12/27/16

The HUMILIATING Truth About Obama’s Presidency Revealed Just Weeks Before He Leaves Office

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | Right Wing News

Barack Obama will leave office with a 58% approval rating. I don’t know about you, but I find that impossible to believe. He has all but destroyed this country over the past eight years. The list of damages is too long to really go through. Among his greatest crimes are Obamacare, which destroyed the greatest health system in the world. He gutted our military and destroyed the morale of our troops, basically leaving us severely exposed to our enemies. The Iran deal nuclearized the greatest terrorist threat on the planet, all funded by the United States. He opened our borders wide to an invasion and is still bringing in thousands of Muslim refugees that aren’t vetted. And let’s not forget that he brought the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House and got four men killed in Benghazi. His last and possibly most transparent crime was against Israel at the UN, where Obama joined with the jackals and stabbed Israel in the back.

Only one in seven Republicans approve of his job performance and I think that number is way too generous. According to Pew Research, 88% of Democrats approve of Obama, while on 15% of Republicans approve. Again… not buying those numbers. Almost a third of this country has been out of work for years… regardless of the unemployment numbers they parade around, which is a massive manipulated lie. Businesses have fled this country at an astounding rate to escape taxes and regulations… all thanks to Obama’s Marxism.

From the Daily Mail:

President Obama’s job approval rating is a healthy 58 per cent as he begins his glide path out of office, but that number hides a partisan split among Americans that’s wider than any outgoing president has seen since at least the 1960s.

During a November 17 press conference in Germany, Obama claimed that ‘based on current surveys of public opinion in the United States, it turns out that the majority of Americans think I’ve done a pretty good job.’

But that assessment hides a deep divide: While 88 per cent of Democrats told Pew Research Center pollsters that they have a favorable view of Obama’s work in the Oval Office, just 15 per cent of Republicans agree.

That gap – 73 per cent – is far larger than what Gallup polls recorded at the end of the Reagan and Clinton administrations, and as both George Bushes prepared to leave the White House.

Obama’s average approval rating across all eight years of his presidency also shows the largest partisan breach measured since opinion surveys began separating data by political party affiliation during the Eisenhower administration.

The 73-point party gap is the largest ever measured since pollsters started recording approval ratings during the Eisenhower years. There is such a huge gap between the left and the right now, it is staggering and frankly, frightening. When you see such a disparity between political entities within a country, it usually means you are on the cusp of a civil revolt of some sort. I’m hoping and praying that President-elect Donald Trump can fix enough of the damage to stop that from happening here. The communists have been successful in tearing us apart and causing upheaval and chaos. Thank God Hillary Clinton did not get elected… she would have finished us off, I have no doubt of that.

Obama claimed last month that ‘the majority of Americans think I’ve done a pretty good job’. No, they don’t. Only the uninformed or the ones that are communists or Islamists do. That’s the brutal truth. Obama also claimed that if he ran against Donald Trump, he would have beat him. Again, no… he wouldn’t have. Americans are sick of the corruption, Marxism and lies brought on by Barack Obama. That is what he will truly be remembered for. He took Saul Alinsky to heart and really should be included with the other rebel that Alinsky honored… Lucifer: “Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.” ― Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. That’s one hell of a legacy. Just sayin’.

President Barack Obama has a 58 percent approval rating as he leaves office, but that number hides a massive 73-point gap between Democrats and Republicans.

Pew’s numbers show 88 percent of Democrats and just 15 percent of Republicans currently approve of Obama’s job performance.

Averaged over Obama’s eight years in office, approval of the outgoing president’s Oval Office work drew a 67-point partisan gap – the largest measured in more than 60 years.

10/4/16

The Secret Socialism of Saul Alinsky

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

wolf

Richard Payne, writer and narrator of the film, “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,” examines Marxist infiltration of America and the Catholic Church. Go to alinskyfilm.com to see the trailer.

12/4/15

How Best to Keep the Progressive Agenda Going?

By: C. Dawley

The progressive mantra of long-term man-made Global Cooling proved to be wrong and now man-made long-term Global Warming is falling on hard times having been supported by manipulated data.

How best to keep the progressive agenda going per Obama’s Marxist Mentors?

