Mesmerized by the Bear: The Great Soviet Deception

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

Part 1

Part 2

This is a rather prophetic lecture, if you ask me, by Don McAlvany on the false demise of Communism. It was recorded 25 years ago, in 1990, shortly following the fall of the Berlin Wall, which marked the beginning of the Weidervereinigung des Deutschlands (Reunification of Germany).

What I find particularly fascinating about McAlvany’s presentation are his references to KGB defector Anatoliy Golytsin’s book New Lies for Old. I have written previously (see here) about Anatoliy’s Golytsin’s startlingly accurate predictions concerning Soviet plans to deceive the West into believing Communism was dead, and that the Soviet Union was a thing of the past. Golytsin went on to write his second book entitled The Perestroika Deception in 1995.

Most of Golytsin’s predictions have proven true in hindsight. In 1984, when New Lies for Old first hit the bookshelves, Golytsin predicted that the Berlin Wall would be torn down in order to fool the West into believing that the Soviet Union was shattered. What makes Golytsin’s prediction even more eye-opening is the fact he had written the manuscript years before New Lies for Old reached publication.

The Soviets were masters at disinformation and deception. The sophistication of their subversive techniques are breathtaking in scope and audacity. Many in the West have failed to grasp the incredible lengths the Soviets and the KGB were willing to go to in order to deceive and subvert their enemies—namely, the United States and the entire Western world.

Many of the strategies and tactics employed by the Soviets—such as the dialectical and the “two steps forward, one step” back  strategies—are foreign to many Western minds. But a thorough understanding of these strategies is paramount if one hopes to counter them. (You might’ve noticed I’ve switched to the present tense. I’ll get to that.)

Take the dialectical strategy, for example. Without getting into a dissertation on Marxist dialectics, the dialectical strategy entails the manipulation of friend and foe alike—playing both sides of the fence, so to speak. Communists are known for setting up “false opposition” groups in order to control and herd their opposition. Vladimir I. Lenin once said, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” Leading the opposition requires infiltration, also referred to as “controlled opposition.”


Communists are willing to take “one step back” in order to “move two steps forward”; giving a false impression they are in a position of weakness; when, in fact, they are strong. Such a strategy can provide an opportunity to offer “concessions” to the enemy—but only “concessions” that provide the ability to move “two steps forward.” The goal is to goad the enemy into offering real concessions (i.e. compromise), while only offering token concessions that have no real lasting consequences on the long-range strategy of crushing the enemy.

“We advance through retreat … when we are weak, we boast of strength. and when we are strong, we feign weakness.”

—V.I. Lenin


The strategy of feigning weakness in order to lull the enemy into complacency is a rather Machiavellian concept; but it also is derived from the ancient Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu’s maxims on war.

… Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat…. Simulated disorder postulates perfect discipline, simulated fear postulates courage; simulated weakness postulates strength…. Hiding order beneath the cloak of disorder is simply a question of subdivision; concealing courage under a show of timidity presupposes a fund of latent energy; masking strength with weakness is to be effected by tactical dispositions…. Thus one who is skillful at keeping the enemy on the move maintains deceitful appearances, according to which the enemy will act. He sacrifices something, that the enemy may snatch at it…. [“two steps forward, one step back”] By holding out baits, he keeps him on the march; then with a body of picked men he lies in wait for him.

—Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Back in February of 2014, I had the opportunity to sit down with world-renown researcher Trevor Loudon, author of the book Barack Obama and the Enemy Within. He relayed a story to me that left me incredulous, and it ties right into the whole Soviet strategy of feigning weakness.

An ex-Communist friend of Trevor’s from New Zealand actually attended Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning in Moscow. Promising members of the Communist Party, from all over the world, were sometimes offered the opportunity to travel to Russia for further training at the International Lenin Institute, where they learned things like racial agitation, trade union building, every facet of Russian history (albeit selective Russian history)—even training in explosive devices, small arms and guerrilla warfare tactics. Trevor’s friend said that a Soviet official at the Moscow institute told the students the reason the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan was that the Soviet Union needed “their own Vietnam.”

Yes, you read that correctly.

But, if you ever listen to former Soviet officials speak about the Russian experience in Afghanistan, they often times make the comparison to the U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. According to Trevor’s friend, it was all done to feign weakness and lull the West into thinking the Soviet Union wasn’t the military force they purported themselves to be. The fact of the matter is the Soviets could’ve wiped Afghanistan off the map, had they so chosen to do so.

As I drove home from my meeting with Trevor, I could scarcely believe what he had told me. But I began to ponder my own knowledge of Soviet history. The more I thought about what Trevor had told me, the less incredible it seemed.

For example, in the late 30s, the Soviet regime under Josef Stalin was systematically liquidating thousands of Russian citizens every single day. It was known as the “Great Purge.” Stalin’s depraved and blood-thirsty executioner, Lavrenti Beria, oversaw the murder of millions of Russians, and even participated on countless occasions in the executions of his own people.

After war broke out between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, there were numerous incidents of Soviet units being ordered to attack German positions and strongholds in suicidal frontal assaults that resulted in horrific casualties, often numbering in the hundreds or thousands. There are accounts of the dog tags being stripped from the dead in order to cover up the crimes of the Soviet regime. Rarely has there been an example in history of a nation that treated its own war dead with such utter contempt.

So, as I thought more and more about what Trevor had told me, it started to seem quite plausible—if not to be expected from such a morally bankrupt regime. When President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” it was not unwarranted hyperbole. For it is not possible, in words, to describe the horrors and terrors that have been visited upon the Russian people under the Soviet system—and, more than likely, are still being visited upon the Russian people … albeit not at the astonishing levels as was experienced during Stalin’s merciless and bloody reign.

As Don McAlvany points out in his lecture, there had been six periods of “glasnost” dating back to the 20s prior to 1990. During all of the so-called glasnost periods, the United States and the West were duped into believing the Soviets were changing their tune—only to watch the Soviets return to their oppressive and tyrannical ways after securing concessions from the United States. The old dialectical doctrine of “two steps forward, one step back” has proved wildly successful against the United States and its allies, helping to further the Russian strategy for international rule and subversion.


The Soviets (i.e. Communists) employ long-range strategies. Like a master chess player, they think ten steps ahead. Stalin’s henchman Lavrenti Beria said in the early 50s, “Capitalism’s short-term view can never envisage the lengths across which we can plan.” Sadly, the United States has never really formulated long-term strategic goals to counter such threats.

Golytsin predicted the Soviets would put a “happy face” on Communism by calling for “democratic reforms” in Russia, and in the former Soviet republics and Eastern Bloc countries.

Many in the West viewed the chummy meetings between Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan as a clear sign the Cold War was over, and that Soviet-style Communism had been defeated. Talk of glasnost (“openness” or “publicity”) and perestroika (i.e. restructuring, remaking, reforming, regrouping) filled the airwaves and Western press at the time.

Did Mikhail Gorbachev ever renounce Communism? Was he really a reformer who only wished to move Russia toward “democracy”?

Well, that depends on how one defines democracy.

Via MRC:

During the 70th anniversary of the Marxist revolution [in October 1987], Gorbachev reaffirmed his country’s expansionist desires: “In October of 1917, we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a New World, the World of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

Oh, and there’s plenty more of that, from where that came from (hat tip: The Contemplative Observer):

We are for a Lenin who is alive! In building our future we are basing ourselves upon the gigantic intellectual and moral potential of the socialist idea linked with the theory of Marxism-Leninism. We see no rational grounds to give up the spiritual [sic!!!] richness contained in Marxism. Through restructuring [i.e. ‘perestroika’], we want to give socialism a second wind and unveil in all its plenitude [meaning: globally!] the vast humanist potential of the socialist system.” – “In order to achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returns to the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society… Our Party was and remains the Party of Lenin… In short, we are for a Lenin who is alive.” – “We must seek these answers guided by the spirit of Leninism, the style of Lenin’s thinking, and the method of dialectical cognition.”

—Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking to a group of Russian students, Nov. 15, 1989

“Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans, and to let them fall asleep.

—Mikhail Gorbachev, early in his tenure, speaking before the Politburo

The Party has made “specific decisions on how to update our political system”. – “Thus we shall give a fresh impetus to our revolutionary restructuring. We shall maintain our quiet [i.e. Leninist] creativity and daring in an efficient and responsible fashion in a Leninist Bolshevik manner.”

—Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking at the 27th CPSU Congress, March 1986

“Adopting a bold, realistic, mobilising and inspiring strategy, one that is Leninist in spirit, the struggle for the triumph of Communist ideals, of peace and progress, the 27th Congress of the CPSU expresses the Party’s firm determination to honourably follow our great road, and open up new vistas for the creative energy and revolutionary initiative of the… people’s intelligentsia. The Congress calls on all Soviet people to dedicate all their strength, knowledge, ability, and creative enthusiasm to the great goals of Communist construction, and to worthily continue Lenin’s victorious revolutionary cause, the cause of the October Revolution!”

—Mikhail Gorbachev, closing address to the 27th CPSU Congress, March 6, 1986

“Perestroika is a revolutionary process for it is a leap forward in the development of socialism, in the realization of its crucial characteristics.”

—Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987

“What is meant [by the term ‘revolution from above’] is profound and essentially revolutionary changes implemented on the initiative of the authorities themselves but necessitated by objective changes in the situation. It may seem that our current perestroika could be called ‘revolution from above’. True, the perestroika drive started on the Communist Party’s initiative, and the Party leads it. I spoke frankly about it at the meeting with Party activists in Khabarovsk [already!!!] in the summer of 1986. We began at the top of the pyramid and went down to its base, as it were. Yes, the Party leadership started it. The highest Party and state bodies elaborated and adopted the program. True, perestroika is not a spontaneous but a governed process.

—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987

“We openly confess that we refuse the hegemonial endeavours and globalist claims of the United States. We are not pleased by some aspects of American policy and of the American Way of Life. But we respect the right of the American people, just as the right of all other peoples, to live along its own rules and laws, its own morals and inclinations.”

—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987

“Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed.”

—Mikhail Gorbachev:  “Perestroika,” 1987

“We see that confusion has arisen in some people’s minds: aren’t we retreating from the positions of socialism, especially when we introduce new and unaccustomed forms of economic management and public life, and aren’t we subjecting the Marxist-Leninist teaching itself to revision? … No, we are not retreating a single step from socialism, from Marxism-Leninism …

—Mikhail Gorbachev, 1988


Many in the West are also of the belief that the KGB no longer exists. But nothing could be farther from the truth. While no longer called the KGB, the secretive security agency merely restructured (i.e. perestroika), and is now known as the FSB (Russian Federal Security Forces). The FSB is still headquartered in the infamous Lubyanka building in Moscow. The FSB is the KGB.

A little while back, I visited the official FSB website (fsb.ru). I used Google translation services to translate the pages. One link titled “Our Leaders” lists the names of such notorious figures as Felix Dzerzhinsky, Yakov Peters, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Lavrenti Beria, Yuri Andropov … and Vladimir Putin. Remember, the official FSB website lists these individuals as their “leaders.” It doesn’t look like anything has changed to me, as far as the old KGB is concerned, except for the name.

