on the mistaken belief that it is necessary to award, at public expense, a better home to all who can demonstrate “need,” but also that it is uplifting to do so, when in fact it is the effort to achieve the good home, rather than the good home in itself, that is the real engine of uplift.

What he is saying is that the effort and goal to achieve a better life for one self is a major factor in the ability to contribute to and better a community. Those residents who achieve the American dream by saving their hard earned money and purchasing and maintaining their homes in a neighborhood of their choosing understand the sacrifice involved in making that happen. They want a return on their investment. They have made a decision to become a part of something larger and want to belong.

Husock explains how the voucher program ends up segregating classes of people and “accelerate neighborhood decline.”

For properties in precariously respectable neighborhoods, the government-paid rent is more than the market rent. Reason: the Section 8 program allows voucher holders to pay up to the average rent in their entire metropolitan area, and landlords in working-class or lower-middle-class neighborhoods, where rents are below average, simply charge voucher holders exactly that average rent. Assured payment and a more-than-generous risk premium: no wonder some landlords in neighborhoods teetering on the brink of respectability gladly welcome voucher tenants over working-class families offering lower rents and so accelerate neighborhood decline. South Philadelphia state representative William Keller tells of local property owners who “couldn’t rent their place for $500, but they can get $900 from Section 8.” The result is a familiar government-subsidized racket: landlords who specialize in Section 8s—who advertise for them and know the bureaucratic rules about what it takes to get paid.

Homeowners pay more to live in affluent neighborhoods to ensure safety and opportunities for their families. Residents of these communities are expected to maintain their homes and want to participate in events sponsored by their communities. Shared values are what makes people come together as a community.         Section 8 disrupts this.

In the Chicago suburb of Riverdale, here is how it went.

EMT crews respond to emergency calls to find callers, accustomed to city emergency rooms, simply saying they’re “feeling ill.” Riverdale’s Potter elementary school, once boasting a top academic reputation, now has the state’s highest student turnover. Student achievement has dropped—putting paid to the idea that shipping poor families to good schools in the suburbs will cause an education ethic to rub off. Instead, the concentration of disorganized families has undermined a once good school. School funds, says the mayor, must now be diverted to the legions of “special needs” students. Crime is up, too—”we have real legitimate gang issues now,” the mayor says—and the city has had to increase its police force by 35 percent, from 26 to 35. That’s pushing the tax rate up, which the mayor fears will discourage new home buyers, pushing the small city into a cycle of decline. A lack of local buying power—a function of the voucher program’s preference for very low-income renters—has already left storefronts abandoned on Riverdale’s main street.

It’s no wonder that higher socioeconomic neighborhoods fear Section 8. But it is not about race. As Husock points out, “Harvard sociologist William Julius Wilson famously argued that class, not race, is the most powerful divide that separates Americans today.” So, why then does the current administration want to make socio-economic inequities about race?

In “Obama Collecting Personal Data for a Secret Race Data Base” Paul Sperry writes that the fed is collecting sensitive data on Americans by race… to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.”

In its justification for social and economic engineering, this administration is saying that inequities are a result of prejudice, not the values and work ethics displayed by different classes of people. Yet, social and economic engineering is a means to redistribute wealth, not integrate and diversify communities of people. Probably the biggest redistribution of wealth came during the mortgage crisis when thousands upon thousands of middle class people had to walk away from their homes, which were then repossessed by banks and re-purchased by the very rich or rented to Section 8 voucher holders, creating greater class divisions.         In American Spectator’s, “The True Origin of this Economic Crisis,” this crisis came about in part because of a “1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study of discrimination in home mortgage lending,” which concluded,

While there was no overt discrimination in banks’ allocation of mortgage funds, loan officers gave whites preferential treatment. The methodology of the study has since been questioned, but at the time it was highly influential with regulators and members of the incoming Clinton administration; in 1993, bank regulators initiated a major effort to reform the CRA regulations.

Clearly, the Obama administration is pursuing a policy of social and economic engineering and saying it is about race.

Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites.

In a Crain’s Chicago Business article, Why one suburban development soared, and the other staggered, Dennis Rodkin writes,

Because the Glen is a tax increment financing district, all property taxes go into the pot; after the TIF expires in 2018, tax collections will stream into the city’s general fund. Planners behind the Glen expect the previous 23 years will have generated $820 million, according to Messrs. Owen and Brady. That figure includes $250 million in land sales, $20 million in federal grants and $500 million in property and sales taxes, Mr. Owen says.

The Glen received $20 million in federal land grants. Therefore, Glenview is a federally funded city. Thus, it is susceptible to the Obama administration’s social and economic engineering plans.

It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that money has allowed federal overreach to influence local and state decisions about schools, housing, churches, and other services that fall under the states’ purview in our federalist system of government. This division of power is failing. Strongholds put in place in our Constitution to prevent centralized government are surely toppling. Our Constitutional Republic, which generates great wealth and allows for social mobility is being replaced by social and economic engineering, i.e., socialism. I am moved to wonder how this will affect voter demographics.

Copyright ©2015 Nancy Salvato

Nancy Salvato is the Director of Education and the Constitutional Literacy Program for Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan research and educational project whose mission is to re-introduce the American public to the basic elements of our constitutional heritage while providing non-partisan, fact-based information on relevant socio-political issues important to our country. She is a graduate of the National Endowment for the Humanities’ National Academy for Civics and Government. She is the author of “Keeping a Republic: An Argument for Sovereignty.” She also serves as a Senior Editor for NewMediaJourna.usl and a contributing writer to BigGovernment.com and FamilySecurityMatters.org.

07/17/15

How the Republicans Plan to Lose to Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A new survey from Univision, the pro-Mexico television network, demonstrates the utter folly of Republicans appealing to Hispanic voters. It finds that 68 percent have a favorable view of Hillary Clinton despite the scandals swirling around her. By contrast, only 36 percent have a favorable view of former Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who is married to a Mexican and speaks Spanish.

Bush “was the highest-rated of all the Republican candidates,” Univision reports, with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a one-time proponent of amnesty for illegals, coming in second with only a 35 percent approval rate.

What the poll demonstrates is that Hispanics are basically owned by the Democratic Party. The Democrats’ power grab for the Latino vote has been successful. However, ultimately the Democratic Party’s success in the presidential election depends on convincing Republicans to fruitlessly continue to appeal to Hispanics, while abandoning the GOP voter base of whites, conservatives and Christians.

Overall, in terms of political party affiliation, 57 percent of Hispanics identified themselves as Democrats and only 18 percent said they are Republicans. A total of 25 percent called themselves independent.

In another finding, 59 percent of Hispanic voters said they were satisfied with Barack Obama’s presidency after his six years in office. Clearly, most Hispanics have drunk the Kool-Aid. For them, it appears that federal benefits and legalization of border crossers are what matters. Most of them don’t bat an eye in regard to Obama’s lawless and traitorous conduct of domestic and foreign policy.

What the Republicans have left is to try to appeal to white, conservative and Christian voters. But that strategy, of course, runs the obvious risk of being depicted by the liberal media as racist. After all, whites are not supposed to have a “white identity,” as Jared Taylor’s book by that name describes.

Whites cannot have a racial identity, but Hispanics and blacks can. This is one aspect of political correctness. As communists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who are themselves white, put it in their book, it is a “race course against white supremacy.”

If Republicans pander to Hispanics, they will alienate their voter base, which has shown in their reaction to the Donald Trump candidacy that they want more—not less—action taken to control the border with Mexico. Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) calls the Trump supporters “crazies,” an indication that the GOP establishment would rather jettison these people than bring them into the Republican camp. Like McCain, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has also attacked Trump, saying his remarks about criminal aliens are hurting the GOP. It’s amazing how a loser like Romney, who also threw in the towel on gay marriage when he was governor of Massachusetts, continues to generate press. What he is saying is what the liberal media want to hear.

Of course, the political correctness which dominates the national dialogue and debate also means that Republicans like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are likely to continue to demonize Trump, thereby alienating many whites. As a result, the Republicans will get less of the conservative and Christian vote, further diminishing their chances of winning the White House. It will be a replay of the losing campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney. Republicans have already alienated many Christian voters by giving up the fight for traditional marriage. They had planned to abandon border control as an issue until Trump and “El Chapo” got in the way.