Mentors

Change the focus to man-made Climate Change, which of course has been going on since the eons of time.  Start the drum beat of horror and impending disaster, and, with fear mongering, get the public to adopt all sorts of liberal agenda items such as:

  • new taxes (carbon tax)
  • open borders
  • gun control
  • removal of the lines between separate sovereign states, thereby compromising the world’s most successful national form of government (the Constitutional Democratic Representative Republic)
  • introduce centralized government planning for all citizens
  • foment chaos by blaming the weather on human behavior
  • establish a one-world government with only “well-controlled” citizens of the world
  • redistribute wealth, thereby making all nations and individuals economically the same which ultimately destroys individual incentive and reward
  • establish rule by the intellectual elite over the uninformed and ignorant masses (communist socialism), consequently destroying the middle class
  • and the list could go on and on.

Yes, our President has revealed his Marxist leanings if not his fundamental core beliefs this week in Paris.

Mentors1

His mentors, Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky among many of the same stripe, should be extremely proud of the slight-of-hand their protégée has once again shown before the world.

Mentors2

08/29/15

The Secret of Trump’s Success

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

“Go back to Univision” is how Donald Trump handled Mexican-American “journalist” Jorge Ramos when he tried to disrupt a Trump news conference. When Hillary Clinton compared Republicans to terrorists, the Republican National Committee asked for an apology. This contrast demonstrates why Trump is doing so well and the Republican Party, in general, is doing so poorly.

On the Megyn Kelly Fox News show on Thursday night, much was made of the fact that Hillary had made her comparison between Republicans and terrorists as she was looking at her notes. In other words, Kelly and her guest concluded, it was a deliberate insult. Of course it was. Why was this a surprise? Mrs. Clinton had returned to her roots as an Alinskyite, someone who demonizes her opponents as a deliberate strategy. Why can’t conservatives get it through their heads that Hillary is a committed leftist who can be just as good as Obama when it comes to poisoning the public discourse for political purposes?

Republican National Committee (RNC) Press Secretary Allison Moore said, “For Hillary Clinton to equate her political opponents to terrorists is a new low for her flailing campaign. She should apologize immediately for her inflammatory rhetoric.”

What is the point of such a statement? Does the RNC seriously believe Hillary will consider apologizing to Republicans? What the RNC should have said is that Hillary was back to using Alinskyite tactics, which she learned about in college, and that the use of such a strategy demonstrated her grounding in a form of Marxism. The RNC could have said that the American people have had enough of these divisive tactics from Obama, who has come close to inciting a race war in the United States, and that the public cannot tolerate another un-American presidency in which a top Democrat equates political opponents to foreign enemies.

As we argued more than two months ago, you have to study Marxism to understand Hillary. It is apparent the RNC hasn’t done its opposition research. Despite her love for money, Hillary is as much of a leftist as Barack Obama. She studied Alinsky in college and went to work as an intern for a law firm that employed communists. The best source of information on this is Hell to Pay, a book on Hillary by Barbara Olson, who told me in an interview in 2000 that she expected Mrs. Clinton to run for president and that her political background made her a “budding Leninist” who understood the concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost. In the same vein, she is determined to destroy the Republicans at any cost. Joe Biden has to understand this side of Hillary. It may be one reason why he is reluctant to jump into the presidential race against her. With a history of plagiarism and embarrassing off-the-cuff remarks, Biden could be torn apart.

Hillary Clinton has the blood of four Americans on her hands over her handling of Benghazi. Yet, she compares Republicans to terrorists? And the RNC responds by asking for an apology? This is almost comical.

Trump doesn’t ask for apologies. He fires back any way he can. That’s why, despite questions about his ideology and even religious views, he strikes a chord. The American people have watched their country being destroyed from within for seven years and they are tired of politicians responding with hearings, investigations and requests for apologies. They can’t figure out why Obama hasn’t been impeached by now. They want someone to tell it like it is about the deterioration of our nation and those responsible for its demise.

What Trump has done, on so many occasions it is difficult to count, is to finger the media for their role in the destruction of America. Can you believe he actually accuses liberal reporters of being dishonest? He actually mocks and ridicules them to their faces.