One of the main goals of the Soviets was to eliminate NATO. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the dialectical application of their “two steps forward, one step” back strategy, Moscow hoped to gain concessions from the United States—namely, the dissolution of NATO. But the United States was resistant to the idea of breaking apart the NATO alliance. So, like the saying goes, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”—NATO, that is. Once again … infiltrate and take over from within.

“Russian membership of the Council of Europe will open up intensified new cooperation between Russia and Europe and will assist us in reaching our objectives of achieving membership of the European Union and of NATO.

—Then Russian Foreign Minister, Andrei Kozyrev, after Russia’s admission to the Council of Europe by February 8, 1996

Perhaps one of the most important predictions Anatoliy Golytsin made was his repeated insistence that the purpose of all these subversive tactics was “the establishment of a neutral, socialist Europe” (New Lies for Old, pg. 334).

Enter the European Union.

“The collective security model … should pave the way for a gradual evolutionary synthesis of several processes: integration within the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] and the EU [European Union], strengthening and increasing the role of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, transforming NATO [and] working together to prevent or resolve conflicts.”

—Yuriy Ushakov, Director of the Directorate for European Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry, in International Affairs, Vol. 4, #5 (1995): “Europe: Towards a New Security Model”

Of particular note in the above quote is the reference to “transforming NATO.”

For those who may still be of the opinion that talk of a “one-world government” (i.e. “new world order”) is strictly relegated to the realm of crackpots and so-called “conspiracy theorists,” consider the words of the unelected full-time President of the EU, Herman Van Rompuy, who has openly referenced the agenda for “global governance” on more than one occasion. Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has referred to the European Union as a “pale version of the Soviet Union.”

In 2009, Van Rompuy said:

“2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen, is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

Van Rompuy has also stated his desire to work closely with Russia in order to further the agenda of global governance:

“By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance … to global economic governance in the G8 and the G20.”

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine shows the “Russian Bear” still has its claws. Just today there was a report Russia was reviewing the “legality” of Baltic states’ independence. The level of disinformation coming from Putin’s state-run media machine has reached fever pitch within Russia. The Russian people are being fed a steady and constant diet of hyper-nationalistic and intensely anti-American rhetoric; it resembles a war-time footing.

Ex-Communist turned vocal anti-Communist, Dr. Bella V. Dodd (1904-1969), author of the book School of Darkness, pointed out there are three concepts that are important to differentiate concerning Communism, i.e., the Communist Conspiracy (i.e. “world conspiracy”), the Communist Party (political arm), and the Communist Movement (“social action,” i.e. praxis).

At the heart of Communism lies conspiracy. In order to subvert and deceive, conspiracy is a vital and necessary component. Communists are taught to lie … the predetermined ends always justify the means. Period.

Excerpt from page 24 of John Stormer's book None Dare Call It Treason (1964)

The one thing Communists and their ilk cannot withstand is their strategy and process being exposed. Communism is a form of psychological warfare (i.e. psyops) based on deception. Psyops only work if the party who is being deceived and manipulated is unaware of the tactics being employed against them. In essence, it’s a mind game. This is why it absolutely crucial to understand the dialectic process when it comes to Marxism-Leninism, if one wishes to have any success at countering such subversive and deceitful tactics.

Unfortunately, for many Americans and Westerners, it is still inconceivable that such a conspiracy is, and has been, employed against them. As one long-time and well-known researcher on Russian (i.e. Communist) strategy and tactics, J.R. Nyquist, recently wrote:

This last point is not to be made in polite society, and few are well-informed enough to know something of its validity. For 99 out of 100 persons, it is preferable to believe a lie. As a former British MP once said within my hearing; “Reagan and Thatcher saved the West from socialism.” But a former Russian GRU colonel, sitting across the table, whispered in my ear, “But America is the Marxist paradise.”

If you still find it hard to believe that the U.S.A. is already a “Marxist paradise,” and the world is moving toward global governance (i.e. worldwide socialism), I would encourage you to read the Communist Manifesto. Pay particular note to what has been referred to as the “10 planks of the Communist Manifesto” in Chapter Two. And then ask yourself, how many of these 10 points have already been implemented in the United States? I think, if you’re intellectually honest with yourself, the answer will shock you. And if it’s still too hard to digest and believe, just apply the scientific method: observe, make predictions, test your predictions, and then draw your own conclusion.


Reds, Racism, and Obama

By: Cliff Kincaid
America’s Survival

Professor Gerald Horne, the black scholar who revealed Obama’s personal relationship with Communist Party operative Frank Marshall Davis, is speaking in detail on the record. Professor Horne says that while the relationship is noteworthy and should have been uncovered by the press, there is no evidence that Davis turned Obama “into some sort of Manchurian candidate.” Horne also discusses the Charleston massacre, the killer’s alleged international connections, the history of slavery in the U.S., and whether we need a new Congressional panel to investigate extremism in America, including the Communist Party.


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.


When Partisan Lying by the Press Damages a Nation

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism

The Founders counted on an adversarial press to keep America’s politicians honest and accountable. If our media won’t investigate the backgrounds of our candidates on a bipartisan basis, our entire constitutional system is in jeopardy.

Remember how in 2012 The Washington Post dug into the past of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and reported that during his high school years he helped pin a boy down and cut his hair off.  Their intent was to suggest that Romney had a history of intimidating and harassing people less fortunate than himself. Reporter Chris Cillizza followed up by asking, “Was Mitt Romney a bully? Does it matter?”

On the other hand, Barack Obama’s relationship with a member of the Communist Party who may have been a Soviet espionage agent was not newsworthy when he ran in 2008. Was Obama influenced by a Marxist? Yes. Does it matter? Yes.

But the Post still can’t bring itself to admit the truth.

On February 25th of this year, I thought that things might have changed. That was the day I received an email from Michelle Lee, a reporter on “The Fact Checker” feature of The Washington Post. She said, “I’m looking into a claim made by Rudy Giuliani that President Obama ‘grew up under the influence of Frank Marshall Davis, who was a member of the Communist Party, who he refers to over and over in his book, who was a tremendous critic of the United States.’ I read your AIM article from February 2008. Do you have some time to talk about this?”

I met with Lee on February 26. She reported, “When The Fact Checker arrived, Kincaid had been waiting with four of his peers, stacks of documents and a video camera pointed at an empty seat saved for us.”

Correct. We taped an introduction to our meeting, the meeting itself, and our response. We wanted a complete record of the exchange.

This AIM Special Report is the story of how the Post was seven years late to a Pulitzer Prize-winning story but has still failed to confirm the essential elements of that story. In effect, it is a cover-up on top of a cover-up. What’s more, it has been done under the guise of “fact-checking” a Republican for telling the truth about the Marxist education of a Democratic president.

Lee contacted us because Giuliani’s claim about Obama growing up under the influence of Davis, a member of the Communist Party, was based on information we developed seven years ago. We provided that information to Lee. There’s no question that Davis was a member of the Communist Party and was critical of the United States. Obama grew up under his influence in Hawaii, for as many as eight years of his young life. The claim is absolutely true.

In fact, if the former New York City mayor is going to be criticized for anything, it’s that he too, was late in coming to the story, and that he did not explain in detail the degree of influence that Davis had over Obama.

The Verdict

Almost a month later, on March 23, Ms. Lee reported her findings and accused Giuliani of lying. As we anticipated, the Post didn’t want to admit the truth of Giuliani’s claim because it would raise the issue of why the paper was seven years late to a story involving the background of a major presidential candidate. It’s disappointing, to say the least, that the Post missed the story seven years ago, and that it failed to acknowledge missing the story seven years later under the guise of “fact-checking” Giuliani.

We met Michelle Lee at a hotel and greeted her with a video camera to record everything. She seemed surprised by that. However, she recorded the interview with her own cell phone. Anti-communist analyst and blogger Trevor Loudon, who broke the Frank Marshall Davis story back in 2007, happened to be in town at the time, and joined me in the meeting with Lee.

Trevor and I provided information and documents to Lee during a lengthy meeting.

First, you should know the following about the so-called “Fact-Checker” feature of the Post. As the name implies, this is supposed to be the part of the paper that corrects errors. The paper uses what it calls “The Pinocchio Test.” It says:

“Where possible, we will adopt the following standard in fact-checking the claims of a politician, political candidate, diplomat or interest group.”

  • “One Pinocchio” means “Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.”
  • “Two Pinocchios” means “Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.”
  • “Three Pinocchios” means “Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”
  • “Four Pinocchios” means “Whoppers.”

In her verdict, Lee of the Post gave Giuliani “Three Pinocchios,” for “significant” factual errors or obvious contradictions. In effect, she accused Giuliani of lying. Yet, what Giuliani said was absolutely true.

It seems clear that the purpose of this false finding of “fact” by the Post was to send a message that political figures are not supposed to talk publicly about Obama’s Marxist background. If you tell the truth, you can be accused of lying!

Remember that Lee told us in that email that she wanted to determine the truth of the claim made by Giuliani that President Obama grew up under the influence of Communist Frank Marshall Davis.

She admitted in her so-called findings of fact that Obama’s “anecdotes” from his own book Dreams from My Father “show he was intrigued by Davis’s experiences and insight.”

She also writes this in her column:

“Davis made an impression on Obama, as shown in his memoir. Obama mentions Davis several times in ‘Dreams from My Father’ as someone who influenced his understanding of his black identity. But there is no evidence Obama was ‘raised’ by Davis, or that Davis remained a close Communist mentor who advised him throughout his life.”

So she concedes Davis made an “impression” on Obama, whatever that means, and that Obama was “intrigued” by him. But then she plays a trick on her readers. She quotes Obama’s sympathetic biographer David Remnick as saying the relationship was “neither constant nor lasting, certainly of no great ideological importance.” How does Remnick know this? She doesn’t say. His claim is not subjected to any fact-checking. Remnick, you see, is a former employee of the Post.

The Bait-and-Switch

Ignoring the need for fact-checking those claims, Lee asks, “Why do Kincaid and others believe that the relationship with Davis shaped Obama more than, say, his own experiences and others he met throughout his life?”

This is a bait-and-switch. We did not say that Davis shaped him “more” than anyone else. Obama had plenty of Marxist associates to choose from in his life. Obama clearly admits the significance of Davis in his own autobiography. Why did he include “Frank” in his autobiography if he did not have an influence on his life?

Remember that, after falling under the Davis influence, Obama would go on to college, where, by his own admission, he would associate with Marxist professors and attend socialist conferences. That’s in Obama’s own book, and we told Lee about those references. Obama’s relationships also included going to the church of the anti-American preacher, Jeremiah Wright,  for 20 years, and associating with communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.  Indeed, they helped launch his political career.

We went over all of this and much more during our meeting with Lee. As I indicated, Loudon was part of our meeting and he went into detail about several of the controversies in Obama’s background, including his contacts with socialists in Chicago.

Ignoring all of this, Lee’s so-called fact-checking article quoted Davis’s son Mark as saying he doesn’t believe his father indoctrinated Obama in communism. At the same time, she admits that Mark Davis “said he did not know his father had been involved with the Communist Party or that he had met Obama until he read about it years after his father died.” So quoting Mark Davis serves no useful purpose. It simply gives the impression that Lee did some serious fact-checking when she just wasted her time and that of her readers.

At this point, it’s important to understand a basic fact about this cover-up.