Meanwhile, in another amazing turnaround, Republicans on Capitol Hill are backing Obama’s call for “sentencing reform,” a strategy that will empty the prisons and increase the crime rate, thereby alienating GOP voters in favor of law and order.

As this scenario plays out, Mrs. Clinton is coming across on the Democratic side looking like a moderate, by virtue of the fact that an open socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is running “to her left” for the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton-Sanders show has all the earmarks of a carefully staged demonstration of the Marxist dialectic, an exercise designed to create the appearance of conflict in order to force even more radical change on the American people through Democratic Party rule.

Anybody who knows anything about Hillary, a student of Saul Alinsky, understands that her “moderation” is only a façade. Her thesis on Alinsky for Wellesley College was titled “There Is Only the Fight…” That is the Marxist strategy. It is the Alinsky version of the Marxist dialectic. It was also adopted by Obama, who was trained by Alinsky disciples working with the Catholic Church in Chicago.

In my column, “Study Marxism to Understand Hillary,” I noted that Barbara Olson had come to the conclusion while researching her book on Hillary that “she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism.” Olson noted, “In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology…”

This means that Mrs. Clinton understands that the Sanders candidacy actually supports and does not undermine her own candidacy. It makes Hillary look like a moderate while she moves further to the left, a place she wants to be, in response to the left-wing Democratic base. Only the Marxist insiders seem to understand what is happening.

Some uninformed commentators refer to something called “Clintonism,” a supposed moderate brand of Democratic Party politics. If that ever existed, it applied to Bill Clinton and not Hillary.

The fact is that Sanders and Mrs. Clinton have associated with the same gang of communists and fellow travelers for many years. Sanders was an active collaborator with the Communist Party-sponsored U.S. Peace Council.

As for Hillary, Barbara Olson reported in her book Hell to Pay that Robert Borosage, who served as director of the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), was “a colleague and close acquaintance” of Clinton. Olson wrote that Mrs. Clinton operated in the “reaches of the left including Robert Treuhaft and Jessica Mitford,” who had been “committed Communists” and “Stalinists.” Olson said that Hillary worked for Treuhaft and paved the way for Mitford to lobby then-Governor Bill Clinton on the death penalty issue.

Olson described Hillary as a “budding Leninist” who understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost. She wrote that “Hillary has never repudiated her connection with the Communist movement in America or explained her relationship with two of its leading adherents. Of course, no one has pursued these questions with Hillary. She has shown that she will not answer hard questions about her past, and she has learned that she does not need to—remarkable in an age when political figures are allowed such little privacy.”

Researcher Carl Teichrib has provided me with a photo of a Hillary meeting with Cora Weiss from the May 2000 edition of “Peace Matters,” the newsletter of the Hague Appeal for Peace. Weiss, a major figure in the Institute for Policy Studies, gained notoriety for organizing anti-Vietnam War demonstrations and traveling to Hanoi to meet with communist leaders. In the photo, Hillary is shown fawning over a Hague Appeal for Peace gold logo pin that Weiss is wearing.

Teichrib, editor of Forcing Change, recalls being an observer at the 1999 World Federalist Association (WFA) conference, held in association with the Hague Appeal for Peace, during which everyone in attendance was given an honorary membership into the WFA. In addition to collaborating with the pro-Hanoi Hague Appeal for Peace, the WFA staged a “Mission to Moscow” and held several meetings with the Soviet Peace Committee for the purpose of “discussing the goal of general and complete disarmament” and “the strengthening of the United Nations.” Mrs. Clinton spoke to a WFA conference in a tribute to veteran newsman Walter Cronkite, a supporter of world government

In the WFA booklet, “The Genius of Federation: Why World Federation is the Answer to Global Problems,” the group described how a “world federation,” a euphemism for world government, could be achieved by advancing “step by step toward global governance,” mostly by enhancing the power and authority of U.N. agencies.

Obama’s Iran deal continues this strategy by placing enormous power in the hands of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

At this stage in the campaign, even before the first Republican presidential debate, we can already see how the race is playing out. Hillary is counting on the Republicans nominating another loser with a losing strategy while she moves to the left and looks like a moderate.

Alinsky would be proud.

07/2/15

Celebrate the 4th: Impeach Kagan and Ginsburg

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent in the same-sex marriage case that the ruling was a threat to our democratic form of government and constitutes a “judicial Putsch,” or secret power grab. He didn’t just say the majority was wrong or misguided; he essentially said they had conspired to overthrow our form of government. His position on the Court may have made it impossible to supply specifics. But one possible explanation of what he meant is that he saw a conflict-of-interest on the part of members of the majority, which required their recusal from the case.

Rather than investigate what Scalia is hinting at, our media have opened fire on Scalia for blowing the whistle on judicial corruption.

In fact, the push for gay marriage has been tainted by lies from the beginning. As Professor Paul Kengor notes, Obama himself was caught lying by his own adviser, David Axelrod, who now admits Obama favored gay marriage when he was publicly opposing it to get elected. “According to Axelrod,” Kengor told WorldNetDaily, “Obama supported gay marriage as far back as the mid-1990s, when he was an aspiring Chicago politician. He publicly suggested otherwise, however, in order to get votes, especially from African-Americans who rejected gay marriage in higher numbers than white Americans.”

Kengor, author of Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, said he believes Obama was influenced in favor of “a more open view toward sexuality” by his communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a pornographer and pedophile. But Obama was careful to sound conservative and Christian on these issues when he ran for president.

What’s more, as AIM has documented on numerous occasions, media “coverage” of the issue has been non-stop propaganda, much of it emanating from a group called the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association. Most people haven’t heard of the group, which is the way they want it. The nature of gay pride parades has even been censored, prohibiting the public from understanding that the homosexual movement celebrates crude displays of nudity and vulgarity.

Politically, it would be one thing if Scalia had responded that there was an honest disagreement over the meaning of certain words in the Constitution. Instead, he said the majority subverted the Constitution by reading into it something that does not exist—the “right” to force government at all levels to recognize gay marriage. By inventing this “right,” Scalia and the other dissenters said, the Court has put our actual rights of freedom of religion and expression in grave jeopardy. This seems to be the nature of the “putsch” Scalia is talking about. He could very well be referring to behind-the-scenes pressures put on the Justices by homosexual elite forces, the financially powerful one to two percent, who seem to have so much sway over the media, academia and the corporate world. These people are now attempting to suppress a new film, “An Open Secret,” about pedophilia in Hollywood.

Whatever the reason for the putsch, our form of government has been overthrown and another put in its place—a judicial dictatorship that is devoted to elevating to protected status a sexual minority seeking the abolition of traditional values. Left unchecked in its drive for power over others, this cabal threatens not only our heritage but America’s standing in the world as a superpower. It appears the Obama administration wants to spend more money on Pentagon gay pride events and climate change than actual weapons systems to defend America.

As we get ready to celebrate Independence Day, however, we can rest assured that the American people remember enough about the founding of their country that they cannot and will not accept a judicial tyranny. That would make a complete mockery of what July 4th is all about and what millions of Americans have sacrificed for.

The critical part of the law in the gay marriage case is Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code, which is applicable to judges and courts. It says, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These disqualifications include cases in which “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party…”

Our media didn’t treat it as a big deal, but Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had both officiated at gay weddings. Groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association, the Coalition of African American Pastors, and the Foundation for Moral Law had called for Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case.

Matthew Kidd, executive director of the Foundation for Moral Law, told Accuracy in Media that the failure by Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case leaves them open to impeachment and removal from the bench.

But will Congress act?

According to the Supreme Court website, the only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. It says the House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate. A majority is required for impeachment in the House but a two-thirds vote is required for conviction.

In the case of Kagan, an Obama appointee, she may have had a personal conflict-of-interest. This is a sensitive matter, but various reports indicated that Kagan was a known lesbian before she was nominated to the Court by President Obama. For example, the gay blog QueerTY had identified her as a lesbian. That would mean she was compromised on homosexual issues prior to her ascension to the bench and after she was confirmed. This is a conflict of interest that cannot be tolerated.