Univision deserves scorn. It is a “news” organization that openly targets Trump and he has the guts to counterattack when one of Univision’s hired guns shows up at a Trump news conference for the purpose of making a spectacle of himself and trying to embarrass Trump. “Go back to Univision” is precisely the comment that Ramos deserved. If anything, one can argue that Trump was too nice for inviting the advocacy journalist back to the press conference.

The Los Angeles Times calls Ramos “the Spanish-language Walter Cronkite,” and suggests that the confrontation could somehow “prove dangerous for Trump, who thus far been something of a Teflon candidate.” This is the obligatory reference to how Trump has opened himself up to the charge of racism for putting the obnoxious Ramos in his place. Later in the article, we read that Ramos’s daughter is working for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, but Ramos “has said her job doesn’t affect his work.” Sure. Now we have another example of why Trump calls the media dishonest.

As for the comparison with Cronkite, the long-time CBS Evening News anchorman was as much of a fraud as Ramos. Cronkite undermined the war against communism in Vietnam and used his newscast as a soapbox to argue against President Reagan’s military buildup to counter the Soviets. Cronkite’s FBI file showed he was a dupe of the Soviet intelligence services, who could be counted on to promote Soviet objectives. After he retired, he showed up at a World Federalist meeting to accept an award and endorse world government through the United Nations. Hillary was there via videotape to thank him.

Ramos should ask for an apology from the Los Angeles Times for being compared to Walter Cronkite. I’m joking, of course. They are both disgraces to the journalism profession.

07/17/15

How the Republicans Plan to Lose to Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alinsky would be proud.

06/13/15

Obama’s Marxist Social and Demographic Engineering of America

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Obama is now making offers to debt-ridden municipalities that they dare not take. It’s like the devil offering you a way out and then collecting on that debt. Or, if you prefer, it’s like the mafia giving you money to solve your problems and then you owe them. Forever. The leaders in these areas won’t ask the residents and voters, they’ll let the silver cross their palms and will be blinded by the shininess of the coin they pocket. Corruption will finish selling free America down the proverbial river. I’ll be blunt… these municipalities should not be taking money from the feds. They should solve their problems at the local level, stand on their own and not be beholding to a governmental behemoth.

Under the guise of Obama’s Utopia, our president has been plotting for years the ultimate wealth redistribution here in America. It’s Marxist social and demographic engineering on a breathtaking scale. I believe this is the most insidious thing he has planned for us and it is a killer.

Obama believes the suburbs and wealthier neighborhoods are far too white. They are not racially diverse enough for his tastes. So, he is now going to municipalities that are sorely in need of funds and very much in debt up to their eyeballs, and offering them a way out. Say they are $5 or $10 million in the hole… well, the feds will give them $50 million. All they have to do is buy some land in an upscale area; sell it to a contractor that will build affordable housing and the government will take care of the rest. They will bring in minorities, the poor and disadvantaged… but even more importantly, liberal voters who will vote for Marxist policies. They will also resettle Islamic refugees and immigrants from across our southern border throughout these neighborhoods, leveling the demographic playing field into one huge ghetto from sea to shining sea. Just ask Sweden and the Netherlands how that has worked out for them, or Europe in general for that matter.

You see, Obama doesn’t give a flying crap about his legacy — at least as viewed by the culture as it is today — but rather, as written by the elites of a post-freedom neo-culture of Morlocks. He cares about the future of his Marxist Utopia and having the right people control, shape and manage it from here on out. That’s what this is all about. It’s everything we have feared wrapped into one slick move: Climate Change, Agenda 21, Common Core, a nationalized police force, the shredding of the Constitution, the loss of property rights, the persecution of Christians, the loss of free speech and gun rights, voter manipulation, illegal immigrant inundation, Islamic refugee resettlement, massive unemployment and poverty, laying the groundwork for Shariah law, neighborhood blight, societal decay, the spreading of violence and chaos and a race war… in other words – Cloward and Piven.

From The Hill:

The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities.

“HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all,” a HUD spokeswoman said. “The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.”

It’s a tough sell for some conservatives. Among them is Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who argued that the administration “shouldn’t be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble.”

“American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching federal government,” said Gosar, who is leading an effort in the House to block the regulations.

Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, are praising the plan, arguing that it is needed to break through decades-old barriers that keep poor and minority families trapped in hardscrabble neighborhoods.