Obama never mentioned Davis by his full name in his 1995 book Dreams from My Father. Lee knows who Davis is because Loudon identified the “Frank” from Obama’s book as Frank Marshall Davis back in 2007. He provided that information to me and in early 2008 I confirmed the identity of “Frank” as Davis with another source in Hawaii, an associate of Davis. That person was Kathryn Takara. This resulted in my column titled “Obama’s Communist Mentor.” Lee found it seven years after it was published.

Asked why she thought Obama didn’t identify Davis in his book by his full name, Takara told me, “Maybe he didn’t want people delving into it.” Indeed, that is what the evidence suggests.  The question of why is critical.

Investigating “Frank”

It was later that year, in August of 2008, that we released the 600-page FBI file on Davis. It showed Davis was under FBI surveillance for 19 years for his Communist Party activities. A Washington Post reporter, Dana Milbank, had attended our earlier press conference on the Obama-Davis relationship, but he ridiculed the event as a UFO convention. We told Lee about how her paper had botched the coverage of this story.

In 2012, Professor Paul Kengor wrote a book about Davis titled The Communist, noting that Obama mentioned Davis 22 times as “Frank” (never once divulging his full name) and “dozens more [times] via pronouns and other forms of reference.”

I gave Lee a copy of Kengor’s nearly 400-page book.

Lee quotes some of what Kengor has to say about the Obama-Davis relationship. But she was determined to play down the relationship, and maintained that Obama “saw Davis 10 to 15 times as a teenager.” Even if this figure is true, people can be greatly influenced by people they met in person only a few times. Bill Clinton talked about how JFK influenced and inspired him. Yet, he only met him once.

Obama wrote in Dreams from My Father that he saw “Frank” only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college “an advanced degree in compromise” and warned Obama not to forget his “people” and not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit.”

This is also the time when Obama had told Davis about his own white grandmother being accosted by a black panhandler. In response, Davis told Obama that his grandmother was right to be scared and that “She understands that black people have reason to hate.”

As Paul Kengor points out, Davis was always critical of “the American way.” He notes, “That diatribe against ‘the American way’ is very revealing, is it not? Davis used it constantly. In fact, there are 38 uses of it in my book.”

Strangely, Lee maintains that Davis “was critical of American society, but not America as a country.” This is another example of where Lee goes astray, trying to make a point that is either irrelevant, nonsensical, or both.

Kengor notes that when the audio version of Dreams from My Father was released in 2005, all 22 references to Davis were deleted. He notes this was done as Obama was preparing for a run for the presidency and “no doubt feared being tied to closely to a man who joined the Communist Party under Stalin and had been so radical that the federal government placed him on the Security Index.”

This is a critical point. If the Davis influence was little or none, why cover this up?

From “Frank” to Frank Marshall Davis

Lee ignored all of this. Again, the obvious question is, if Obama’s relationship with Davis was so innocent, why cover up his full name? Why drop the references to “Frank” in the audio version of the book? The answer is that Obama never expected anyone to identify “Frank” as Communist Frank Marshall Davis. He thought his secret would remain safe.

Giuliani had said that Obama grew up under the influence of Davis. That was a simple and straightforward factual observation. All of the evidence shows that to be true. But nobody to our knowledge has even bothered to ask Obama anything about it publicly during the first six years of his presidency.

Instead of asking Obama about it, Lee and the Post now change the argument to the claim that Obama was indoctrinated or “raised” by Davis and “Remained a close communist mentor who advised him throughout his life.” But nobody with knowledge of the Obama-Davis relationship has made that claim.

Since Davis died in 1987, he could not have been an advisor throughout Obama’s whole life. Nobody with knowledge of the relationship would pretend otherwise.

The term “close communist mentor” is subject to interpretation, but Kengor analyzed in detail Davis’s writings for Communist Party newspapers and how his claims have been echoed in Obama’s views on economic matters. Citing Kengor’s book and other research, we also demonstrated in a major article how Davis’s anti-white racism clearly has influenced Obama’s views on race relations as President.

Lee wrote that Davis had “affiliations with more than a dozen leftist groups, including the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, CIO unions and the National Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism” (emphasis added). The latter would seem to suggest that Davis opposed anti-Semitism. In fact, the book, The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African American Poetry, 1930-1946, names Davis as one of several black poets who continued to publish in Communist Party-supported publications after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact. That means Davis was not bothered by the Soviet alliance with the Nazis which started World War II.

Pornographer, Pedophile and Atheist

The facts are that Davis mentored Obama for up to eight years of his young life, before Obama left Hawaii to attend college. Obama refers to “Frank” giving him advice on subjects such as race relations, but not sex. That is another significant omission that the Post decides it must not address.

Kathryn Takara, who confirmed to me that “Frank” was indeed Davis, wrote a book about Davis, titled, Frank Marshall Davis: The Fire and the Phoenix. She confirms that Davis not only wrote a pornographic novel, Sex Rebel: Black, which was “largely autobiographical,” but that he became “anti-Christian,” even writing a poem speaking of Christ irreverently as a “nigger.” An atheist, Davis “exposed the irony and hypocrisy of Christianity,” she said.

The Davis book, Sex Rebel: Black, refers to the main character, Davis, having sex with a 13-year-old girl named Anne. This makes Davis a pedophile.

Takara admits that Davis lived in a “world of sexual pleasures, multiple partners, and erotica.” She writes about the Davis obsession with bizarre sexual practices and pornography in her book. But Lee completely ignores this dimension of the story.

Yet, David Maraniss admits in his book, Barack Obama: The Story, that Obama wrote a poem about Davis called “Pop,” with some strange lines about stains and smells on shorts. “He looks at Pop and sees something that repels him and attracts him, that he wants to run away from yet knows he must embrace,” Maraniss wrote. Obama’s writing a poem about Davis certainly suggests a very close relationship that may in this case border on the sexual. Writer Jack Cashill says the poem has definite “sexual overtones.”

Whatever the ultimate truth about Obama’s own sexual proclivities and inappropriate personal relationship with Davis, it cannot be denied that the President’s “fundamental transformation” of America has also occurred in the sexual realm. Obama has relentlessly pushed the homosexual agenda on the United States, including and especially in the U.S. military.

In this regard, it’s important to note that Obama’s book Dreams from My Father not only hides the real identity of “Frank,” it covers up Obama’s extensive use of illegal drugs. This is where Maraniss truly does his homework and performs a public service. He says that Obama was a major dope smoker, not the occasional user we were led to believe. Maraniss says Obama was a member of the “Choom Gang,” a group of heavy users of the drug.

In another area, Obama’s alleged Christianity, we must ask: Did the atheism and anti-Christian views of Davis influence Obama’s views on Christianity? He ran as a Christian in 2008. He was brought up as a Muslim and attended a church in Chicago that allowed Muslims to worship. As President, Obama doesn’t attend church very much, a fact that occasionally generates some attention, and he has publicly complained about some Christians many years ago who practiced violence. However, violent jihad on display throughout the Middle East and the world today is not labeled as such by the Obama administration. Instead, Muslim terrorists are called “extremists.”

So it looks like his alleged Christianity may be another deliberate deception.

Was Lee Pressured to Lie?

Michelle Lee seemed to be a nice person who was genuinely interested in the facts. There has got to be an explanation for why she turned in such a dishonest performance.

She reports to the actual “Fact Checker,” a veteran Post reporter by the name of Glenn Kessler. If he were to conclude, at this late date in the Obama presidency, that a communist had a significant influence on Obama, it would be big news. The Post would have egg all over its face for ignoring the story for seven years.

Consider this. If Lee had found Giuliani’s claim to be truthful, it would have made the Post look very bad. After all, this paper had missed the significance of the story seven years ago. Second, it would have made Remnick look bad. He is the former Post reporter who wrote The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama. Remnick is the source of the claim that the Davis-Obama relationship was “neither constant nor lasting, certainly of no great ideological importance.”

To find that Giuliani told the truth would mean that Remnick was wrong. The Post just couldn’t admit that.

This controversy alone suggests the paper went into this matter determined to make a Republican, former New York City Mayor Giuliani, look bad. We had that suspicion from the start.

The Remnick book was published in 2010, more than two years after Trevor Loudon and I broke the story of Obama’s relationship with Davis. If Remnick had admitted the known facts about the relationship even in 2010, it would have raised the question of why the Post and other media had missed the story back in 2008. That, too, would have been embarrassing.

Realizing that he missed the big story of Barack Obama’s background and mentor, Remnick dismisses the significance of the revelations. He writes in his book that “the right-wing blogosphere” had accused Davis of being a card-carrying communist, a pornographer, and having a pernicious influence on Obama. The term “right-wing blogosphere” is designed by Remnick to minimize the significance of what we discovered back in 2008. He says we were “loud and unrelenting.” But Remnick does not refute what we uncovered. The fact is we did the investigations the Post and other media failed to do.

Lee concedes that Davis had a Communist Party card number. We had provided that piece of evidence to her initially. She later asked for another copy. Yet, she tries to dismiss the significance of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which investigated communist activities in Hawaii. She writes that the committee and the FBI “were quick to label people and organizations with dissenting views as Communist.” She seems to be trying to suggest that perhaps he was not a communist by using the word “quickly.” In fact, when Davis was given the chance to deny his party membership, he took the Fifth Amendment before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security. His lawyer, Harriett Bouslog of the National Lawyers Guild, was also a member of the Communist Party.

Lee never even touches the matter of Davis being a pornographer, and it is important to look at how she gets around it. As I also told her during our meeting, Davis was a pornographer who specialized in photos of nude women. That is why the FBI’s mention of his filming the Hawaii coastline is so significant.

Here’s how Lee deals with that issue: “Davis had an interest in photography. In Hawaii, he took pictures of shorelines, apparently not photographing any particular objects, according to an FBI informant. That implies he might have been taking photos for espionage, to send to Soviet leaders to target Hawaii as a strategic territory, said Kincaid and Trevor Loudon, a libertarian activist who also researches this topic.”

The Evidence of Espionage

Lee goes on to say: “He [Davis] was an activist, but there is no evidence that Davis was a hard-core Communist who spied for Soviet leaders.” But Davis was indeed a hard-core communist. That’s why he had a party card with a party number. The Communist Party was funded and controlled by Moscow.

One of the most disturbing FBI documents refers to the information we gave Lee that Davis “was observed photographing large sections of the [Hawaii] coastline with a camera containing a telescopic lens.” The FBI document states:

Informant stated that DAVIS spent much of his time in this activity. He said this was the third different occasion DAVIS had been observed photographing shorelines and beachfronts. Informant advised that it did not appear he was photographing any particular objects.

There’s no explanation for why Davis took pictures of the coastline, since he usually took pictures of nude women. We do know he was on the FBI’s security index, reserved for national security threats who could be detained during a period of war or national emergency. Members of the Communist Party such as State Department official Alger Hiss did become Soviet espionage agents.

My associate and friend, the late anti-communist researcher Herbert Romerstein, noted in a report which I provided to Michelle Lee:

“…the Hawaii Islands and the naval base at Pearl Harbor were essential for the defense of the United States. The Comintern, with its eye on possible Soviet expansion in Asia, wanted to remove that impediment. Over a period of time, American communists were sent to Hawaii to colonize the island and to promote the growth of the communist movement there.” The Comintern was the name for the Moscow-directed International Communist Movement.

