Sunday, December 26, 2010

Top 11 Things I'd Like to See in 2011




Christmas may be over, but I’m breaking out my new wish list now, because it enumerates the things a lot of us would like to see happen in 2011. Some of these wishes may seem pure fantasy, but all of them have action steps that will move our country forward – action steps that require us to be brave, strong, and in many cases vocal.




1. Stop the indoctrination of America’s children

The Left has a stranglehold on education. They have infiltrated teacher training, and no more beautiful example of this exists than the fact that former domestic terrorist and Weather Underground member Bill Ayers spent a number of years as an “education expert” and professor of education at the University of Illinois. How many teachers have absorbed Ayers’ ideas that education is all about “teaching against oppression” in light of “America’s evil history of racism”? And Ayers is hardly alone. Because the Left dominates (with an iron hand) academia, the vast majority of schoolteachers must wallow through a whole lot of Leftism in order to get their teaching credentials.

The Left has been smart this way; we have not. It’s time to take back education, because all the rest of the changes America needs will be a lot easier to make with a populace that is free of pre-wired Leftist tendencies now being inculcated at your local public school and/or college. Imagine a populace that actually understands the beauty of the American system of government, and the unique genius of the Constitution. How can we get there?

One no-brainer is to immediately eliminate the federal Department of Education. This will save money, take the feds out of what should be a local issue, and eliminate a whole raft of nonsensical regulation. Win-win-win. Plus, can anyone argue that education is better now than it was pre-Jimmy Carter (the dope who made Education a cabinet level department)? No, no one can. End of that discussion.

States and municipalities should have the right to hire non-union teachers and completely eliminate tenure (and that includes at the college/university level).

This isn’t a 2011 goal, but I’d like to see the elimination of government-run schools altogether. It is far too easy for one elite or another to get control of the education system (Exhibit A: Now) and push an agenda that is contrary to liberty. Privatize the whole thing! Generally speaking, private schools do a far superior job at far less expense. Plus, homeschoolers are on to something, especially when they band together to give their children experiences and education outside the parents’ own expertise. But in any event, there is no reason in the world that education has to be public – and the fact that the teacher unions fight against private/homeschooling so vociferously makes this point crystal clear.

Bonus: with no public schools comes no arguments over public school lunches! Michelle Obama will have to concentrate on brainwashing parents instead of school administrators!

Wresting control away from the Leftists will be an even more challenging and daunting task within higher education, but it has to be faced.  So much of what is wrong in this country is starting, and being cultivated, on our university campuses. Nobody is doing more important work on this topic than David Horowitz – his book Reforming Our Universities: The Campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights is a must-read.




Next: Islam is not a religion of peace…


2. Educate the public on the true nature of Islam
This may end up meaning that we need to educate American Muslims on the true nature of Islam. Many of them – the ones who are not among the recently publicized homegrown jihadist movement – seem to be unaware of what their own religion teaches. If they are Americans first, with no desire to see Islam play a role in our government, that’s a different story than we’re getting from many American Muslims, who will (gently) denounce terrorists but not the terrorists’ end goals, which are to see Islam take over America and the West.

So many Leftists painstakingly attempt to draw a line between Islam and so-called Radical Islam – but that line is nonexistent, as is proven on an almost daily basis with just a cursory look at the day’s headlines. Despite Leftist whining and wishful thinking, there are no Christian terrorists, and even if Timothy McVeigh had blown up that building while shouting “Christ is Lord” – which he most certainly did not – that one act of terror would pale in comparison, on sheer numbers, with the carnage left behind in the name of Allah. Islam is not a religion of peace, and in 2011 we should take every opportunity to expose its hateful, anti-Israel, anti-America underpinnings.

Speaking of Israel – while we are educating on the dangers of Islam, I hope we see a resurgence of support for Israel as both an irreplaceable contributor to world culture, and as America’s staunchest ally. When your allies are attacked, you have to respond. That will be an important point to remember in the next few years, I am afraid.

Next: knocking back the leftstream media…


3. Hold the media’s feet to the fire
We are making great progress on this, but 2011 is no time to retreat – in fact, it’s time to ramp it up. No Leftist media bias should go unchallenged – ever. Whether it’s a media giant like CNN or our local weekly newspapers, we must call out any and all examples of bias in reporting – or in lack of reporting. This is often how bias shows itself – in the stories the media chooses not to cover. But we can write letters to the editor, post on blogs, and support the websites that are doing the reporting the (mainstream) media is failing to undertake.