Whether the reports of her lesbianism are true or not, we know that Kagan had an extremely radical record as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003 to 2009) where she promoted homosexuality and transgenderism. Nevertheless, she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a 63 to 37 vote.

Kagan “avoided the sort of scrutiny that some nominees have faced,” The Washington Post noted at the time.

We now see the evidence of what happens when the media and Congress fail to do their jobs.

Congress, however, can try to undo some of the damage by holding hearings into the possible impeachment of Justices Kagan and Ginsburg. This would be one way of getting to the bottom of Scalia’s sensational charge that America’s democratic system has been subverted and stolen from the American people.

We are bound to hear that impeachment would be difficult and conviction impossible. There’s always an excuse for not taking bold action in Washington, D.C. But a congressional failure to act, in the wake of Scalia’s extraordinary charge of a judicial Putsch, would suggest that celebrating July 4th means fireworks and nothing more.

I think enough Americans are sufficiently concerned about this matter that they want to see some real fireworks, in the form of Congress exposing the lies, corruption and conflicts of interest that went into the sick and tyrannical gay marriage ruling.

Members of Congress taking up this cause will not get sympathetic headlines in the media. But it is something that has to be done if Independence Day is going to have any meaning left at all.

05/21/15

What Does Blumenthal Know About Obama?

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

It appears that Hillary Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal has a network of military and intelligence connections that made him anathema to the Obama White House. Blumenthal must know something about Obama that kept him from getting a State Department job under Hillary.

Congress has the power to compel Blumenthal to testify in public about how he collected intelligence information on Obama and other matters for the use of Mrs. Clinton, before and during the time she was Secretary of State.

The New York Times reports that when Clinton was Secretary of State, she used Blumenthal as an unofficial adviser and sent his memos to “senior diplomatic officials” about such topics as Libya. Blumenthal’s contacts included Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former CIA spy, among others, the paper said. It appears some of them were trying to do business in Libya.

The CIA spy was identified as Tyler Drumheller, described by the paper as “a colorful former Central Intelligence Agency official.”

In the course of reporting this information, the Times said that Blumenthal “had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama…” But why? This question goes unanswered.

It might have something to do with how Blumenthal gained access to information and who else might have gotten access to the same information.

As the Times notes, it appears that the Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer” breached Blumenthal’s email account and discovered correspondence he sent to Mrs. Clinton. Some of this material had to do with business in Libya. A story about this correspondence ran in Gawker and Pro Publica under the headline, “Leaked Private Emails Reveal Ex-Clinton Aide’s Secret Spy Network.” The story said that some of the memos were marked “confidential” and relied in many cases on “sensitive” sources inside the Libyan opposition, in addition to Western intelligence and security services.

The publication Slate has a series of questions that need to be asked of Hillary about Blumenthal, his relationship with Hillary, and his controversial connections.

One of the proposed questions: “Did you ever consider hiring Sidney Blumenthal as an employee in your State Department? And, if so, did the Obama administration block such a move, as has been reported? Did the White House know that he provided you with unofficial advice nonetheless?”

Again, the question is why the Obama White House reportedly blocked Blumenthal from working in the State Department.

I think we know the answer, and it has nothing to do with business in Libya or anywhere else: Blumenthal had the goods on Obama’s mysterious past and controversial communist connections that made him susceptible to blackmail by foreign agents and interests.

When Hillary Clinton was running against Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Blumenthal was acting as a Hillary adviser and circulated a memorandum about Obama’s communist connections. The political left was shocked.

In a May 9, 2008 column in The Huffington Post, Peter Dreier, the E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics at Occidental College in California, complained that Blumenthal had “circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website” that was entitled, “Obama’s Communist Mentor.” I was the author.

This was, of course, the column about Obama’s relationship with Communist Party operative Frank Marshall Davis.

The column was completely accurate, but Dreier tried his best to play down the revelations. He wrote:

“The Kincaid article that Blumenthal circulated sought to discredit Obama by linking him to an African-American poet and writer whom Obama knew while he was in high school in Hawaii. That writer, Frank Marshall Davis, was, Kincaid wrote, a member of the Communist Party. Supported by no tangible evidence, Kincaid claimed that Obama considered his relationship to Davis to be ‘almost like a son.’ In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote about meeting, during his teenage years, a writer named ‘Frank’ who ‘had some modest notoriety once’ and with whom he occasionally discussed poetry and politics. From this snippet, Kincaid weaves an incredulous tale that turns Davis into Obama’s ‘mentor.’”

It appears that Dreier was only one among many on the left who received this information, but he was the only person who went public and attempted to discredit it.

Notice how Dreier attempts to play down the substantial evidence of the relationship by using terms like “no tangible evidence” and an “incredulous tale.” At the same time, Dreier was astonished that “a self-professed liberal operative like Blumenthal” had been circulating “anti-Obama attacks” from “highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources.”

It must not have occurred to Dreier that the information being distributed by Blumenthal was accurate and had been verified by Hillary’s associates. It would appear that Blumenthal had the connections necessary to verify that kind of information—and perhaps to add some more important details to it.

Blumenthal’s contacts included that “colorful” former CIA spy, Tyler Drumheller, who “served as the CIA’s top spy—the division chief for the Directorate of Operations (DO)—in Europe until he retired in 2005.” It’s safe to say that Drumheller was well-positioned to have knowledge of intelligence operations throughout the world, then and now.

Considering that we now know that Blumenthal had military and intelligence connections, it is likely that Blumenthal had the information about Obama’s communist connections in Hawaii and Chicago checked out and verified. He would have concluded that the Davis connection to Obama was enough to disqualify the then-senator from Illinois from the White House.

Dreier used the terms “fervently hard-right” and “highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources,” in order to discredit the information. But the original revelation about Davis came from a left-wing source, Marxist historian Gerald Horne. He had spilled the beans about Obama’s mentor “Frank” being Frank Marshall Davis, a notorious communist with a 600-page FBI file.

The Davis material circulated by Blumenthal was just one tidbit of negative material that Dreier says had been circulating against Obama almost every day over a six-month period during the 2008 campaign, This material, he complained, “attacks Obama’s character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations.”

It looks like Blumenthal recognized that the Frank Marshall Davis relationship to Obama was real political dynamite and something that could sink the candidate. If Blumenthal had confirmed all of this—and he might have even had more damaging information—we have to wonder whether the information was obtained by others for possible use as blackmail material against Obama. After all, if a Romanian hacker got access to some of the more sensitive material, it seems at least possible that it was made available to others.

The additional question is why Hillary never used the damaging information against Obama. The answer to that, quite clearly, is that Obama made a deal with Hillary so she could become his Secretary of State. That part of the deal went forward, but when Hillary said she wanted to bring Blumenthal into the State Department as her trusted adviser, somebody in the Obama White House rejected that outright. Hillary may have been told that her job at State was for the taking if she would keep Blumenthal under control. She had to have known that Blumenthal was involved in circulating information about the Obama-Davis connection, since The Huffington Post had publicized it.

Hillary continued to use Blumenthal in an unofficial capacity, collecting information and intelligence on Libya and perhaps many other sensitive topics. Did she use this secret spy network to gather intelligence on Obama himself? That question is far more important than whether Blumenthal had friends who did business in Libya.

The New York Times reported that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, planned to subpoena Blumenthal, “for a private transcribed interview.” Reuters now reports that the subpoena has been served, demanding that Blumenthal appear before the House committee on June 3 to give a deposition.

Under no circumstances, however, should this be conducted in private and behind closed doors. The American people are entitled to hear the truth in an open and public setting.

What did Blumenthal know about Obama? And when did he know it?

05/3/15

The Continuity of Government – The Mystery of Peters Mountain

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Hat Tip: Trapper Pettit

A friend sent me an article from Zero Hedge that I find intriguing and it raises far more questions than answers.

I did not know that there was something called a PreparAthon held by FEMA on April 30th. Did you? Supposedly the nationwide drills are for – get this – the catastrophic consequences of global warming. Right. Sure it is. I suspect that propagandic line is for the rubes, when in fact what the feds fear the most is an EMP attack or a massive cyber attack. DHS was just all abuzz over this drill evidently.