“We have a history of putting affordable housing in poor communities,” said Debby Goldberg, vice president at the National Fair Housing Alliance.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibited direct and intentional housing discrimination, such as a real estate agent not showing a home in a wealthy neighborhood to a black family or a bank not providing a loan based on someone’s race.

But HUD is looking to root out more subtle forms of discrimination that take shape in local government policies that unintentionally harm minority communities, known as “disparate impact.”

“This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they don’t want to,” said Margery Turner, senior vice president at the left-leaning Urban Institute. “It’s really about addressing long-standing practices that prevent people from living where they want to.”

Sounds so very fair, doesn’t it? ‘Gentrification’ is a lovely sounding word that loosely translates into ‘ghetto.’ It’s equal opportunity for all, alright… everyone in the end will be equally poor and starving; equally enslaved and equally downtrodden. Whatever happened to being free to succeed or fail? Free to live where you wanted? Free to keep what you have earned and built? This is the end-all of entitlements for the degraded out there. Without earning it or working for it, you too can live in an upscale neighborhood. If this succeeds, America will see violence as she has never seen it before. You won’t be able to just choose where you live and who you reside and associate with… oh, no. You’ll live in a small domicile, in fear for your life as well as your family’s. I’d say you’d be clutching a gun for protection, but even that will be taken from you. Think inner-city Chicago or Baltimore and then picture that being everywhere.

In the name of ferreting out one form of discrimination or another, Obama, the great equalizer, will make everyone equally impoverished. He will usher in America as a third-world nation on her knees. He has decided that upscale suburbs and McMansions must go and that other’s wealth needs to be shared with those who have no right to it. It is Marxism in all its evil glory.

Property values will plummet into non-existence if this is allowed and the blight you see in poor neighborhoods will be rampant. Wealth won’t be an issue anymore as only a very select few will have it. If that isn’t engineered tyranny, I don’t know what is.

The expression ‘eat the rich’ is a distasteful metaphor, but when the metaphor is the creation of an oozing blob of digestive protoplasm that slimes its way over and around the rich and simply digests them, is that somehow less distasteful? Somehow less fatal? In the end, it’s all digestion and all comes out the other end. The man who changed your healthcare system forever, is now going to change your neighborhood forever – a community organizer from hell run amok.

Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has been screaming about the plan to transform American suburbia since 2012. And now, Obama’s wealth redistributionist policies are coming to fruition. This is about to be reality.

At least Arizona Republican Congressman Paul Gosar is trying to stop this – although in the end, I’m sure, Obama will find a way around any hurdles put in his way:

Tuesday night, on a vote of 229-193, the House passed an amendment to the THUD (Transportation Housing and Urban Development) bill that blocks any HUD funding that enforces President Obama’s fair housing rule (AFFH). The amendment, offered by Arizona Republican Congressman Paul Gosar, protects local zoning rights from federal overreach.

***

The Gosar amendment is endorsed by Americans for Limited Government, Freedom Works, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense and Eagle Forum.

It now goes to the Senate, where the prospects for passage are good — but not guaranteed. Kurtz predicts that Obama’s power grab will likely become a major issue issue in the 2016 presidential campaign should Senate Republicans fail to block the AFFH.

Listen up folks… we better get our act together as conservatives. Obama’s move on this is all tied in with the Hillary Clinton campaign. She’s also behind a lot of this – just sheer evil plotting and manipulation from the most corrupt administration ever to disgrace America.

So-called Civil Rights leaders are cheering Obama’s move. These are the same people who are standing against the police and race hustling now every time some black youth is shot or killed by an officer in the line of duty. These are the same Progressives who want to do away with gun rights as well. Under the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rules that Obama has concocted, societal boundaries will be torn down completely and America will become unrecognizable. HUD has morphed into one more Marxist tool being used against free society… another Philip Dru agency that is implementing communist ideals at the local level.

Megyn Kelly of Fox News is right. This is a radical, explosive game-changer. Obama is demanding that areas develop low-income housing or risk losing federal funds. It’s racial inclusion by sledgehammer. Since Obama cannot legally regulate neighborhoods and their diversity, he has resorted to bribery and blackmail. How very presidential.