As author Stanley Kurtz noted in his blockbuster Radical-in-Chief, many Americans find the truth (for instance, that Obama’s a socialist) a little hard to believe. This is because they have simply never heard the truth. It’s up to each of us, individually, to speak up and defend what we know to be right and true so that our less-educated friends and neighbors can see that these opinions are valid and fact-based.

I encounter this a lot, personally, with the great straw man that the MSM has made of Fox News. “Everyone” knows that Fox is an evil, partisan organization, right? That’s just common knowledge, so that people who have never watched it are under the mistaken impression that they know what it’s all about. They think they have it figured out – MSNBC is liberal, and Fox is conservative (many conservatives mistakenly state this too). A bright, intelligent friend of mine made a comment about this just the other night, somewhat mockingly questioning my assertion that I saw “both sides” on Fox News. As a trained journalist, it pains me that anyone would not give Fox News a chance, since it clearly does give voice to many varied opinions, which is a good part of the reason why it slaughters the other news channels ratings-wise. So the next time someone snidely refers to Fox News, don’t let it pass. Ask them why they support news organizations that actively seek to suppress part of the story. Or ask them to compare election night coverage from 2010. That was a pretty good microcosm of who’s really reporting news. Just like the false Muslims vs. Tim McVeigh analogy, the MSNBC vs. Fox analogy crumbles under any perusal whatsoever. (It’s helpful if critics can differentiate between news and opinion, as well.)

Here’s hoping 2011 brings at least a few more young people into the media profession who will actually hold to the high standards of the Fourth Estate – acting as our watchdog on the institutions of government and politics, asking the hard questions, and reporting the answers so that the populace is actually better-educated.

Next: back to the foundations…


4. Return to the Constitutional principles of limited government

Some might say that this was a big part of 2010, what with the rise of Tea Party calls for smaller government. But 2010 was only a beginning, and as the Republicans in Congress are showing us right now, winning elections does not always translate to positive action in Washington, DC.

The first step in restoring an appreciation for limited government involves – again – education. Americans need to understand what the Constitution says, and perhaps even more importantly, WHY the Founders crafted our system the way they did. (Hint: the Founders had an excellent understanding of human nature; without grasping that, it’s difficult to fully appreciate the genius of our founding documents.) A few recently authored books have provided excellent (re)introductions to these topics – check out Glenn Beck’s Common Sense or Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny.

The next step involves holding feet to the fire, again, but this time the feet are attached to elected representatives. If they were elected under the banner of limiting government, we must make sure they vote accordingly. Compromise is (vastly) overrated. We didn’t elect them to compromise, or “get things done.” We elected them to get things reined in. Nothing less than that – or more to the point, more than that – is acceptable. Emailing, picking up the phone, or even personally visiting our representatives may all be required in order to ensure that those Congressmen or Senators remember their promises. This is not the year to let the GOP backslide into mediocrity and RINO-ism.

The standard should be: NO SPENDING. Even things that sound really nifty, like paying for medical expenses for 9/11 responders – NOTHING should be spent without a full and transparent discussion open to all citizens.

As for a balanced budget – this is so obvious that it should go without saying.

Next: death and taxes…


5. Revolutionize our system of taxation

I wish that America’s citizens, back about a hundred years ago, had paid closer attention to what their leaders were up to. We’ve had an income tax since 1913, and it’s never been Constitutional. In 2011, it’s time for a revolutionary repeal of the IRS and all its onerous regulations. It’s time to repeal the 16th Amendment and eliminate the possibility of tax code being used to punish political opponents (it does happen – talk to Joe the Plumber). But a flat tax does not go far enough in dismantling this corrupt, complicated mess.

It’s time for the Fair Tax. The folks pushing for this ask us to imagine the economic BOOM that would result from the demise of the IRS. I just like to imagine the boomin’ party we’d all have to celebrate. A national sales tax that replaces income tax would be unarguably more fair and far, far less prone to abuse. This is a proposal worth our most serious consideration.

Next: hey racists, this one’s for you…


6. End race- and class-baiting

Stanley Kurtz’ masterpiece Radical-in-Chief details how socialists (like Obama) manipulate race and class distinctions in order to sow seeds of resentment and cultivate anti-capitalist sentiment. It is particularly offensive that the president who sold the country on his post-racial post-partisan leadership abilities (which the media should have been questioning all along, had it been doing its job) would actually surround himself with virulent race-obsessed demagogues.

I would go so far as to suggest that Obama was in fact elected BECAUSE he was not white, by voters eager to prove that they were not racist. Prove it they did. And that should have been the end of loose talk about racism in this country. The problem is, nobody is more racist than the Leftists. They will never let the issue die, because it suits their purposes to foment racial discord.