But what caught my attention, was the movement and inclusion of activities around a real underground bunker north of Charlottesville, Virginia on Peters Mountain. This not-so-secret bunker may just be the hidey-hole for feds and our nation’s intelligence operations when the Schumer hits the fan. It is the perfect bunker to protect those elitists and power mongers that matter, while everyday America devolves into barbarity and the die-off begins.

Meanwhile, FEMA and DHS held their PreparAthon aimed at severe weather events due to climate change. Talk about a massive waste of money… unless of course those exercises provide cover for drills for threats of a much more serious and dire nature. Preparations for continuity of government and all that entails once the barbarians breach our gates for real.

Would it surprise anyone that the government was stocking their bunkers and preparing for the worst? With nationwide riots, escalating nuclear threats, imminent global war, ISIS terrorist cells planted in every state, the growing threat of crippling cyber attacks and the all too real EMP catastrophe looming, it’s a virtual certainty that the government is preparing to save their own and ensure that they can continue to rule the roost even if the roost is devastated.

These massive preparations include our intelligence agencies – can’t go on existing without spies, now can we? I first learned of Peters Mountain from author and friend, Trapper Pettit and his fantastic book The Osprey Vendetta. Hugely entertaining, but aside from a great read, Peters Mountain was woven into the storyline in that series of books as well.

For the very first time this year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence made public that it would partake in the PreparAthon employing something vaguely named the National Intelligence Emergency Management Activity (NIEMA). The Director of National Intelligence merely describes NIEMA as providing “the framework, platforms, and systems to enable the Director of National Intelligence to lead an integrated and resilient [intelligence community] enterprise capable of sustaining the ‘intelligence cycle’ under any crisis or consequence management event, both at our headquarters and at our alternate operating locations.” Peters Mountain anyone? I highly doubt the DNI is shaking in his spiffy boots over climate change – but there is a whole host of real threats overshadowing the US that make preparation and fortification of utmost importance to spooks.

From Zero Hedge:

But job descriptions, contracting documents, insider resumes, and furtive discussions with Washington sources reveal that this little-known “activity” is a $100-million-a-year disaster playpen. At its 24/7/365 Response Operations Center (at a classified location), watch officers provide what’s referred to as “situational awareness and crisis support” to the nation’s leaders; and when that fails, they evacuate to their classified alternate facility, which sources say is in Albemarle County in central Virginia.

There is really only one candidate—a mysterious facility atop Peters Mountain, roughly 16 miles east of Charlottesville—and it’s undergone a $61 million plus renovation since 2007.

What follows are some intriguing photos of Peters Mountain. This is property owned by AT&T, but it is government land. Oh, so many questions there… Not only has AT&T leaked our private conversations and information to the government, they are fully in bed with them as this would seem to most certainly attest to. On top of the mountain, on a helicopter pad, is the AT&T logo for the world and Google to see.

The plot of land is strangely listed as “vacant residential land” of no value. However, it does belong to AT&T. Land with no value that has had 10’s of millions of dollars of improvements over the last several years. Hmmmm.

Zero Hedge points out that the building permits submitted since 2007 amount to $61,124,583.00 for interior and exterior alterations, including the building of the helicopter pad, a new bunker entrance, “alteration to interior spaces” and installation of two new satellite dishes.

I would say it is safe to assume that this property is something ‘other’ than residential and houses something deep inside. Why else would you need a bunker entrance? There are also a number of other buildings on the property along with a rather large parking lot. Just what is AT&T and the government up to?

Google and Bing each have satellite views of the mountain top, showing the same structures and the progress of construction since 2007. And I find these pictures just fascinating. On the right hand side you can see the parking lot and the bunker entrance. The two large building like structures could be air purification installments and ventilation. Just a guess. The structure must be buried deep within the mountain to protect from bombing etc. Dirt is an excellent protector. Although it doesn’t sport an outwardly military appearance, it reeks of it.

The two large structures on top of the mountain, to the left of the helicopter pad, are assumed to be vent stacks and hardened power and communications antennae. Two satellite dishes added after 9/11 are also now apparent, suggesting autonomous and enduring communications. Starting to get that ‘military’ feel yet?

Consider the Mormon’s Granite Mountain Vault for document storage and how massive that is. You might also want to consider Perpetual Storage Inc.’s vault in Utah as well, which houses computer equipment, digital records, etc. Neither of these are set up as actual living bunkers. The scale inside Peters Mountain must be massive to provide for human living, food storage and growth, waste elimination, supplies of water and electricity, computer processing, medical provisions, defense provisions, etc. for hundreds, if not thousands, of people

There is nothing that refers to NIEMA, the DNI or the intelligence community on record in that county. But of all the places that could hold hardened fortification, Peters Mountain more than fits the bill. Sources, according to Zero Hedge and Gawker, describe the national Warning, Alert and Mobilization System (WAMS) which would alert a select group of civilian executives from across the intelligence community to deploy to the bunker. The alert would come from “The Communicator” Automated Notification System and would take two forms: alerts for everyone and alerts for the “core” participants. Because Washington is notorious for traffic congestion, those so-called core participants, those who have to move away from Washington within minutes of notification, would congregate and board helicopters which would take them to the bunker.

Gawker even sent a driver to go up the road on the mountain. But when he encountered a “Road Closed – No Trespassing – Private Property” sign, he decided he would go no further. I guess he didn’t want to be shot or arrested.

It appears to me that exercises at this bunker occur frequently and that along with Mount Weather, Raven Rock and the Olney bunkers, it’s stocked, primed and ready at a moment’s notice for those who would be fortunate enough to be invited in should the very worst happen.

Yep, I know this is the stuff of conspiracy theories… but ask yourself, with everything that is happening in America, do you honestly believe our government isn’t providing an escape plan for our so-called select leaders? Peters Mountain raises far more questions with me than answers. But the aerial footage is pretty self-explanatory to an extent and even their work permits specified a ‘bunker entrance.’ It doesn’t get much more obvious than that.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has looked around and has noticed the government buying up food and weaponry, as well as supplies, etc. I keep wondering why the hurry? Do they know something we don’t? Why is the Fed fortifying its building in Chicago? And the kicker… NORAD just returned to Cheyenne Mountain. In a refreshing twist, NORAD comes right out and says it is because of the EMP threat.

From NewsMax:

“Why the return?” write Henry F. Cooper and Peter Vincent Pry. “Because the enormous bunker in the hollowed-out mountain, built to survive a Cold War-era nuclear conflict, can also resist an electromagnetic-pulse attack, or EMP.”

While the Pentagon is moving to shield its global air defense command from being knocked out by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, the Obama administration has failed to act on urgent recommendations to protect the country’s civilian electronic infrastructure from a similar catastrophe, they write.

“An EMP strike, most likely from the detonation of a nuclear weapon in space, would destroy unprotected military and civilian electronics nationwide, blacking out the electric grid and other critical infrastructure for months or years,” Cooper and Pry write.

“The staggering human cost of such a catastrophic attack is not difficult to imagine.”

The likeliest source of such an attack would be North Korea or Iran, according to Cooper, former director of the Strategic Defense Initiative, launched by the late President Ronald Reagan, and Pry, executive director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security and a veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Iran is a nuclear-ready state with ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States now, Cooper, Pry and and two other Reagan administration alumni wrote in an op-ed for Newsmax in February.

In the Journal, Cooper and Pry reiterate that “Iran should be regarded as already having nuclear missiles capable of making an EMP attack against the U.S.,” noting, “Iran and North Korea have successfully orbited satellites on South-Polar trajectories that appear to practice evading U.S. missile defenses, and at optimum altitudes to make a surprise EMP attack.”

So, consider this… if the military fears an EMP from Iran (or Russia or China) and is prepping like hell for it, why is our President striking deals with them? That’s treasonous in my book. These same leaders who make fun of bloggers warning on the power grid and its vulnerabilities and preppers who preach preparedness, are the same leaders who won’t harden the electric grid and take it off the Internet where it is vulnerable, while prepping bunkers where they can run to when it all goes south. Sounds to me as if the elitists are all for the continuity of government and the fall of America… right into the clutches of a global government construct.