As Romerstein documents in his report, Davis was sent to Hawaii as part of that effort. It makes sense from the communist perspective that he might be tasked with taking photos that had strategic value to the Soviets.

If Davis was in fact a Soviet espionage agent, that fact raises the additional question of whether he recruited others to the communist cause. The Post clearly doesn’t want to go there.

Pretending to be an expert on Marxism, Lee writes that “Obama has shown to be an ineffective Communist, if he were one. He has failed to unravel the capitalist system over the past six years that he has held the most powerful position in the world …”

That’s a strange thing for a journalist with limited experience on the subject to say. Is she saying he could be a Marxist but he is just not a good one? And what makes her think that he wants to “unravel” the capitalist system? This shows how ignorant she is of Marxist methods. The Communist Chinese have not “unraveled” the capitalist system, either.  Like Lenin, they have used the capitalist system to secure and enhance their power. Russia’s Vladimir Putin, a former KGB spy, welcomed Western investment in order to build up the military power that he has since used to invade Ukraine.

Finally, Lee says about the Davis influence on Obama, “We may never definitively know one way or another, but it is time to put it to rest.”

This is the story the media wish would go away. But it won’t.

Lee says she “definitively” doesn’t know if it is true or not but she knows enough to call me, Giuliani, and Loudon liars for noting the Davis influence on Obama as he was growing up in Hawaii.

Lee tries desperately to play down the significance of Davis’s membership in the Communist Party. But it is extremely damaging and telling. Showing how hard-core he was, Davis had called the decision by black writer Richard Wright to expose the Communist Party after leaving the party an “act of treason.” Davis said Wright had “aided only the racists who were constantly seeking any means to destroy cooperation between Reds and blacks” and had “damaged our battle.”

Wright contributed to the important 1949 book, The God That Failed, a collection of the testimonies of a number of famous ex-communists. Davis never gave up on the Marxist cause. But neither has Obama.

It would have been easy enough for Obama to have admitted Frank’s true identity in his book, and to have dismissed him as a communist crank. Obama did not do that. He attempted to conceal his true identity while confirming his role as a mentor. He never thought anyone would put the pieces of the puzzle together and determine “Frank” to be Davis. Loudon, an analyst from New Zealand, deserves great credit for this scoop.

Trevor had been tipped off to “Frank’s” true identity when a communist historian named Gerald Horne made a reference to his relationship with Obama in a 2007 speech. He found the speech while monitoring a communist website. In my 2008 column confirming this identification, I had noted that Frank Chapman, a Communist Party supporter, had written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator’s victory in the Iowa caucuses against Hillary Clinton.

He wrote, “Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle.”

Chapman wrote that Karl Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, “who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”

The suggestion is that Obama is a communist mole. Not only would he be our first Marxist president, but perhaps the agent of a foreign power.

Hillary’s Interest in the Davis Story

We were not the only ones concerned about Obama’s relationship with Davis during the 2008 campaign.

Hillary Clinton’s associate Sidney Blumenthal had circulated my article, “Obama’s Communist Mentor,” in an effort to question and damage Obama’s character and electability. That was in May 2008. Later that year, of course, Obama was elected president and picked Mrs. Clinton as his Secretary of State. That made disclosures about the Davis-Obama relationship from the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party less likely after Obama took office.

Obama’s deal with Hillary may have been straightforward: drop the Davis story, become Secretary of State, and have a shot to run for the presidency after Obama’s term or terms expire.

Whatever the motivation for the cover-up, the Post and other media had a duty back in 2008 to report the facts. The American people might have voted against a candidate under Marxist influence if they had been told the truth about Obama and Davis.

The Post, which brought down President Richard Nixon over a third-rate burglary and cover-up called Watergate, decided instead to go along with the Obama cover-up. And the cover-up continues, seven years later. It’s a sad commentary on the quality of American journalism and media ethics. The treatment of Davis demonstrates a partisan bias that has affected the course of our nation and the world.

We all know that Nixon, a Republican, was a special target for the Post. He had been a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) and had seized upon the hidden documents known as the Pumpkin Papers of former communist Whittaker Chambers in order to make the case that former State Department official and United Nations founder Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy.

Washington Post Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein had an axe to grind against those, like Nixon and HUAC, who went after communists. He had written a book, Loyalties, about his parents, Al and Sylvia Bernstein, being members of the Communist Party. For whatever reason, Bernstein’s Watergate collaborator, Bob Woodward, was also not interested in “vetting” Obama during the 2008 campaign. He, too, missed or ignored the story of the Obama-Davis relationship.

In the end, history shows that Nixon was found guilty and forced out of office for what other presidents had done, a fact documented by Victory Lasky in his book, It Didn’t Start With Watergate. Nixon’s downfall brought to power Democrats who cut off aid to South Vietnam, producing a Communist bloodbath and genocide in Southeast Asia.

If destroying a Republican president can damage a nation, saving a Democratic President like Obama can have political repercussions as well. Haven’t we seen the evidence all around us, in domestic and foreign policy areas? It’s unclear if the U.S. will ever be able to recover.

Exposing Obama’s Marxism Still Matters

We have to entertain the possibility that, seven years later, Lee may have been pressured by her colleagues at the Post to whitewash the evidence against Obama and Davis that we had presented to her. If anything, the Post is and has long been a reliable organ of the Democratic Party.

My video on this entire process will serve as the historical record of a cover-up that has historical significance for the United States and the world. The public has a right to the facts that the major media concealed from them back in 2008.

As we have seen with their treatment of Giuliani’s remarks, the Post continues to obscure the facts and mislead its readers and the public at large. That is why we need your continuing help to set the record straight and put pressure on this paper to finally, once and for all, report the truth.

It is clearly an uphill struggle. Obama supporters and Internet “trolls” have sanitized the Wikipedia page on Frank Marshall Davis in order to eliminate any hint that Obama’s Marxist policies are being driven by the relationship he had with a Communist Party operative under surveillance by the FBI.

A better source is the page on Davis maintained by KeyWiki, a site established by Trevor Loudon. It goes into substantial detail about the Communist activities of Davis and examines his relationship to Vernon Jarrett, who was later to become the father-in-law to Valerie Jarrett, now a senior advisor to President Obama.

The Davis-Obama relationship was a Watergate-type story that was ignored at the time by Woodward and Bernstein and their colleagues in the “mainstream media.” Yet, even Matt Drudge and his Drudge Report refused to take paid advertising drawing attention to the Davis-Obama relationship.

Today, the Post continues the cover-up by attacking the messengers who bring the truth forward. We will not be silenced. Giuliani and other Republicans should not back down.

The Van Jones Story

It is still a story of Watergate proportions. It’s true that Davis was only one of many different influences on Obama. But he was there at a critical time in his life—his teenage years. And the history shows the Marxism-influenced Obama, as he continued associating with Marxists throughout his career, even as he assumed the presidency and picked such characters as Van Jones, a “former” communist, to be his Green Jobs Czar.

Jones is only one example of Obama’s Marxist policies in action. But the example is a good one. Jones lost his job when Loudon struck again, disclosing Jones’ communist background, in a story picked up by Glenn Beck, then with Fox News. Jarrett had said “they,” obviously referring to Obama administration people, had noticed Jones’ work in Oakland, California, where Jones had been an anti-police activist.

The Van Jones case is worth noting because it, too, shows the continuing influence of Davis on Obama. Davis, Jones, Obama and apparently Jarrett all share the same anti-American ideology and background.

Jones was forced out of his post, possibly to keep Congress from investigating the White House process that resulted in his appointment in the first place.

Yes, Frank Marshall Davis is dead, but his influence lives.

Postscript: After the Post tried to smear us as liars for noting the evidence of Frank Marshall Davis’s influence over Obama, a video from 1995 suddenly surfaced on the Internet and was discovered, in which Obama explicitly names “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis and refers to how the communist had schooled him on the subject of white racism. In effect, Obama was admitting his student-teacher relationship with Davis. It was more evidence of what we had been saying all along.

It may have been the case that Obama’s supporters thought the release of the video wouldn’t make any difference at this time. There may be some truth to that. After all, didn’t Obama just crack a joke about a pot-smoking socialist in the White House in his talk before the White House Correspondents dinner? And weren’t those who were laughing in the audience some of the same journalists who have been covering the White House?

The joke’s on us.


Sexual Madness in Obama’s America

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The headline over the story is, “LGBT Friendly: White House Unveils First Gender-Neutral Bathroom.” But it’s not a joke. It wasn’t a story from the comedy site The Onion. Instead, this was from NBC News.

It is apparent that the liberal media will treat anything “gay” coming out of this administration as somehow legitimate or even compassionate. Nothing will be described as weird or strange, out of fear of offending some new sexual minority. This time, the “transgendered” are supposed to benefit. It’s yet another effort to confuse sexual roles and undermine traditional values.

NBC reported, “For the first time in history, the White House has designated a gender-neutral restroom for visitors and staffers—the latest in a series of steps the administration has taken to protect the rights of members of the LGBT community.”

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, isn’t there an obligation on the part of NBC News to at least consider giving some space or attention to an opposing view? By the way, despite liberal use of the term, it’s not clear what “transgendered” actually means. Does it mean people who dress like the opposite sex? People who have sex-change operations? Or what about people who have mental disorders and simply think they’re the wrong sex?

Instead, the NBC News story merely notes that there’s legislation in “Republican-dominated” legislatures in Florida and Kentucky to keep the “transgendered” out of bathrooms for men and women. What these bills actually do is keep men out of women’s bathrooms, and vice versa. These bills are designed to secure the privacy and safety of all individuals using a single-sex public facility for which the facility is designated. That is, for men and women. This is common sense. But it doesn’t make sense in Obama’s America.

The Florida bill is also designed to keep predators out of the facilities. The bill notes, for example, that “Single-sex public facilities are places of increased vulnerability and present the potential for crimes against individuals using those facilities, including, but not limited to, assault, battery, molestation, rape, voyeurism, and exhibitionism.”

The liberal media describe this common-sense approach as preventing the transgendered “from using the restroom of their choice.” Hence, the Republicans who want to maintain restrooms for men and women are depicted as mean-spirited Neanderthals. This is how the media try to intimidate Republicans into accepting any new “change,” no matter how ridiculous or absurd.

Years ago the idea of a man dressing like or appearing as a woman was good for some laughs. Comedian Flip Wilson evoked that response as the character “Geraldine.” Corporal Klinger did likewise in the comedy show MASH.

But now we’re supposed to take all of this seriously. It’s tempting to laugh now, except that the campaign for transgendered rights has big money and Big Media behind it.

The Washington Post just ran a huge front page story on Shane Ortega, who has served three combat tours, two as a woman and one as a man. He was a woman who became a man, but who is still a woman in the eyes of the military.  As the United States is facing threats around the world, our military is currently wrestling with the problem of what to do about Shane Ortega. The Post will make sure this remains on the top of the military’s priority list.

Who’s behind this drive for “transgender” rights?

Three names jump out at you: the Arcus Foundation, the Gill Foundation and the Open Society Foundations.

The executive director of the Arcus Foundation is Kevin Jennings. Remember him? He was the Obama-appointed Education Department official whose life of homosexual activism was inspired by Harry Hay, the Communist Party member and “Radical Faerie” who believed in the power of the occult. Hay started the gay rights movement in the U.S.