Obama is preparing to mix it up in America permanently. He intends to level the demographic playing field once and for all with this move. A move, I might add, that has been facilitated from both sides of the political aisle. It is a move that is aimed at killing off the suburbs and herding Americans into the cities where they can be controlled. It is being done for cheap labor and political power.

From Stanley Kurtz:

Their goal? To increase the influence of America’s cities over their suburban neighbors so that even­tually suburban independence will vanish.

In the eyes of Obama’s former mentors—i.e., fol­lowers of leftist radical Saul Alinsky—suburbs are breeding grounds for bigotry and greed. The classic American dream of a house with a big yard and high-quality, locally controlled schools strikes them as selfishness, a waste of resources that should be redirected to the urban poor.

The regulatory groundwork laid so far is just a prelude to what’s to come: Substantial redistribution of tax dollars. Gradually cities would effectively swallow up their surround­ing municipalities, with merged school dis­tricts and forced redistribution of public spending working together to kill the appeal of the suburbs.

The result would be a profound transforma­tion of American society, Kurtz concludes.

This is the final push in Obama’s second term to socially and demographically engineer America. If Obama succeeds, this will forever change how we live and it won’t be pretty. I predict there will be a major backlash over this and it will figure heavily in the 2016 election. Americans simply will not willingly comply with being forced to live this way. Obama’s Utopian vision of America’s future is hellish and not American in the least.

Movie writers and book authors are fond of using the “Amerika” spelling to convey the conquest of the USA by some foreign interest of some shade of red. What’s afoot is more subtle. No clouds of paratroopers, no storm of missiles arcing overhead, no magical EMP wipe of our grid – not yet, anyway. Instead, a carefully farmed culture of militantly criminal and impoverished social commandos sweeps into downtown and suburban America, bringing a pestilence of thuggery and parasitic dependency to nullify any prosperity and initiative, leaving only a bleak, open-air gulag where all of the traditions and inspirations that engender liberty and independence are subordinated to the forces of submission. They won’t change the spelling. But “America” will thereafter only be a brand, a cheap movie set with a glitzy DC facade and the entire population as extras. But at least it will still be spelled “America.”

05/12/15

Pamela Geller — America’s Churchill

By: Joan Swirsky
RenewAmerica

When Adolf Hitler published “Mein Kampf” in 1926, he spelled out his vision for Germany’s domination of the world and annihilation of the Jews. Germany would not have lost WWI, he wrote, “if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas.”

In 1933, Hitler’s Nazis took power. The few people who had read Hitler’s manifesto and took him seriously fled in time to save their lives. But most – including most Jews – didn’t. Comfortable, often prominent, and fully accepted, they believed in German society and could not fathom that a madman actually meant what he said and intended to fully carry out his malevolent vision.

Even as things grew increasingly menacing – through Kristallnacht, book burnings, the stultifying restriction of civil liberties, the expulsion of Jewish children from schools, the construction of Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka, and other death camps – there were Jews and others who downplayed Hitler’s ominous threat. Worse, they derided and vilified those who took him seriously, calling them fear-mongers and haters and liars. Sound familiar?

Today, the entire world faces the threat of galloping Islamic terrorism. We see this every day in every newscast – grisly individual and mass beheadings, people chained in cages and set on fire, hundreds of schoolgirls kidnapped, raped, and worse; Christian churches burned to the ground with their desperate congregants locked inside; innocent cartoonists shot dead and their colleagues gravely injured in France, Jewish babies murdered in their cribs and strollers. Increasingly, we see “honor killings” in the United States, as well as other freedom-smothering manifestations of Sharia law.

What happened in Germany in the 1930s and ’40s is happening in America today, except the assault on our system is not coming from Nazism, but rather from radical Islam. The mullahs in Iran and their surrogates around the world stand at podiums and declare boldly: Death to America, Death to Israel! They tell us outright that their goal is to create a caliphate in which Sharia law is the law of the land, in which all infidels – anyone who does not practice or has not converted to Islam – are relegated to second-class citizenship, draconian taxes, and groveling servitude, if not outright enslavement. Some of our own elected officials echo their words. All of them, like Hitler, rely on apologists who flagrantly lie about this escalating threat. Shame on them!

During WWII, Winston Churchill was the proverbial canary in the coal mine, repeatedly issuing the earliest warnings to the Western world of Hitler’s psychotic megalomania and evil intentions. Again, few listened, while prominent, educated, and sanctimonious types derided and vilified Churchill and called him a fear-monger and a hater and a liar. Sound familiar?