05/3/15

Marxist Democrats and the Return of the Hanoi Lobby

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The main failure by top Republicans—and even many conservatives—is that they do not challenge President Obama as the Marxist he is, and they have no coherent alternative to his strategic plan of supporting America’s enemies.

Reflecting the current mindset—that Obama is just a misguided liberal—Republican strategist Karl Rove failed to anticipate or understand the nature of the growing anti-Obama movement, and the potential it holds. He had predicted the GOP would pick up only six seats in the House, when the Republicans picked up 14 seats. He had predicted that Republican would win the Senate with 51 seats, when the actual figure turned out to be 54.

Republicans like Rove do not understand the nature of the Democratic Party and how it has been taken over by Marxist forces. He had advised Republicans in 2008 and 2012 not to refer to Obama as a socialist. However, grassroots conservatives increasingly understand the dangers we are facing.

The 40th anniversary of the end of United States military involvement in Vietnam—and the 50th anniversary of the start of that U.S. military involvement—provide an opportunity to understand how the Democratic Party has changed. During that 10-year period, 1965-1975, more than 58,000 Americans sacrificed and died to save that country from communism.

Today, with the help of the Republican leadership, President Obama is trying to wrap up a Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that includes communist Vietnam, a dictatorship with the blood of those Americans on its hands, which has no respect for the human rights of its own people. Interestingly, Obama is trying to sell the agreement as a counter to China’s influence throughout the world. He wants us to believe that China and Vietnam somehow differ on their common objective of achieving world communism at the expense of America’s standing as the leader of what used to be the Free World.

Both countries would gladly welcome the U.S. to help pay to accelerate the growth of their socialist economies and expand their markets.

Vietnam would be free today except for a Democratic-controlled Congress that decided otherwise. Lewis Fanning’s excellent book, Betrayal in Vietnam, notes that “…it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it.” Fanning writes, “It was not until after the United States elections in the fall of 1974 that North Vietnamese field commanders received the go-ahead in their plans to conquer South Vietnam. As a result of the Watergate scandals, the Democrats had gained forty-three seats in the House. This liberal victory meant that in the 94th Congress there would be 291 Democrats and only 144 Republicans. In the Senate, the Democrats had gained three seats and the lineup was now 61 Democrats to 39 Republicans. This leftward shift of both congressional chambers played a significant role in the North Vietnamese decision to unleash its army.”

Going through the provisions of various bills offered by Democrats in Congress, he presents the case that “A Democratic caucus of the Congress of the United States, aided and abetted by a few liberal Republicans, cast the South Vietnamese people into Communist slavery.”

That left-wing caucus, Members of Congress for Peace through Law, decided that American military involvement would end, and dramatically reduced aid to the government of South Vietnam. Republican President Gerald Ford, who took power after Richard Nixon’s resignation, understood that Congress would not provide enough assistance to keep the country free of communism. Hundreds of thousands of “boat people” tried to escape the Hanoi communists who took power in Saigon while the communist Khmer Rouge took power in neighboring Cambodia, eliminating almost two million people.

The Members of Congress for Peace through Law eventually grew to became the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest group of congressional members within the Democratic Party. This faction is the subject of Trevor Loudon’s book, The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the US Congress, which is now being made into a major film.

The only Senate member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is Vermont’s “independent” Senator Bernie Sanders, who has just announced he is running for president. It is telling that Sanders, an open socialist who collaborated with the communists through the Soviet-run U.S. Peace Council, thinks he has sufficient stature and credibility within the party to rally the “progressives.”

Sanders worked closely with the communist fronts which were busy in the 1980s trying to undermine President Ronald Reagan’s peace-through-strength policies toward the Soviet Union.

As we have noted, the name of Bernie Sanders, then identified as former mayor of Burlington, Vermont, even showed up on a list of speakers at a 1989 U.S. Peace Council event to “end the Cold War” and “fund human needs.” Other speakers at the U.S. Peace Council event included Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan; Gunther Dreifahl of the East German “Peace Council;” Jesse Jackson aide Jack O’Dell; and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) official Zehdi Terzi.

In 1981, the Soviet-front U.S. Peace Council held its second national conference. Endorsers included Democratic Rep. Danny K. Davis, one of Obama’s associates in Chicago, and David Cortright of a group known as SANE, for the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy.

Rep. Davis got an award from the Communist Party in 2012 and the major media ignored it. Jeremy Segal recorded video of the Democratic Representative getting the communist award—and still the media ignored it

Today Cortright is the Associate Director of Programs and Policy Studies of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, which offers a Ph.D in “Peace Studies.” He is in charge of a conference this week in Washington, D.C. titled, “The Vietnam War Then and Now: Assessing the Critical Lessons.”

The Kroc Institute is named after Joan Kroc, the widow of McDonald’s Corp. founder Ray Kroc. She contributed $69.1 million to establish and support the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

The final conference panel, “The Anti-War Movement: What were the impacts of the anti-war movement?,” includes Cora Weiss and Tom Hayden, supporters of the communist enemy, and Cortright himself, an agent of influence or dupe.

Hayden is probably the best known of the “anti-war” activists, having become “Mr. Jane Fonda” when he married the actress after she posed with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down and kill American pilots over Vietnam. Hayden had personally written a June 4, 1968, “Dear Col. Lao” letter to a North Vietnamese official that ended, “Good fortune! Victory!”

Not surprisingly, Hayden, a member of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) during the 1960s, would later join “Progressives for Obama.”

The Democrats in Congress at that time were working with what became known as the “Hanoi Lobby,” a collection of communist and socialist groups that played a key role in America’s defeat. The remnants of the Hanoi Lobby are active today in such areas as backing Obama’s normalization of relations with and recognition of communist Cuba.

Then, like now, their plan is to work on behalf of enemies of the United States. Although they usually call themselves “anti-war” peace activists, they don’t seem to be concerned about wars started by anti-American regimes and movements which undermine U.S. interests. The Sanders candidacy will help smoke them out.

Ironically, Sanders is opposing Obama’s Asia trade agreement, largely because Big Labor is against it, while top Republicans in the House and Senate are trying to round up enough votes to approve fast track trade promotion authority for Obama and then pass the agreement itself. These are the same Republicans who have been complaining that Obama has assumed too much executive authority.

It seems as if the Republicans never learn. Or else they don’t want to.

04/22/15

The Betrayal Papers, Part VI: The Chicago Connection

Muslim Brotherhood Control of US Govt

This, the sixth and final installment of The Betrayal Papers, will explore various projects, schemes, and associations that tie Obama and his associates together. A preponderance of these project are based out of Chicago, the crossroad of the global Left, Islamic “civilization jihad,” and the Communist mafia. The themes to observe in each case are deception, greed, and power.

To have any chance to retain our freedoms and personal safety, we must recognize the depth of the treason from within; we must name the perpetrators and conquer them before they end America.

But first, three profiles of key Obama operatives, and one Maurice Strong.

Rahm Emanuel

As Obama’s initial Chief-of-Staff, Emanuel wielded considerable power during Obama’s early years in office, being the de facto gatekeeper to Obama. A former Clinton man, Emanuel ultimately clashed with Valerie Jarrett, leading to his departure from Washington, D.C. and return home to Chicago. Since being elected mayor (a bid supported by Obama & Co.), Emanuel has faithfully served to keep a lid on a number of Chicago-centric scandals that would damage, perhaps fatally, the credibility of the administration.