The Gill Foundation is named for Timothy Gill of Denver, the founder of Quark, Inc., a computer software company, and a tech multimillionaire. He says he has singlehandedly “invested more than $220 million” in the cause of homosexual rights through his Gill Foundation.

Finally, the Open Society Foundations are associated with billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros. In 2009 he financed the “New Beginning Initiative” to encourage the Obama administration to make “policy changes” to benefit the homosexual movement.

The Arcus Foundation, the Gill Foundation and the Open Society Foundations are all financial backers of the National Center for Transgender Equality. This group has just announced that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission delivered “a landmark ruling that employees must have access to restroom facilities consistent with their gender identity.”

Not surprisingly, The Washington Post covered this development. The Army was found guilty of barring a “transgender employee” from a restroom “matching her new identity” and had “referred to her by her previous gender.” The individual is described as a military veteran who is now a civilian Army employee.

The Post reported, “A recent study by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National LGBTQ Task Force found that 90 percent of transgender individuals report mistreatment or discrimination in the workplace, forcing many to hide their gender identity.” How are these for objective sources?

By the way, the “Q” in LBGTQ stands for “questioning.”

Believe it or not, the Post has a “manners columnist” who examines these issues. “When the ‘Q’ is used as a stand-in for questioning, you’re right that it means the individual is uncertain of his or her orientation,” reported Steven Petrow.

So a “questioning” individual could dress up as a man or a woman, depending on how he or she feels on any particular day.

But, one step at a time. The National Center for Transgender Equality is now pressing for the right of transgender service-members to serve openly in the U.S. Armed Forces. After that, presumably, the “questioning” will demand their rights. Then, Petrow says, there is an “I” category for “intersex,” meaning “An individual whose biological birth does not correspond with conventional expectations of male/female anatomy or genetics.”

We’re confident the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, funded by all of the big media organizations, will instruct reporters on what all of this means and how to portray conservatives and Republicans as obstructing necessary societal change.


The Mysterious “Frank” Returns

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Yesterday’s news became big news on the Fox News Channel on Thursday when former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani brought up the name of President Barack Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. It was almost seven years to the day when we published our seminal piece about Davis, “Obama’s Communist Mentor.”

Davis was a member of the Communist Party and a suspected Soviet espionage agent. He was included in the FBI’s security index, meaning that Davis could be arrested or detained in the event of a national emergency. The FBI file on Davis documents his anti-white and pro-Soviet views, infiltration of the Hawaii Democratic Party, and other activities.

Davis also wrote an autobiographical and pornographic sex novel, Sex Rebel, disclosing that he had sex with a young girl and engaged in shocking and bizarre sexual activities.

Giuliani’s public identification of Davis and discussion of his role in grooming a young Barack Obama marks the first time, in my memory, that a top Republican has ever mentioned the Davis-Obama relationship. It was done in the context of Fox News’ Megyn Kelly of questioning how Giuliani could dare ask whether Obama loves America.

If the Republicans had brought this up during the 2008 campaign, Obama might have been defeated and the country could have been spared the last six years of “progressive” hope and change. The Davis-Obama relationship is something so damaging and corrupt that its public airing would have raised questions about the Democratic Party’s vetting of Obama and the direction of the Democratic Party itself.

However, Republican operative Karl Rove was warning Republicans not to accuse Obama of being a socialist. He said such a charge would generate a negative backlash. The result in 2012 was another Obama victory.

Now that it has become apparent to more and more people that Obama is not a traditional liberal Democrat and is, in fact, a Marxist with Muslim sympathies, a figure such as Giuliani feels compelled to speak out. So let’s take a look at what Giuliani said.

“I don’t feel it. I don’t feel this love of America,” Giuliani said, talking about Obama. “I’m talking about a man who grew up under the influence of Frank Marshall Davis who was a member of the Communist Party, who he refers to over and over in his book, who was a tremendous critic of the United States.”

Kelly countered that Obama “was raised in part by his grandparents. His grandfather served in World War II, his grandmother worked in a munitions plant to help the nation during World War II. I mean, to suggest he was raised by people who don’t love America or didn’t help him learn to love America.”

Giuliani argued that “his grandfather introduced him to Frank Marshall Davis, who was a communist.” He added, “You can fight in World War II, and then you introduce someone to a Communist and the young boy gets…”

After Kelly interjected that “it’s a political world view. It’s not a hatred for the country,” Giuliani responded, “Communism wasn’t hatred for America?”

Giuliani is correct about the Davis influence over Obama and the role that the grandfather played in picking Davis as a mentor.

But when Giuliani notes that Obama refers to Davis “over and over in his book,” Dreams from My Father, it’s important to point out that Davis was not identified as Frank Marshall Davis in that book. Instead, Obama identified him merely as “Frank.” The rest of the story was put together by anti-communist researcher Trevor Loudon, and we confirmed the identification with another source in Hawaii who was a close friend of Davis.

Even more of the story was put together by Paul Kengor in his authoritative book on Davis, The Communist. It appears that Davis was an influence over Obama for about nine full years, until Obama was 18 and went off to college. Obama went off to college and, by his own admission, would attend socialist conferences and pick Marxist professors as his friends.

This relationship alone would have disqualified Obama from getting low-level federal employment. The loophole in our system is that background checks are not required for federal elected officials. Our founders counted on a free press to review the fitness of those running for office.

When former Obama adviser David Axelrod talks about Obama being free from major scandals, he is ignoring the biggest scandal of all—how Obama concealed his Marxist upbringing and relationship with Davis. Axelrod of course was part of the cover-up. When “Frank” was identified as Davis, the Obama campaign insisted he was just a civil rights activist.

As we reported at the time, news organizations such as the Associated Press, The Washington Post, Newsweek and even Fox News ignored or downplayed Davis’s communist sympathies.

As Giuliani indicated, there are other influences on Obama that help explain his anti-Americanism. These include the “community organizing” philosophy of Saul Alinsky, his pastor Jeremiah Wright and the communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Giuliani clearly feels, at this stage in Obama’s presidency, that some things have to be said openly for the sake of the country. A former crime-busting U.S. Attorney who was mayor of New York City at the time of 9/11, Giuliani fears for the future of our country. But it’s not just the fate of America that is at stake. It is clear that Obama has no love for America’s traditional allies, such as Israel. Hence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to America to plead his case personally. He is afraid that Obama wants to make a deal that will allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Now that Giuliani has publicly raised some inconvenient truths about Obama, the “progressives” and their media allies will naturally scream and cry “McCarthyism.”  Strangely taking this tack, Fox News’ Kelly wondered if Giuliani’s comments about Obama had damaged “the Republican brand.” The Republican brand will only be damaged by an inability to face facts and confront and expose anti-Americanism at the highest levels of the United States government. It is shocking that it has taken this long for the evidence to emerge publicly on a national basis on Fox News and other channels.

This controversy will help determine what direction the Republicans will take. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, who has made it his job to protect Obama from the fallout from major scandals, was quick to label Giuliani’s remarks about Obama as “stupid.” He also attacked Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker as “spineless” for saying Giuliani “can speak for himself,” and not directly challenging what the former mayor had said

“What Scott Walker did ought to disqualify him as a serious presidential contender,” wrote Milbank.

This is a signal from one of Obama’s best friends in the media that the information unearthed by Giuliani is of the blockbuster variety. Giuliani went for the jugular and hit a gusher.

The first thing Republicans can do is simply challenge the media to report on the Davis FBI file. They have been avoiding it for over six years.

Congress could also investigate Obama’s communist connections, which stretch from Hawaii to Chicago, and question the FBI about what they knew, if anything, about the Obama-Davis relationship. The reestablishment of House and Senate internal security committees, including a loyalty program for U.S. officials to eliminate security risks, should be considered.

Republicans could remind people that it was anti-communist Democratic President Harry Truman who started the first loyalty program. He issued executive order 9835 establishing the program in 1947.

The executive order said that “each employee of the Government of the United States is endowed with a measure of trusteeship over the democratic processes which are at the heart and sinew of the United States,” and declared that “the presence within the Government service of any disloyal or subversive person constitutes a threat to our democratic processes…”

It is time for a background check on the President of the United States. Does he pass the loyalty test?


Black Criminals, White Victims, and White Guilt

By: James Simpson
Accuracy in Media

The media have relentlessly fanned the flames of racial hatred, while engaging in a systematic pattern of misinformation and blatant suppression of facts surrounding the perpetrators and victims of crime. As a result, so-called “criminal justice reform” is now being proposed to release more criminals from jails, supposedly to make amends for the unjust “mass incarceration” of black men.

The figures come quickly but are never subjected to the necessary scrutiny. Last fall, for example, the George Soros-funded ProPublica published a claim that black youths are killed by the police at a rate 21 times higher than white youths. Mass media parroted that claim, but the data are incomplete and biased. They represent just 1.2 percent of police departments nationwide, and most reports come from urban areas, where the population is disproportionately black.

More reliable data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) suggest that in 2012, 123 blacks were killed by police using firearms while 326 whites, including 227 non-Hispanic whites, were killed. These data, however are also not entirely reliable, but represent a larger data set than the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR).

CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill, a racial agitator fired by Fox News for defending cop-killers, spread another misleading statistic about police shootings, claiming that “Every 28 hours, an unarmed black person is killed by police.” This too was trumpeted in the media. It became a twitter hashtag, “#every28hours,” and another mantra like “hands up, don’t shoot.” But it is demonstrably false. There were 313 blacks killed by police, security guards and other “vigilantes” in 2012. Dividing 313 into the number of hours in a year (8,760) yields 28. However, 177 of these “unarmed black persons” were actually armed with firearms. That leaves 136. Others may have been technically “unarmed” but were threatening the officer’s life, for example with their car—or as in Michael Brown’s case, attempting to take the officer’s gun. Many more were not the result of shootings, but accidents, e.g., during vehicular chases. Finally, some of the shooters were not police. When the hyperbole is removed, the facts present a much more reasonable explanation. Barring a small number of tragic mishaps, police shootings are usually justified.

Let’s look at the other side now. In 2013 alone, 49,851 officers were assaulted with firearms, knives and other weapons. Over the past 10 years, on average, 150 police officers have been killed in the line of duty every year. Fifty-seven of these were shot, stabbed, strangled or beaten. Of the 509 officers feloniously killed in the past 10 years, 46 percent of the perpetrators were black, despite their representing only 13 percent of the population. Do we call this a black war against the police?

Officers Killed - Simpson Black Criminals, White Victims, and White Guilt

Black Crime & Incarceration

Critics also argue that blacks’ 40 percent share among U.S. prison populations is direct evidence of institutional racism (see table). In a color-blind society, they charge, incarcerated black populations would reflect their 13 percent share of the general population.

Incarceration Rates - Simpson Black Criminals, White Victims, and White Guilt

However, if black crime rates were the guide, it would seem that blacks are, if anything, underrepresented in prison populations. The table below presents FBI data on homicide offenders. Blacks exceed all other groups in murders committed in 2013. In prior years it was actually worse.

Homicide Offenders - Simpson Black Criminals, White Victims, and White Guilt

In 2007, the CDC broke out total homicide numbers and rates by age and race. The murder rate among blacks is similar to the rates in some of the most violent third-world nations (see below). No other racial or ethnic group comes close.