Since 2004, when she founded the Atlas Shrugs website (now PamelaGeller.com), Pamela Geller has been our Winston Churchill, warning of the increasingly aggressive actions of radical Islamists, the terrifying acts they commit, and their fervent goal to eviscerate our Constitution and Bill of Rights – you know, those little documents that afford us spoiled Americans the right to say what we want, be it in speech, drawings, art, movies, and music, without fear of being murdered!

That is why, as journalist Jonah Goldberg points out, the First Amendment applies to things that people find offensive, for instance Andreas Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” in which the “artist” urinated in a glass and then placed a plastic icon of Jesus on the cross into it, or the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s exhibition of a portrait of the Virgin Mary, which was partly comprised of pornographic pictures and elephant dung.

As I recall, all the holier-than-thou hypocrite who are calling for Geller’s head were bleating their support of “free speech” back then.

That is also why people who cherish the First Amendment agreed that it was okay to have a loathsome Nazi contingent walk the streets of Skokie, Illinois (with its formidable Jewish population) in the mid 1970s, and why other protest movements have been so powerful and important: for instance Patrick Henry’s bold declaration, “Give me liberty or give me death”; the Yo No rebellion in Cuba against its repressive government; the Boston Tea Party’s “no taxation without representation” protest; Susan B. Anthony’s “illegal” vote for women’s suffrage; Henry Thoreau’s demonstrations against slavery; the history-changing actions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks against racial discrimination…the list of heroic people sounding the alarms is endless.

Throughout history, all of these crusaders for freedom have been insulted by the cowardly accommodators among us, the appeasers, the apologists, and the deluded masses who thought, as Churchill said, that “the crocodile [of tyranny, fascism, murder, even genocide] would eat them last.”

Pamela Geller succeeded in literally flushing out the enemy within, two of the many jihadists in our midst. Only days after their failed assassination attempt, ISIS claimed credit for the attack and embarrassed our Department of Homeland Security into increasing security conditions at U.S. military bases and elevating the threat level in the U.S. to BRAVO – not the highest level, but pretty damn high!

But instead of praising Geller for her foresight and courage, cowards and apologists on both the left and right used the tactics of radical Saul Alinsky (described in his own manifesto, “Rules for Radicals”), which are to: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Hurling gratuitous epithets and insults and lying are also in their repertoire.

But in spite of it all, Geller is not intimidated, because like Churchill she has truth on her side! She awarded First Place to a graphic artist who left Islam for the freedom that the First Amendment offers.

Still, it is clear that few people have learned the lessons of September 11th and the 14 years that have followed about the increasingly urgent need for vigilance against a deadly serious enemy, and for the equally compelling need to thank and to celebrate people like Pamela Geller for risking everything to protect our priceless freedoms.

As journalist and author Mark Steyn reminds us, “you’ve heard them a zillion times this last week: ‘Of course, I’m personally, passionately, absolutely committed to free speech. But…and the minute you hear the ‘but,’ none of the build-up to it matters.”

“…all the nice respectable people are now telling us,” Steyn adds, what Mohammed Atta told the passengers on 9/11: “Stay quiet and you’ll be okay.”

05/6/15

Liberal Media Work With Jihadists

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

It’s strange that the liberals in the media who always complain about Joe McCarthy once having a list of communists in government are so quick to cite the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of so-called right-wing extremists or “haters.”

With the help of the media, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is setting people up for terrorist attacks inside the United States. Pamela Geller is the latest on the list of the SPLC that has now been targeted for death by the jihadists. ISIS says “…we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.”

ISIS is angry that Geller, an opponent of jihad, has defended the First Amendment right of free speech against Islamic Sharia law.

In response, ISIS tried to massacre people at Geller’s Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas on Sunday. Two terrorists were killed and an unarmed security guard protecting the event was shot in the leg.

It’s an open secret that ISIS can get locations for its targets from the SPLC website. That’s how homosexual militant Floyd Corkins discovered the location of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. and showed up at its headquarters, opening fire on a security guard. He had hoped to conduct a massacre of FRC staff.