  • Rahm Emanuel is a seasoned political operative in Democrat circles. He served as Bill Clinton’s Senior Advisor for six years, from 1993 through 1998, and three terms as a Congressman from Chicago in the House of Representatives, from 2003-2009.
  • During his service with the Clinton administration, Emanuel was part of the failure of Hillarycare, the forerunner to Obamacare.
  • Emanuel also served on the board of directors at Freddie Mac during the time of the major Democrat fundraising scandal involving Freddie Mac.
  • Emanuel has two brothers, equally influential in their own right. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is a Harvard-educated bioethicist and one of the main architects of the Obamacare legislation and effort to pass it. He is the individual most associated with the term “death panels.” In 2014, Dr. Emanuel authored an infamous essay about the virtues of dying by the age of 75.
  • Ari Emanuel is a Hollywood “superagent” who represents liberal actors (including Ben Affleck and Matt Damon).
  • Despite Rahm Emanuel’s bona fides as a connected Democrat who is willing to play dirty, Emanuel could not withstand the force of Obama’s Senior Advisor, Valerie Jarret. The two clashed, with Jarrett emerging victorious, and Emanuel heading back to Chicago to run for mayor.
  • Once safely back in Chicago, Emanuel ran for mayor and was supported by the Obama administration. In 2011, he replaced the corrupt Richard Daley. He was reelected in 2015 for a second term, again with administration support.
  • It is remarkable that the litany of scandals involving Obama and Chicago seem to have dried up since Rahm Emanuel became mayor. Indeed, the administration has a friend and ally at the top of the Windy City pyramid.

Eric Holder

As Attorney General, Eric Holder has served the role of Obama’s pit bull. Holder’s Department of Justice has elevated racial agitation to a high art, political correctness to an Orwellian contact sport, and gun control into a religion. His fingerprints are all over the administration’s various scandals, from Fast and Furious to Ferguson. Like other administration officials, Holder’s history and actions portray a man dedicated to overthrowing Constitutional government.

  • Eric Holder was born in the Bronx, New York in 1951. He attended Stuyvesant High School, Columbia University, and received a JD from Columbia Law School in 1976.
  • In 1970, then-Freshman Holder participated in a five-day “armed takeover” of Columbia University’s Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters.
  • During the Clinton administration, Holder was the Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno. He had a reputation as fiercely anti-Second Amendment, and in 1995 even advocated “brainwash[ing] people” (i.e., children) against guns.
  • In February 2009, shortly after being sworn in as Attorney General, Holder called America a “nation of cowards” for not discussing racial issues enough for his approval.
  • In November 2009, Holder proposed holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 attacks) in New York City. This never occurred due to a backlash from the public. Deaf to the concerns of citizens, in 2014 Holder reiterated that his position would have been the “right decision.”
  • While Holder clearly believes law-abiding American citizens should not own guns, he had no problem arming murderous drug cartels. The Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives, and ultimately Eric Holder’s Justice Department, were behind the crazy idea of arming Mexican drug cartels with hundreds of automatic weapons without tracking devices. The Fast and Furious program resulted in the deaths of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of innocent Mexicans and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
  • In 2012, Eric Holder became the first Attorney General in American history to be held in contempt by the House of Representatives, resulting from his refusal to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal.
  • Holder’s Justice Department has suspiciously scrubbed any mention of “Islam” or “Muslims” from counterterrorism training.
  • Whether it was in Florida or Missouri, when black teenagers were killed by gunfire in self-defense, Eric Holder, along with race-baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, were there to stir up emotion. In both cases, the shooters (George Zimmerman and Officer Darren Wilson, respectively), were initially threatened with civil rights charges from Holder’s DOJ; this, despite Zimmerman being found not guilty by a jury, and Wilson being no-billed by a grand jury.
  • Holder is a proponent of lighter sentencing, shorter mandatory minimums, and generally freeing criminals from prison.
  • Holder approved illegal wiretapping/eavesdropping of the American press, including Fox News and the Associated Press.
  • Journalist Sharyl Attkisson was driven out of CBS News for her inquisitive reporting on Benghazi. In January 2015, Attkisson accused Holder’s Department of Justice of illegally accessing her computer to exfiltrate files related to her investigations.
  • Holder’s DOJ has also been instrumental in forcing local communities to accept mosque construction. According to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum, mosque construction is the first step in Muslim colonization.
  • For several years until just recently, Holder held a “sword of Damocles” over General David Petraeus’s head, intending to silence his criticism of Obama’s disastrous Middle East policy. Petraeus was under investigation and being threatened with felony charges in connection with an affair he had with a biographer, with whom he allegedly shared classified documents.

David Axelrod

David Axelrod was born in New York City in 1955, the son of two Communists (described by David as “leftist Democrats”). His mother, Myril Bennett, worked for a Communist-infiltrated newspaper, New York-based “PM.” His father, Josef Axelrod, was a psychologist and member of the Communist Party USA. It is for these reasons that Axelrod has been described as a “red diaper baby.”

  • Every tyrant has his propagandist. The propagandist spins lies from half-truths, and the bigger the lies, the better. For candidate Obama to get elected to political office, indeed for Obama to rise to the Presidency so quickly and without any qualifying credentials, he needed the expert public relations advice of a seasoned spin-doctor and manipulator of public opinion. This was Axelrod.
  • After attending high school at the prestigious Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan (his years there overlapped Eric Holder’s) Axelrod entered the University of Chicago in 1972. Following his graduation, he worked as a journalist for the Chicago Tribune.
  • Axelrod first met Obama in 1992 through Project Vote, a community-organizing program directed by Obama which dramatically increased black voter turnout.
  • In 2002, Axelrod went to work for Barack Obama as a political consultant, just prior to his run for the U.S. Senate. The early Obama team was in place.
  • Just prior to the 2008 Presidential campaign, Axelrod, along with Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett, were involved in a “patient dumping” scandal at University of Chicago Hospital. In 2007, through something called the “Urban Health Initiative,” the “non-profit” hospital made more than $100 million. The scheme worked by “redirecting” indigent patients to other hospitals, and thus reserving the beds at University of Chicago Hospital for fully-insured patients.

Maurice Strong

Maurice Strong is the Canadian billionaire at the center of the United Nations’ plan for “sustainable development.”   One of the lead proponents of Agenda 21, this would-be environmental totalitarian made much of his fortune due to a special deal with the Canadian government. In reality, Strong is an oil tycoon who is using his connections to governments, George Soros, and the United Nations to advance an international regulatory regime that would practically end human freedom as we know it.

  • In 1976, Canada’s socialist Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, asked Strong to head the newly- formed national oil company, PetroCanada. He leveraged his success at PetroCanada and went on to assume the Chairmanship of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, “the holding company for some of Canada’s principal government-owned resources.”
  • Prior to striking it rich through Trudeau, Strong was the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environmental Program, UNEP.
  • Conceived in 1992, Agenda 21 is an international program for so-called “sustainable development.” As the principal figure in Agenda 21, Strong’s ambitions are bluntly totalitarian. They seek to dictate the minutia of daily life ranging from automobile ownership, through how an individual can use his or her private property, to the inclusion of such restrictive ideas in school curricula for the purposes of indoctrinating children.
  • One of Strong’s primary partners in Agenda 21 is none other than George Soros, who has donated millions to implement the agenda on local and municipal levels.
  • For the record, Obama benefactor Nadhmi Auchi’s holdings in BNP Paribas put him in the orbit of Strong, a fellow energy magnate.

The Chicago Connection

Notwithstanding the intricacies and nuances of Middle Eastern politics and tribal blood feuds, Chicago, by comparison, is a microcosm of parallel intrigue. For it is through this Midwestern city that Obama’s personal connections come together in a variety of tangled ways.

ACORN, Low Income Housing, and ShoreBank

Description: ACORN is a progressive community-organizing group which, through advocacy and politics, was instrumental in forcing banks to lower mortgage lending standards. This not only contributed to the housing bubble; it also enabled ShoreBank, a small Chicago-based community bank, to profit from these loans.*

Players involved: Obamas, Clintons, Valerie Jarrett, Tony Rezko.

  • Obama was once an attorney for ACORN, and Tony Rezko and Valerie Jarrett are both intimately involved in low income housing in Chicago.
  • Various associates of the Clintons and the Obamas were connected to ShoreBank. When the housing bubble burst, the Obama administration – in particular, Valerie Jarrett – helped to organize and steer not only government money but also Goldman Sachs capital into the crony coffers of ShoreBank.

* Note: ShoreBank failed in 2010, and following an acquisition, is now known as Urban Partnership Bank.

Chicago Red City

Chicago, the urban hub of the Midwest, was, through much of the 20th century, also Communist central.   The city was home to the tireless Communist Frank Marshall Davis, a primary mentor of Barack Obama. In Chicago, an intricate latticework of labor movements, civil rights organizations, and newspapers all carried the Soviet line, recruiting fellow travelers and useful idiots who helped advance the cause of their Soviet utopia.