Murders and Rates - Simpson Black Criminals, White Victims, and White Guilt

The table below shows murder rates among males by age. Note that for 20 to 24-year-olds, the murder rate among blacks (109.4/100,000) is 17 times higher than the rate for whites (6.4/100,000). Among 15 to 19-year-olds, it is over 20 times higher. The average for all ages is 13 times higher.

Murder Rates by Age - Simpson Black Criminals, White Victims, and White Guilt

Finally, black-on-white crime is substantially greater than the reverse. The table below shows murders by race of offender and victim in 2013. Note that overall, blacks kill as often as whites, although blacks represent only 13 percent of the population. Note also that black-on-white murder is more than double the rate of white-on-black murder (409 to 189). Similar results were found for 2012, 2011, 2010 and prior years.

Offenders & Victims - Simpson Black Criminals, White Victims, and White Guilt

If these rates were to hold, and the roles were reversed—i.e., if blacks represented 64 percent of the population while whites comprised only 13 percent—black-on-white murder would have exceeded 2,000 killings in 2013, while white-on-black murder would have resulted in only 39 deaths. The table also shows that for all races, most murders were committed by members of the same race. This is because criminal violence usually occurs within one’s own community. Finally, in the other categories of violent crime—rape, robbery and aggravated assault—blacks consistently committed about 40 percent of the total in 2013, 2012, 2011, and 2010.

So the disproportionate arrests, incarcerations and shootings of blacks should come as no surprise. Their 40 percent representation among the prison population fairly reflects the proportion of crimes committed by blacks in the U.S. This is not evidence of institutional racism, but rather a social pathology evident within the black community. They have been committing crimes at the highest rate by far of any racial/ethnic group for decades.

In recent years, blacks have committed unspeakably heinous acts against whites and other racial/ethnic groups. Probably most notorious was the brutal 2007 murder of a young Tennessee couple, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, who were on a date when carjacked by four men and one woman. Newsom was repeatedly raped while Christian was forced to watch. He was then taken out, shot, and lit on fire. They repeatedly raped Christian, then poured bleach down her throat, stuffed her in a plastic bag and threw her in a kitchen trash bin to die.

There was no national news reporting of this double murder, despite its singularly vicious nature. More recently, a 19-year-old Mississippi girl, Jessica Chambers, was burned alive by suspected black perpetrators, who poured lighter fluid down her throat, ignited it and left her to die. No arrests have been made although Chambers supposedly identified her attackers before she died.

Each year in cities across the country, officials brace for widespread violence associated with black events. Author and journalist Colin Flaherty has documented over 500 cases of black-on-white violence in 100 American cities in his 2013 book, White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It.

Flaherty will be publishing a second book, “Don’t Make The Black Kids Angry: How white liberals and black media ignore, deny and encourage racial violence.” A pre-publication copy reviewed by this author adds further evidence to how this problem continues to be systematically suppressed by police, politicians and national news media.

Flaherty has reported extensively on the “knockout game,” where the goal is to knock a person out with a single, surprise blow to the head. Variants include “point ‘em out, knock ‘em out,” “knockout king,” “one hitter quitter,” “happy slapping” and Polar Bear Hunting. The perpetrators in all cases are black.

The knockout game is not a new phenomenon—the first reported case occurred in 1992—but in the past few years it has become much more widespread. At least seven people have been killed and hundreds, if not more, injured. Another new term is “flash mob,” where a group coordinates through social media to meet in large numbers, often to go on looting and vandalism sprees. Again, the perpetrators are almost always black.

Flaherty reports on mass mob violence that has been going on for decades. In 1989, 50,000 blacks descended on Virginia Beach, Virginia on Labor Day weekend to celebrate “Greek Week.” It degenerated into days of widespread violence and looting. Over 100 stores were damaged, 50 people were injured and 650 arrested. The National Guard had to be called in. Similar violence became associated with “Greek Week” for years afterward and has since spread to many other holiday weekends in Virginia Beach.

The Indiana Black Expo attracts 200,000 people annually and has been associated with widespread violence for over 10 years. After years of silence, the Indianapolis Star reported “a sense of dread” as the 2014 Expo date approached. They weren’t disappointed. Among other acts of violence, 10 people were wounded by gunfire in street violence. The 2011 Urban Beach Weekend in Miami Beach was characterized as a “rolling race riot.” Hip Hop performer Luther Campbell, a co-founder of the event, no longer goes, saying it is too dangerous. Many such events have been canceled because the local community demanded it, including Freak Nik in Atlanta, the Greekfest in Philadelphia, Black Family Reunion in Daytona Beach and others.

Fanning the Flames

It doesn’t help when President Obama mocks America by enlisting race-hustler Al Sharpton as an “advisor.” In the Tawana Brawley case, Sharpton falsely accused white police officers of raping a black woman.

Acting on Obama’s orders, Attorney General Eric Holder has made reverse racism official administration policy. For example, in hearings regarding a new “hate crimes” bill in 2009, Holder stressed that “only historically oppressed minorities” would benefit. After dropping the infamous 2008 voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, Holder made it clear that the Obama administration will not prosecute any voting rights cases against blacks. Former Civil Rights Division lawyer J. Christian Adams adds that Holder treats cases of racial bias against whites with “open contempt.”

Grade school kids, especially in inner city neighborhoods, are subjected to anti-white racist indoctrination. Students from Booker T. Washington Middle School in Baltimore, Maryland recently attended an event titled “Re-Claim, Re-Pair, Re-Form, Re-Produce—REPARATIONS Now!” at the historically black Morgan State University. Louis Farrakhan was the keynote speaker. He called whites “crackers” and told the audience:

As long as they kill us and go to Wendy’s and have a burger and go to sleep, they’ll keep killing us. But when we die and they die, then soon we’re going to sit at a table and talk about it! We’re tired! We want some of this earth or we’ll tear this goddamn country up!

There is even a college curriculum that focuses on “White Privilege,” and annual “White Privilege Conferences” are widely attended by teachers and students alike.

We are seeing the result of this indoctrination by academia and the media. In a Detroit courtroom recently, black thugs Fredrick Young and Felando Hunter were sentenced to life for the 2012 robbery, torture and execution of white teenagers Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla. When given the opportunity to apologize to the victims’ families in court, Young said:

I’d like to say sorry to the families of Aiyanna Jones, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and I want to apologize to them for not being able to get justice for their loved ones who was murdered in cold blood—and in respect for the peaceful protest, I want to say hands up don’t shoot. Black lives matter—that’s it, your honor.

Black author and political commentator Mychal Massie says black lives don’t matter, to blacks. In his video “Just How Much Do Black Lives Matter?” he states:

From 1882 to 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched. But from 1973 until the present time, a period of 42 years, 17.3 million black babies were aborted. Why don’t we hear about that? Did white policemen do that? That 17.3 million is equivalent to 45 percent of the black population today. So do black lives really matter?

Massie has a unique take on U.S. race relations. He objects strenuously to being singled out by race. “Words like ‘black community’ and being called a ‘minority’ are insults to me,” he told AIM in an interview. “I am an American. How can I be a minority if there are 300 million of me? That is segregation speech. It identifies black people as ‘different.’ People don’t think about these things until you mention them.”

Massie called Ferguson “an undeniable exhibition of the depravity of a people.” He makes the point that civilized people do not burn down their own homes and businesses, adding that Michael Brown was a thug terrorizing his neighborhood, who was going to get shot sooner or later by police or another gangster.

Massie was interviewed for this report. Read the full interview, here.

Famed civil rights icon Dr. Alveda King has a slightly different take. She says that Ferguson protesters did have a point, but that violence is never necessary. “To fix these problems,” she says, “we need to work together on conflict resolution, guided by God’s love, not war.”

Daughter of A.C. King and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr, Dr. Alveda King was also interviewed for this report. Read her full interview, here.

The Communist Roots of Black Racism

Black racism has been encouraged by outside communist agitators, many of them white. Since the turn of the last century, communists have manipulated the civil rights movement, and have been stoking the fires of discontent deliberately. Massie credits lifelong communist and Stalin admirer W.E.B. Du Bois with initiating the international communist movement’s effort to capitalize on black discontent early on. After a visit to the Soviet Union in 1927, Du Bois called it, “the most hopeful vehicle for the world.” Du Bois helped found the NAACP in 1909.

Bayard Rustin, who acknowledged that “blacks were ripe for [manipulation by] Communists,” helped found Martin Luther King, Jr’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s movement was corrupted after he was assassinated. Massie states, “Out of that group came Joseph Lowery and others who mouth complaints designed to stir the caldron of anger, victimology and rabid hatred for anyone who dares attempt to share the message of truth and life.” (Ed. Note: Lowery made news in 2012 when campaigning for Obama by saying “all white people would go to Hell.” He said it was a joke.)

The “White Privilege” concept was created by Noel Ignatiev, a hardcore Communist Party member and former Harvard University professor who founded the journal, Race Traitor.

White guilt has allowed the Left to dramatically expand the welfare state. Trillions of dollars have been spent on welfare. Yet, as Mitt Romney recently noted, under Obama “there are more people in poverty in America than ever before.” Many people are unaware, however, that the modern welfare system was designed by radical leftists to suck minorities into permanent poverty, providing a reliable voting bloc for Democrats and sowing the seeds of discontent within the black community. It was inspired by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, two die-hard socialists, who advocated packing the welfare rolls in order to bankrupt and crash the system. They wanted it to fail. The Cloward Piven Crisis Strategy was formulated to create an army of militant, angry blacks that would serve as foot soldiers in the coming socialist revolution. Piven described the rationale as recently as 2011:

[B]efore people can mobilize for collective action, they have to develop a proud and angry identity and a set of claims that go with that identity. They have to go from being hurt and ashamed to being angry and indignant… So, a kind of psychological transformation has to take place; the out-of-work have to stop blaming themselves for their hard times and turn their anger on the bosses, the bureaucrats or the politicians who are in fact responsible.

Cloward and Piven sought to rig the welfare system for failure to provoke that anger. Their apprentice was Wade Rathke, the founder of ACORN. ACORN’s proud protégé was Barack Hussein Obama.


Hatin’ on the Police – an Old Communist Strategy

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

The second half of 2014 was marked by a very intense anti-police campaign from the US left.

In an obvious attempt to destroy public confidence in local police forces, every black death at the hands of uniformed officers was trumpeted across the nation as proof of endemic police racism.

Revolutionary Communist party signs at "Ferguson" protest

Revolutionary Communist Party signs at “Ferguson” protest

This is an old communist game, but unfortunately not enough people know history.

Below are extracts from the testimony of Mr. Bellarmino Joe Duran, a plasticizing press operator and an FBI informant, working in the West Side Mexican Branch of the Communist Party of Denver, Colorado.

Mr. Duran was active in the Denver Communist Party from 1948 to 1956.

This testimony was given to the “Investigation of Communist activities in the Rocky Mountain area.” Hearings conducted May 15 and 16, 1956, by the COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Note what Mr. Duran has to say about the Communist Party’s campaign against the Denver police in response to government investigator Arens:

Mr. ARENS. Now may I invite your attention to an organization known as the West Side Fair Play Committee and ask you what you know about that organization.