Indeed, Corkins told the FBI after the shooting that he intended to “kill as many as possible” and smear the 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches he was carrying in the victims’ faces. Chick-fil-A had been in the news because its CEO had defended traditional marriage.

As we noted in a previous column, “The SPLC targets its critics by name…labeling them ‘hate groups’ and running photographs of officers and employees so they can more easily be identified.”

The SPLC sends its “intelligence reports” around the country, listing people and groups by name with their locations. This puts the leaders of these groups and their families at risk of terrorist attack.

Rather than express disgust with this tactic, the media regard the SPLC as somehow a credible source of information.

This brings a human face to the slogan “if it bleeds, it leads,” and makes the media complicit in the planned jihad on American soil and its victims.

The SPLC exercises what journalist James Simpson calls “partisan tolerance,” which means conservatives and Christians must be demonized and destroyed. On the other hand, anyone on the left is acceptable. That’s why the SPLC hailed the “educational” work of Weather Underground terrorist bomber Bill Ayers.

As the leading spear-carrier in the cultural Marxist war on America, the SPLC is one of the most despicable groups on the political scene these days, and yet it is accepted by the media as somehow authoritative and respectable.

No matter how many times the group is exposed for sloppy research and money-making scams, it is still considered a source of legitimate information by some in the media.

That’s why its apparent role in the targeting for death of Pamela Geller has to be highlighted and exposed. News organizations are helping terrorist groups by giving the SPLC unwarranted sympathy and publicity.

ISIS has figured out that all it has to do in order to identify their critics is go to the SPLC website and search its “hate map” and various “lists” of so-called extremists. The SPLC makes it easy for terrorists to wage jihad on American soil.

Yet, for a time, the Obama/Holder Justice Department and its FBI openly collaborated with the SPLC. For example, Judicial Watch discovered that SPLC head Morris Dees had appeared as the featured speaker at a “Diversity Training Event” on July 31, 2012, at the Department of Justice. The FBI has even listed the SPLC as a credible source of information on “hate crimes.”

The SPLC tends to focus its critical attention on opponents of radical Islam and critics of the homosexual agenda.

The media’s reliance on this organization was disclosed publicly by the hapless Bob Schieffer on a recent “Face the Nation” episode when he interviewed Tony Perkins of the FRC and began by noting, “You and your group have been so strong in coming out…against gay marriage that the Southern Poverty Law Center has branded the Family Research Council an anti-gay hate group. We have been inundated by people who say we should not even let you appear because they, in their view, quote, ‘You don’t speak for Christians.’ Do you think you have taken this too far?”

This comment proves that Schieffer has lost it as a newsman. Did he even bother to investigate the SPLC? Was he aware of the terrorist attack on the FRC offices inspired by the SPLC?

Simply because the homosexuals inundated the CBS switchboard, Schieffer felt compelled to take their objections seriously. This is not the usual way journalism is done. But it’s the way liberals in the media operate. Their ignorance is astounding.

Geller understands what is happening and frames the issue this way: “Truth is the new hate speech.”

The media need to educate themselves quickly about how they are playing into the hands of not only the SPLC but the terrorists who are targeting enemies on American soil.

This assumes, of course, that the media do not want to inspire more violence in America.

Typically, the liberal media describe the SPLC as a “civil rights organization.”

For those in the media who want to avoid violence and report the facts, for a change, Jim Simpson’s recent talk on “cultural Marxism” is required viewing.

In a report, Simpson defines partisan tolerance as expressing “partisan hatred for everything non-leftist,” noting that it “seeks to actively muzzle the views of the majority.” This lies behind the labeling of conservatives and Christians as extremists or “haters.”

He notes that the concept of partisan tolerance is associated with cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse and is based on “an extreme arrogance that assumes they are infallible in their utopian fantasies, and have the right to impose their will on us no matter what we think.” The notion that all positions incompatible with leftist designs can and must be suppressed is at “the heart” of their worldview, Simpson points out.

He adds, “The idea was further developed in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, especially rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Alinsky popularized the tactic, but Marcuse invented the concept.”

In the ISIS message targeting Geller for death, the group said, “The next six months will be interesting…May Allah send his peace and blessings upon our prophet Muhammad and all those who follow until the last Day.”

It’s time for the media to stop encouraging the bloodshed.