Players involved: Barack Obama, Frank Marshall Davis, Valerie Jarrett, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, David Axelrod.

  • In the middle of the Chicago web is Valerie Jarrett and her family’s association with the Communists. Jarrett’s grandfather, Robert Taylor, and her former father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, were willing tools of Soviet Russia’s operation in the United States. As noted in Part V, the journalist Vernon Jarrett worked with Frank Marshall Davis.
  • There are in the Jarrett orbit two other individuals who figure prominently into Obama’s political career. David Axelrod (whose ties with CPUSA are detailed above) took a job as a political consultant to Obama in 2002, prior to his run for U.S. Senate. Jarrett and Axelrod met Obama at approximately the same time (approximately 1992).
  • Jarrett and Axelrod began their political union through their common devotion to Chicago Mayor Harold Washington. Washington, Communist sympathizer, was backed by the Democratic Socialists of America, the same Communist-linked party that supported Barack Obama.
  • Jarrett’s connection to Bill Ayers, the terrorist who launched Obama’s political career, is more intimate. In 1966, Jarrett’s mother, Barbara Bowman, founded the Erikson Institute, a graduate school in child development. Thomas Ayers, Bill’s father, served on the Board of the Erikson Institute, as did Bill Ayer’s’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn.

The Chicago Climate Exchange

Description: The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a carbon credit exchange that purports to help the environment by helping to cap carbon emissions and providing a platform on which they can be traded. In reality, the CCX monetizes capped “carbon emissions” and gives financial value to the carbon credits.

If you’ve ever wondered why it is that the myth of global warming/climate change persists despite an avalanche of empirical evidence against it, it is for one reason alone: personal enrichment of a clique of no-growth frauds and liars. Once carbon emission caps are passed into law in the United States or through a treaty via the United Nations, the value of carbon credits will increase exponentially.

The scale of this operation could potentially rival the total existing financial derivatives market and be valued in the trillions of dollars.

Players involved: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Al Gore, George Soros, John Podesta, John Ayers (brother of Bill), Maurice Strong, Nadhmi Auchi, Henry Paulson, ShoreBank (major shareholder), Franklin Raines (disgraced former Fannie Mae head).

  • In 2001, the Joyce Foundation funded Bill Ayers’ brother, John Ayers, to found the CCX. (Recall that the Ayers family has a history in power generation.)
  • Obama was on the Board of Joyce at this time (1994-2002). Valerie Jarret was also on the Board of the Joyce Foundation, a position she assumed in 2002.
  • Goldman Sachs, which was instrumental in the bailout of ShoreBank, is also a partner in CCX.
  • Also connected to the CCX are George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, Bill Ayers, Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and Nadhmi Auchi. This story is worthy on its own of a book-length treatment. For the sake of brevity, a few highlights and key connections will be established to show an array of characters, from progressives to members of the Muslim Brotherhood, are part of the Obama nexus.
  • Another investment company involved with CCX was Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management (GIM). In the case of Gore, his connections to Qatar, the Gulf State home of the Muslim Brotherhood, are apropos. When climate crusader Gore liquidated his failed television station CurrentTV, he sold it to the Qataris so they could begin airing Al Jazeera America. Qatar, an energy-rich nation (possessing the world’s third-largest natural gas reserves), has a vested interest in hobbling America’s domestic energy extraction and production. It is no coincidence that Qatar hosts climate change conferences.
  • Approximately one year ago the White House, in particular the Soros-run Center for American Progress-connected John Podesta, launched an out-of-the-blue push for climate change legislation. What went unreported at the time was that in the middle of this aggressive effort, Podesta met with a Qatari delegation in Washington.
  • Finally, the mysterious Auchi, who snapped up the Pentagon’s power contracts in post-war Iraq, figures into the picture with fellow billionaire Maurice Strong. Strong’s former company, Canada’s Power Corporation, happens to be the center of its own web of power, connected to the United Nations, BNP Paribas (where Auchi was a major shareholder), in the highest echelons of Canadian government. Strong was a Board member on the CCX.

The Cult of Subud

What could tie together the Muslim Brotherhood, the infiltration of American intelligence agencies, an undeclared war to establish the Caliphate, a genocide and annihilation of Christian history, enormous financial benefit to a corrupt political and financial elite, and a president whose own history is more shadowy than moonlit forest?

In the case of Barack Hussein Obama, the evidence points to a little-known Islamic cult: Subud.

Players involved: Barack Obama, Stanley Ann Dunham, George Soros, Maurice Strong, Loretta Fuddy.

  • Subud was founded in Indonesia in the 1920s by Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo, who claimed to have “received a series of intense and electrifying spiritual experiences that gave him an inner contact with a Higher Power.”
  • Subuh took the title “Bapak,” Indonesian for “respected father.” In developing Subud, Subuh was influenced early on by a British military intelligence officer named John G. Bennett, who had traveled extensively in the Middle East.
  • Though hardly a household name, Subud is not obscure.  It has entries in the Encyclopedia of Islam, The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, and has had consultative status with the United Nations since 1989.  There are Subud chapters all around the world, including in New York City, in close proximity to Washington, D.C., as well as in Hawaii and Chicago.
  • The central teaching of Subud is a process called latihan, which they describe as the “reappearance of a primordial Power hidden within human beings and all creatures.”  Although latihan is non-denominational, and although Subud has members of all faiths, Subuh was a Muslim, and many Subud members celebrate Ramadan.  Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the movement actively engages in interfaith activities.  Moreover, conversion to Islam is not uncommon among Subud members.
  • Subud has been a persistent theme in Obama’s life.  His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a member of Subud, a fact mentioned in her biography.  An official 2011 Subud Voice newsletter features an article about and a picture of Stanley Ann and Barack.  Moreover, an immigration document from 1968, an application filled out by Stanley Ann Dunham to extend her 1965 passport for an additional two years, has the name “Soebarkah” appended to Obama’s name.  It is speculated that “Soebarkah” was young Obama’s Subud name.  (Members of the movement routinely take a Subud name.)
  • Subud also has an incredible connection to the ongoing birth certificate controversy.  Following Donald Trump’s vociferous calls with an offer of $50 million for its public release in 2011, the State of Hawaii made available Obama’s certificate of live birth (not, as they termed it, his long form birth certificate).  The woman who verified and approved the release of the document was Hawaii’s State Health Director, Loretta Fuddy.
  • Fuddy was Chairwoman of Subud USA, based in Seattle, from 2006-2008.  Consistent with Obama’s mysterious moniker Soebarkah, Fuddy’s Subud name was “Deliana.”  Fuddy, prior to her appointment to the Hawaii Department of Health, co-authored (with two others) a paper which was published out of the University of Illinois at Chicago – the university where faculty lounge politics are under the sway of Professor Bill Ayers.
  • In December, 2013 Fuddy was killed when her plane went down off the coast of Hawaii. The entire crash was captured on video.  Fuddy was the only fatality of the eight people on the plane.
  • Finally, this treatment of Subud would not be complete without at least a mention of the Central Intelligence Agency.  Part I of The Betrayal Papers noted that the CIA actually courted the Muslim Brotherhood into its effort to defeat Soviet Communism.  Was Subud, which is explicitly (see page 13) anti-Communist, a Muslim Brotherhood ally of the CIA in Indonesia?  After graduating from Columbia University, Obama himself was employed by Business International Corp., cited by The New York Times as a CIA-related entity.

The Ties that Bind

What is the glue that ties this motley crew of Obama-connected miscreants together? Here are some additional cross-over points between Obama and his associates.

  • Why would George Soros have such an affinity for an Islamic supremacy and terrorist organization? Soros and the Muslim Brotherhood collaborated with Nazi Germany during their formative years. When it comes to destructive politics in the United States today, from the disregard of the rule of law to the intimidation of political opponents and private citizens, it is obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood has a partner in crime in George Soros.
  • The leftist Joyce Foundation also funds the (Soros) Tides Foundation. There is a myriad of foundations (Joyce, Tides, the Woods Fund, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, etc.) that ultimately fund the same leftist causes. They are an intentional shell game designed by progressives to keep the public in the dark about their motives.
  • Of all the eccentric philanthropic causes, Subud has inexplicably (or not) captured the attention of both George Soros and Maurice Strong.  In 2005, Soros funded Yayasan Usaha Mulia, a Subud humanitarian effort in Indonesia.  Strong, meanwhile, donated land in Colorado to the cult.
  • Is the residual CIA-Muslim Brotherhood alliance against Communism the key to understanding the enigmatic and traitorous Obama?