Mr. DURAN. The West Side Fair Play Committee was an organization which to my knowledge was started in sincerity of a mother trying to defend her son against police brutality. The Communist Party of Denver heard about it and entered the case. When I heard about it Virgil Akeson, of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union was active in it. Morris Wright was active in it, Alfredo Montoya, of the Mine-Mill was active in it, Alfonso and Rose Sena were active, and Jesus and Judith Sauceda were active in it. These people I have identified before as members and leaders of the Communist Party.

In 1954-55 there was a meeting to disband ANMA (another Communist front, the National Association of Mexican-Americans). A Communist Party meeting was called. Present at this meeting were Alfredo Montoya, Martha Correa, Alfonso Sena, Morris Wright, and myself.

Immediately after that Harold Zepelin, early in 1954, instructed me as member of the Communist Party to penetrate the West Side Fair Play Committee and that I was released from my ANMA duties and therefore it would be my main responsibility directly to the party to develop the juvenile delinquency issue and fight the police in the West Side Fair Play Committee.

The directive from Harold Zepelin, and I quote him, was that it is time that the members of the Communist Party start fighting other individuals and organizations, and direct their fight against the government locally, either State or Federal. Our responsibility was to fight the Denver Police Department as part of that tactic of fighting the Government, to set the Denver Police Department against the people and the people against the police department.

The activities of the West Side Fair Play Committee were outright controlled and dictated by the Communist Party, and by that I mean this : There were people there who wanted other activities other than just juvenile delinquency and fighting against the police. They didn’t want to fight against the police. The Communists in there were less in number than the active people, but they would combine and bombard these people with their propaganda until they convinced them that they should fight the police.

In Denver, Colo., a Communist by the name of Martha Correa witnessed a policeman beating a Spanish American man. I cannot testify whether he was in the wrong or not. 1 do not know the situation.

She raised it. This man said he was wrong, and he wanted to forget about it. Later on the members of the Communist Party of Colorado convinced this man to sue Officer Burke, of the Denver Police Department for $45,000. This was continuously agitated to divide the people from their local government and specifically within the police department. That is the general activity of the West Side Fair Play Committee.

Does any of this sound familiar people?

In those days, America had two significant Marxist-Leninist parties. Now the country has at least ten.

Almost all of them have been active in the recent anti-police rioting and demonstrations. They are working overtime, right now in Black and Latino communities, to make the next wave of violence even bloodier and more destructive.

Some of them are actively working with Russian and Middle Eastern communists and Islamic radicals.

Federal, state and even city governments were once able to keep a lid on communist agitation, because they held regular public hearings which kept the public on guard against subversive activities. They also actively ran informants inside radical groups.

Now the government and the media are largely complicit with the radicals, so the public are almost completely unaware of the threat.

The next Republican administration must re-open Congressional and Senate hearings into internal subversive activities.

If they don’t, there will be significant blood on the streets. That’s a guarantee.


America’s Enemies in Hollywood Then and Now

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism

With the war on Islamic terrorism being portrayed as a righteous cause in “American Sniper,” the Clint Eastwood film breaking box office records, a book which documents the days when Hollywood was a mouthpiece for communist propaganda might seem out of date. But Allan H. Ryskind’s book, Hollywood Traitors, is a reminder that Hollywood can’t always be counted on to take America’s side in a war, even a World War when the United States faced dictators by the names of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

The Ryskind book, published by Regnery, documents how the much-maligned House Committee on Un-American Activities, known as HUAC, uncovered dramatic communist infiltration of Hollywood and forced the studios to clean house.

Ryskind calls HUAC’s investigation of Hollywood in 1947 and 1950 “one of the most effective, albeit controversial, probes ever carried out by any committee of Congress.” He adds, “HUAC had revealed that Hollywood was packed with Communists and fellow travelers, that the guilds and the unions had been heavily penetrated, and that wartime films, at least, had been saturated with Stalinist propaganda. Red writers were an elite and powerful group in Hollywood—many of them working for major studios.”

He writes that, “HUAC, though bruised by elite opinion, had won the support of the American people and a victory over Hollywood Communists, fellow travelers, and the important liberals who supported them.” Members of Congress involved in HUAC did their jobs, in the face of opposition from “the East coast establishment newspapers” like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

The book reminds us that the Hollywood agents of Stalin had also been “Allies of Hitler,” a threat symbolized on the book cover by a Hollywood director’s chair featuring a Nazi swastika. The Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939-1941 had paved the way for World War II.

As a result of the purging of communists from Hollywood, the so-called “blacklist,” we entered a time, from about 1947 to 1960, when the communists lost control of the major Hollywood unions and “the studios were actually creating anti-Communist pictures,” Ryskind writes. It was a remarkable turnaround.

But while Hollywood did turn anti-communist, at least for a while, the communists scored their own ultimate victory, succeeding in forcing Congress to abolish HUAC. The committee, which had been renamed as the House Internal Security Committee, was the target of what HUAC called the Communist Party’s “Cold War against congressional investigation of subversion.”

For many years, there was a comparable body in the Senate, which went by different names but tackled such matters as “Castro’s Network in the United States,” a 1963 investigation into the “Fair Play for Cuba Committee” that we later learned included JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.

To those insisting it was somehow inappropriate to ask Hollywood figures about their “political beliefs,” Ryskind counters that “Few questions could have been more important for a congressional committee to ask than whether American citizens were actually serving as agents of a hostile foreign government.” He said HUAC was engaging in hearings designed to accurately disclose membership in the Communist Party, “a subversive organization controlled by an enemy nation and designed to turn America into a Communist country…”

In its battle against communism, HUAC had subpoena power and was not afraid to use it. HUAC also issued contempt citations against those who refused to testify completely and truthfully. All of the members of the so-called “Hollywood Ten,” who refused to testify about their involvement in the Communist Party, eventually went to prison.

Ryskind cites estimates that over 200 Hollywood Communists were named in this process. His book provides the Communist Party card numbers of the Hollywood Ten as well as the names of other “well-known radicals,” many of them overt Communists, who were active in the movie industry.

Bring Back HUAC?

Today, with dozens of leading conservatives now clamoring for congressional action to “Stop the Fundamental Transformation of America,” the Ryskind book may add to the impetus for Congress to reestablish a HUAC-style panel. The George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP) acted frightened and alarmed in 2010 when Rep. Steve King (R-IA) expressed agreement with my suggestion at that time that re-establishment of such a committee would be a good idea. “I think that is a good process and I would support it,” he said.

The oath of office for members of Congress requires that they support and defend the Constitution of the United States “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” HUAC is a model for how such a problem can be identified and confronted.

Donald I. Sweany, Jr., a research analyst for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and its successor, the House Committee on Internal Security, sees the need for such a committee. He has issued this statement:

“The re-creation of the House Committee on Internal Security will provide the Congress of the United States, Executive Branch agencies and the public with essential and actionable information concerning the dangerous and sovereignty-threatening subversive activities currently plaguing America. This subversion emulates from a host of old and new entities of Marxist/Communist revolutionary organizations and allied militant and radical groups, some of which have foreign connections. A new mandated House Committee on Internal Security is of great importance because it would once again recommend to Congress remedial legislative action to crack down on any un-American forces whose goals are to weaken and destroy the freedoms which America enjoys under the Constitution. In addition, this legislative process will provide public exposure of such subversives.”

Ryskind’s father, Marx Brothers screenwriter Morrie Ryskind, testified before HUAC about communist penetration of Hollywood that he had learned about first-hand through his involvement with the Screen Writers Guild. Morrie Ryskind had attended the Columbia School of Journalism in New York and written for Joseph Pulitzer’s newspaper World. But he underwent a political transformation, from an anti-war socialist who became disillusioned with FDR to a Republican determined to stop the communist advance. He wrote for conservative publications such as Human Events and National Review, which he helped William F. Buckley Jr. launch.

Morrie Ryskind helped found the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals to counteract the work of the communists and educate the American people about what was at stake. The Ryskind book also notes how the American Legion and various Catholic organizations were focusing attention on Hollywood’s far-left elements and making the public aware of this problem.

The book includes Allan Ryskind’s memories of his Hollywood upbringing, including meeting famous people such as top Communist Party leader Benjamin Gitlow. He spent decades as editor of Human Events, which was President Ronald Reagan’s favorite paper. It also became known for its aggressive reporting on the communist and socialist threats. Reagan so appreciated the weekly paper that he had arranged for copies to be sent to him personally at the White House residence.

Ryskind, who still serves as Human Events editor-at-large, documents the development of Reagan’s anti-communism in Hollywood Traitors. Reagan began his acting career as a liberal who got involved in Communist-front activities, later realizing that the “nice-sounding” groups he was supporting were secretly controlled by members of the Communist Party. He carried this understanding and analysis of the communist threat into his presidency and talked openly about the growing Marxist influence in Congress as he battled with congressional liberals and tried to stop the Soviet advance in Latin America.

In fact, as President, he told journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave in a 1987 interview that “I’ve been a student of the communist movement for a long time, having been a victim of it some years ago in Hollywood.” He said that he regarded some two dozen Marxists in Congress as “a problem we have to face.”

The problem is far worse today. Analyst Trevor Loudon now counts the number of Marxists in Congress at more than 60, a fact that would seem to make it more of a controversy to re-establish HUAC, but even more of a reason to do so. All it would take is more courageous members like Rep. King, backed by the House Leadership. Such a committee would be able to seriously analyze an area that remains off-limits to the House Homeland Security Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the Select Committee on Benghazi—subversive infiltration of the highest levels of the U.S. government, including the White House and Congress.

One key to HUAC’s success was finding those in Hollywood, including in the unions, willing to name names and identify the subversives. Reagan testified before HUAC and took a leadership role in defeating communist influence in the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), later becoming the union’s president. Labor leader Roy Brewer was another effective anti-communist in Hollywood highlighted in Ryskind’s book.

Although the 506-page book is based on HUAC hearings, Ryskind conducted independent research that adds to his case against the Hollywood traitors. For example, he combed through the historical papers of one major Hollywood-Ten figure, the Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, who refused to cooperate with HUAC and expose his comrades. Ryskind reports on an unpublished script Trumbo wrote that treated the invasion of South Korea as a “fight for independence” for the communist north.

Trumbo wrote many excellent film scripts, including Roman Holiday, but was “a hard-core Party member, a fervent supporter of Stalinist Russia and Kim Il-sung’s North Korea, and an apologist for Nazi Germany until Hitler double-crossed Stalin and invaded the Soviet union,” Ryskind notes. “Yet to this day he is regarded as a hero in Hollywood.”

Almost on cue, as Ryskind’s book was being published, it was reported that Hollywood is planning a new film which glorifies Trumbo, starring Bryan Cranston of “Breaking Bad” fame as the screenwriter. The battle over communist influence is slated to return for another act.

Love for Cuban Communism

The book’s chapter, “Hollywood Today,” tries to bring the communism problem up to date by examining Hollywood’s love affair with the longtime Stalinist ruler of Cuba, Fidel Castro. He writes that much of Hollywood “is still lured by the romance of Marxism, and its films are still filled with heavy doses of anti-American propaganda.”

More details are provided in Humberto Fontova’s excellent books, Fidel: Hollywood ‘s Favorite Tyrant and The Longest Romance: The Mainstream Media and Fidel Castro.