Conclusion

An ancient proverb states, “The fish rots from the head.” So it is with the corrupt and infiltrated government of the United States. The people, organizations, and schemes mentioned above and throughout this series of articles are not important. They have been named here only to establish their culpability in the attempted and (thus far) successful destruction of the country.

Obama is the head of this rotten fish. He is, as Winston Churchill put it, “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” With each investigation into his personal history, only more questions are unearthed. He appears to be a cutout character rather than a man with a true life history. The only consistency in his story is offered by his associates, all of whom are subversives, many whom are evil.

On one side of him is the Muslim Brotherhood. Every step of the way, the Obama administration has enabled these terrorists to overthrow friendly governments and form jihadi armies. Today the Middle East is more volatile than it has been in a century. There is an ongoing genocide of Christians and other minorities, and a rape of humanity’s common cultural heritage in Mesopotamia.

There now exists a crisis in diplomacy. The Islamic State has effectively dissolved borders, and Washington’s new ally, Iran, is quickly filling the void. America’s traditional allies in the region, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, do not trust Obama or his destructive minion, John Kerry. America’s allies in Europe have truly never been so skeptical of Washington. Relations with Russia have so deteriorated that war threatens.

On the other side of Obama stands a powerful financial cartel led by George Soros. The cartel’s operations are thoroughly intertwined with the Muslim Brotherhood to such an extent that they support and fund global Islamic jihad. Soros and his associates, to coin a phrase, are “stratoscrats;” they answer to no nation’s laws, they operate across borders, and they are the primary actors behind global regulation by the United Nations. These self-appointed masters of the universe purchase and then use sovereign countries for their own gain; the United States is their latest and crowning acquisition.

These two sides have prevented any meaningful economic recovery. A nation’s government is supposed to strengthen the country, but Obama has intentionally done the opposite. We are historically weak right now, while our enemies grow stronger.

A fifth column is operating the government through regulation of the (formerly) private sector, and deep penetration of the intelligence and security services. Even the venerable, powerful, and highly-respected U.S. military has been hobbled by these criminals.

Rome’s greatest statesman, Marcus Tullius Cicero, witnessed the end of the Roman Republic. Before paying with his life, he spoke to the Roman Senate:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

When a country is captured by traitors who write its laws and punish dissenters, it can rightly be regarded as a colony. The people can likewise be regarded not as citizens, but as subjects, or slaves.

In 1776, the Colonists fatefully decided to “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

The situation we face today is imminently dangerous. We are threatened with the loss of our God-given freedoms. Though the cost may be high, the American people can still secure the blessings of liberty. We must. We owe it to posterity.

The Betrayal Papers is a collaborative effort by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, which includes: Andrea Shea King, Dr. Ashraf Ramelah, Benjamin Smith, Brent Parrish, Charles Ortel, William Palumbo, Denise Simon, Dick Manasseri, Gary Kubiak, Gates of Vienna, Hannah Szenes, IQ al Rassooli, Right Side News, Marcus Kohan, Mary Fanning, General Paul E. Vallely, Regina Thomson, Scott Smith, Sharon Rondeau, Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, Colonel Thomas Snodgrass, Trevor Loudon, Wallace Bruschweiler, and William Palumbo.

04/6/15

America’s Progressive Foreign Policy Imperils Her Survival

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

Today the men and women who walk the morally decrepit corridors of the White House and State Department of our Republic-turned-social democracy are aiding, abetting and enabling evil.

We find ourselves at a time in history when all of our foes from Islamic supremacists to the Russians and Chinese are ascendant, while America at best retreats and at worst sides with the most dangerous of them.

Barack Obama delivers his statement on the interim Iran deal. (Image Source: Whitehouse.gov/YouTube screengrab)

Barack Obama delivers his statement on the interim Iran deal. (Image Source: Whitehouse.gov/YouTube screengrab)

Our enemies do not fear or respect us, our allies do not trust us and little indicates that the American people are cognizant of the size and scope of the perils that face us.

We are reliving Winston Churchill’s gathering storm in an era when it is questionable whether the majority of American citizens even know who Churchill is, let alone what he did. Many of those who do likely see him first and foremost as a dead white European male.

And unlike in World War II, today we are challenged by Nazis (insofar as Islamic supremacists are genocidal, Jew (and Christian) hating monsters who seek to dominate the world) and Communists (in their Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping-led manifestations.)

In the face of all this, America’s left exhibits two traits that together are fatal: hubris and ignorance.

Leftists have the hubris to believe that they can and should create a world according to their progressive vision – for the good of the people and their own aggrandizement.

Leftists have the ignorance of history and man’s nature that renders them unable to anticipate the dire consequences of their course.

Underlying their actions is the belief that all people are animated by the same goals and aspirations.

Yet different peoples are different. Evil cannot be appeased or assuaged. The world must be seen as it is, not as we wish it to be.

For those leaders who recognize these realities, yet still refuse to call our enemies by their names, enable their nuclear aspirations, and tolerate their bellicosity from Crimea to the South China Sea and our own shores, the only conclusion one can reach is that such people are cowards or something far worse.

Seen in this light, the support of the removal of secular authoritarian leaders and subsequent conflagration of Sunni and Shiite jihadism in the Middle East is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The Iranian nuclear deal and impending Arab nuclearization is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The galling and unconscionable replacement of Israel by Iran as America’s key partner in the region is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The backing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the omission of Iran and Iran-backed Hezbollah from America’s terror lists, is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The removal, let alone trading of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay for an alleged traitor is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The failure to fulfill our obligation to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The apparent unwillingness to stand with our NATO allies in the wake of further Russian aggression is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The inability to counter the long-term Chinese threat is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

The opening of relations with Communist Cuba is a natural manifestation of progressivism.

These and many other actions should not shock anyone who understands the leftist ethos that America specifically and the West generally has been a force for evil and that redistributive justice is the remedy.

Empowering our enemies and attacking our allies is seen as the “right” thing to do under this perverse Sophistic paradigm.

That each day real headlines and the headlines of The Onion are indistinguishable; that when you routinely find yourself coming to the conclusion that the world has been turned on its head, this is the consequence of progressivism in action.

And progressivism always and everywhere leads to regressive ends.

Where are we heading?

As Dr. Thomas Sowell ominously writes:

Whoever holds that office [the presidency] makes decisions involving the life and death of Americans and — especially if Iran gets a nuclear arsenal — the life and death of this nation. It took just two nuclear bombs — neither of them as powerful as those available today — to get a very tough nation like Japan to surrender.

Anyone familiar with World War II battles in the Pacific knows that it was not unusual for 90 percent of the Japanese troops defending Iwo Jima or other islands to fight to the death, even after it was clear that American troops had them beaten.

When people like that surrender after two nuclear bombs, do not imagine that today’s soft Americans — led by the likes of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton — will fight on after New York and Chicago have been reduced to radioactive ashes.

If this sounds alarmist, simply ask: With what in this statement do you disagree?

What countertrends do you see?

What reason is there to believe that, barring a significant reversal in our country’s academic and cultural institutions, the public is going to stir and demand meaningful change?

Has not political correctness gotten Americans literally killed from Iraq (via suicidal rules of engagement) to Fort Hood (via willful blindness) without a modicum of reflection on what went wrong and how to fix it?

Would an America awake to Barack Obama’s vision have elected him for a second term? Is it prepared to elect a president with the courage and intestinal fortitude to reverse our direction in the face of a craven political class?

So long as the forces of cosmic justice and gravity still exist, continuing on this path can only end in war and poverty.

The question for those of us who believe that America remains the last, best hope on Earth for freedom may not be what we can do to stop these forces, but what we must be prepared to do to survive and rebuild in the face of them.