I recently asked Fontova why a Stalinist like Castro gets fawning treatment, while the Stalinist North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, is ridiculed in the movie The Interview. “My best guess is that it’s a generational thing, nostalgia mostly,” he told this writer. The Castros and Che Guevara, he said, are perceived as “the first hippies” or beatniks.

Indeed, The Longest Romance quotes The New York Times reporter who helped bring Castro to power, Herbert Matthews, as saying, “Castro’s is a revolution of youth.” Fontova adds, “The notion of Castro’s Cuba as a stiflingly Stalinist nation never quite caught on among the enlightened. Instead the island often inspires hazy visions of a vast commune, rock-fest or Occupy encampment, studded with free health care clinics and with [the hippie icon] Wavy Gravy handing out love-beads at the entrance.”

Perhaps the pro-Castro influence in Hollywood is something that a new HUAC might want to tackle.

Another issue worth investigating is how Hollywood has also come under the influence of radical Islam. For example, the 2002 film, “The Sum of All Fears,” which was the movie version of the Tom Clancy book of the same name, replaced the Arab terrorist villains with neo-Nazis so as not to offend the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate. The Fox network responded to complaints about its popular series “24” depicting Muslims in America secretly plotting terrorism by running public service announcements from CAIR portraying American Muslims as moderate and peaceful.

The book, Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation, has an entire chapter on how CAIR attempts to silence its critics in radio, television, and the film industry.

There will be those in Congress and the media who will argue against the return of anything resembling the old HUAC, contending that “McCarthyism,” or the anti-communist “witchhunt,” is the greater danger. The truth about McCarthy’s investigations is provided in the M. Stanton Evans book, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight against America’s Enemies.

It bears repeating that Senator McCarthy never had anything to do with the House committee or its investigation of Hollywood.

This book is a valuable contribution to understanding a dangerous time in American history when America’s elected representatives and the people themselves rallied to the defense of their homeland against these foreign and domestic enemies.

While it is worth noting that the veteran Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood has bypassed the censors at CAIR with “American Sniper,” this kind of film is the exception and not the rule. The film portrays the great sacrifices being made by U.S. military personnel in the Middle East as they combat an enemy that is depicted as savage and barbaric. It is based on the life of Chris Kyle, an Iraq War veteran and Navy SEAL who joined the Armed Forces to defend his country from Islamic terrorism.

Zaid Jilani, a “progressive” writer who left the Center for American Progress after being charged with anti-Semitism, has emerged as one of the film’s most vocal critics. A regular on the Kremlin channel Russia Today (RT) and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Al Jazeera, he insists the film about the “remorseless” sharpshooter has sparked “anti-Muslim bigotry,” and he complains about it becoming “a rallying point for the political right.”

However, he admits that Eastwood’s skill as a filmmaker could result in a “Best Picture” award for “American Sniper” and “Best Actor in a Leading Role” award for Bradley Cooper, who plays Kyle. He just can’t bring himself to admit that the pro-military and anti-terrorist message is also a major factor in its success. The Academy Awards take place on February 22.

Indeed, this is the fear from the modern-day “progressives”—that Hollywood will rediscover the box office appeal of American patriotism.

But according to the annual Reuters/Ipsos Oscars poll, if ordinary Americans voted for the Academy Awards, “American Sniper” would be the Best Picture winner. Those who wonder why we don’t get more pro-military and pro-American movies out of Hollywood should read Ryskind’s new book.


John McCain’s Progressive Hand Is Behind The Purge Of Tea Party Detractors From The Arizona GOP

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

AP Photo/Jim Cole

John McCain is the quintessential enemy from within on the right. I am long past the argument of honoring his service to this country. He served his country long ago with distinction, now he’s serving it on a platter to the Communists. At every turn he has betrayed America in recent years. Just two words describe the good he has done this country: Sarah Palin and she is Tea Party. Now, in an act of political cleansing, McCain has set about to gut the Arizona GOP of Tea Party riff-raff using an Obama San Francisco donor. How richly appropriate for a man who is a Marxist Progressive and much more of a friend to the Leftist policies of Barack Obama than to the Constitutional Conservative premise of Ronald Reagan.

Behold the machinations of the troll that is McCain:

As the longtime Republican senator lays the groundwork for a likely 2016 reelection bid, his political team is engaging in an aggressive and systematic campaign to reshape the state GOP apparatus by ridding it of conservative firebrands and replacing them with steadfast allies…

The ambitious effort — detailed to POLITICO by nearly a dozen McCain operatives, donors, and friends — has stretched from office buildings in Alexandria, Virginia, where strategists plotted and fundraisers collected cash for a super PAC, to Vietnamese-American communities across Arizona, where recruiters sought out supporters eager to help the incumbent defeat the tea party.

McCain is much more likely to be besties with the likes of Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema. You remember her… she endorsed a Communist Party May Day appeal back in 2002. She did it again in 2003. He probably also hearts Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva who penned an article for the Communist Party paper back in 1993. Don’t forget the fascist moves of La Raza either in the Red State of Arizona. Arizona has big problems on the Left and the Right.

I don’t believe McCain ever really intended to win his last run for President. I think he wanted to enable Obama and taint Palin. If he had employed even a fraction of his time fighting for conservatives that he spent fighting against them, he might have occupied the Oval Office:

Until this year, however, McCain aides had never seriously considered a concerted effort to remake the state GOP apparatus, which has traditionally been dominated by his conservative antagonists. That changed after the January censure, which rapped the senator for having an insufficiently conservative record that was “harmful” to Arizona.

“He was very unhappy with the censure and wanted to make sure it never happened again,” said Mike Hellon, McCain’s deputy campaign manager in 2010.

In the days after the state party’s rebuke, a group of top McCain political hands, including Jon Seaton and Christian Ferry — who worked for McCain in his 2008 campaign and have remained with him since — hatched a plan to form a super PAC that would spend money to elect a more friendly slate of precinct committeemen.

The super PAC, which was based out of offices in the Washington, D.C., suburbs and Phoenix and given the generic name “Arizona Grassroots Action PAC,” raised nearly $300,000. The largest checks, according to contribution reports, came from Gregory Maffei, a Colorado businessman, and Gregory Wendt, a San Francisco-based financial adviser, both longtime McCain donors.

But the most stunning part of a story linked to Politico’s puff piece: McCain’s big purge, has to be the money behind McCain’s move:

Greg Wendt and Lisa Wendt of San Francisco, CA (generous benefactors of the Democrat Party and its candidates) gave over 40% of the funds for Grassroots Arizona; a PAC set up to target the Republican chairman of legislative district 11.

Greg and Lisa have been very generous to Democrats. Greg has donated to such people as Ron Wyden, Max Cleland, Barack Obama, Diane Feinstein, and Claire McCaskill, among many other Democrats.

Though some of these links go back to 2006, Wendt is still giving large amounts to Arizona Grassroots Action PAC who is funding McCain.

The other donor you should note here is Greg Maffei from Colorado. He’s a bud of Colorado gun control Governor Hickenlooper. He gave 100k to the anti-Tea Party war chest for McCain.

This is nothing new for McCain. He’s been doing it for as long as I can remember. He is roundly despised by true conservatives in Arizona and with good reason. If you are an out-spoken critic of him, he destroys you, or at least he tries to. Ethics be damned. McCain is for McCain and the wealthy elites in Arizona and those he pals around with. He’s despicable and has no morals or sense of decorum. He has stood for Amnesty and for just about every Progressive platform out there. The only one left in the State of Arizona that hearts McCain is freshman Senator Jeff Flake, who I have serious issues with. He is a Progressive as well and is the only Republican to travel with Democrats to Cuba on junkets and profess his admiration for a Communist regime. ‘Nough said there for now.

And what brought on the ire of this corrupt politician who counts himself as a good friend to Barack Obama? He’s out for payback for the those that backed his embarrassing censure earlier this year. He’s paving the way for a possible 2016 run.

McCain’s team has been busy tolling away to reform the state party by forcibly removing hostile Tea Party-aligned members from local GOP offices and replacing them with allies ahead of the senator’s 2016 re-election bid. He’s at war with the Tea Party and McCain is taking no hostages.

More from Politico:

Under the byzantine rules of Arizona Republican Party politics, these elected officials, known as precinct committeemen, vote for local party chairmen. The chairmen, in turn, determine how state and local GOP funds are spent, which candidates are promoted in an election year, and which political issues are highlighted — all matters of central concern for McCain heading into 2016, when the threat of a primary looms.

Prior to Aug. 26, when the races for the party offices were held, the vast majority of the 3,925 precinct slots were filled by people McCain’s team considered opponents. Now, after an influx of candidates were recruited by the senator’s allies, around 40 percent of those offices — 1,531 to be exact — will be held by people McCain’s team regards as friendly. They will have the power to vote down hostile Republican chairmen in each of their respective localities.

“There’s been a huge organizational effort that I’ve never seen before,” said Gordon James, an Arizona public relations executive and longtime McCain confidant. “A lot of the party folks who were hostile to John McCain have been marginalized, and that’s a good thing.”

The biggest foe to fall: Timothy Schwartz, the man who authored the McCain censure resolution. Earlier this month, Schwartz was ousted from his post as a GOP legislative district chairman by a group of newly elected precinct committeemen who voted in favor of a McCain-aligned candidate. Another outspoken McCain detractor, A.J. LaFaro, recently announced that he wouldn’t be seeking reelection to the Maricopa County Republican chairmanship, a tacit recognition that he didn’t have enough support to win.

And from the Inquisitr:

The resolution was passed by a 1,150-to-351 vote. The Tea Party vote listed a number of what the party called “disastrous” and “harmful” policy decisions toward Arizona and the country. The “liberal” policy record he holds included votes for amnesty, and a refusal to defund Obamacare are among the charges. The amnesty charge comes from the fact that Arizona is border state, and the issue has been boiling over the past several years. The Inquisitr reported on the ongoing fights over illegal immigration.

The wording of the resolution was very serious and stern in its declaration, the Arizona Repubic reports.

“Only in times of great crisis or betrayal is it necessary to publicly censure our leaders. Today we are faced with both. For too long we have waited, hoping Senator McCain would return to our Party’s values on his own. That has not happened.”

Along with McCain’s jabs at Sarah Palin, who can forget his infamous labeling of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul as wacko birds last year. Or when he called them ‘Tea Party Hobbits.’ He haaates the Tea Party – McCain despises the independence and freedom it stands for, along with the Constitutional precepts of limited government and taxation, as well as the rights that are inherent to all Americans. McCain went to the dark side of politics long ago. As Investor’s Business Daily sagely points out… purges may work in totalitarian states, but not in a Constitutional Republic. Republicans would do well to remember that, unless of course they relish living under the heavy hand of a dictator. Cavorting with the enemy leads to becoming the enemy.

McCain believes with his money, power and influence he can rule Arizona and the nation at the tender age of 78. He’s a megalomaniac of epic proportions. But does he really think the patriots of the Tea Party will just roll over and wet themselves? If he does, he’s even more delusional than I thought. Schwartz, the ousted McCain foe, hinted that Tea Party forces were planning on a counterstrike after the holidays. He didn’t provide specifics, but trust me… it is coming. “They think it’s over,” Schwartz told Politico. “But the fat lady hasn’t sung.” Indeed, this big boy is just warming up – let’s dance. If McCain wants a war with the Tea Party, he’s got one.