That’s why it is crucially important to call out nonsense like that currently being trumpeted by Al Sharpton against Rush Limbaugh. Sharpton and his cronies are doing nothing more than trying to stifle free speech, and it is nauseating that anyone (*coughEdSchultzcough*) is giving Sharpton any credence at all. Has no one learned from his previous debacles (*coughTawanaBrawleycough*)?

Class-baiting is an even more direct assault on America, as it cuts to the heart of our system of free enterprise, attempting to discredit and punish those who succeed. That is why we must seize the terms of this debate. Do not let phrases like “tax cuts for the rich” go unchallenged. Our case is solid – fostering a positive business climate helps everyone. We must never tire of making this argument.

The amazing thing is, this idea is out there even among people who the Leftists think are on “their side,” as I recently discovered. I help feed homeless folks on the weekends, and a group of them were talking just before the recent election about California’s economic woes. Some of them were losing out on certain benefits, and the discussion turned to which gubernatorial candidate would help. In the long run, the group agreed that Meg Whitman would be much better than Jerry Brown. As one of them said, “We don’t need more unemployment; we need jobs!” Too bad the homeless vote wasn’t enough to carry the day for Ms. Whitman.

Next: border patrol…


7. Enforce our borders and deport illegals before any “immigration reform” is undertaken

We have borders. We need to enforce them. We also need to send back the illegals who are here. Nobody should be discussing “reforming” immigration until we solve the problems caused by the lack of attention to our existing immigration laws. And the problems, in border states, are absolutely devastating, in some cases resulting in near-Third World conditions.

Talk of any type of amnesty, whether it goes by the name of “Dream Act” or anything else, is a slap in the face to every immigrant who came here legally. Demanding enforcement of our immigration laws is not anti-immigrant and it is certainly not racist. Again, this is a case that needs to be patiently but continually made in the public arena.

What’s more, we need to reach out to the Hispanic population that is here legally and demonstrate how illegal immigration hurts them as well. There are plenty of conservative and right-thinking Hispanic families in this country, and we should be partnering with them to further respect for the American way of life that is under direct attack from Leftists who again are manipulating the illegal immigration issue for their own political ends.

Next: she blinded me with science…


8. Support real science

On all topics of controversy, but particularly those related to environmental concerns, the Left has utterly dominated the discussion by co-opting science as its lapdog. This has to stop. Even when the climate fearmongers were exposed as liars and cheats, the media still managed to either make excuses for them, or simply ignore the story.

The connection that the general public needs to understand more clearly is that between research and funding. Who is paying for that study that proves (fill in the blank) is just as important to know as the results of said study. Demand to know the source of so-called scientific stories.

It’s also important to know the methodology used by scientists, and this applies to the social sciences as well. Earlier this year, a prominent university trumpeted study findings that supposedly proved that religious people are more likely to be racists. The religious group most likely to be racists? Conservative Christians, of course. I challenged the author of the study to explain the methodology behind this inflammatory finding. I wanted to know how they tested for this. Did groups of Christians shun or attack black people more than groups of other folks? How exactly was this determined? The professor in charge of the study responded to me by getting angry and insisting that she had used “generally accepted social science definitions” in order to reach her conclusions – definitions that I, as a layman, could not understand. In other words, she could not defend her findings (I have a degree in sociology, so one might think I could have taken a crack at her methodology, if she had been willing to share it.)

Next: sex, lies, and the truth…WARNING! Controversial territory ahead!


9. Tell the truth about the “social issues”

And by truth I mean – the truth.

Abortion kills a baby. It does not kill a blob of tissue, or a potential human – any more than a newborn is a “potential human.” Thousands of parents in this country are waiting and longing to adopt, so that bogus argument about “every child a wanted child” is just so much bull poo. However, even if America were overflowing with orphanages packed with “unwanted” children – that still would not excuse killing a baby. This lack of respect for life can only progress in one direction, and that is toward now unthinkable practices like infanticide. What’s more, abortion is, in this country, racial genocide. The percentage of minority babies aborted is vastly greater than white babies. If it is possible to smile from hell, Margaret Sanger, that champion of eugenics who got Planned Parenthood going, is surely grinning from ear to ear. (By the way – being pro-choice is not a libertarian position; it’s an anarchical position. It is only if you support liberty to commit murder that you can in good faith support liberty to conduct abortions.)

Another truth – homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle. Surely a country that is so convinced of the dangers of smoking can at least acknowledge that homosexual sex is detrimental to the human body. Long before the advent of AIDS, homosexuals had astronomically higher rates of other diseases, like hepatitis. Only a rudimentary knowledge of (male) homosexual practices is necessary in order to understand why this is so. This is but one reason why we should not be condoning gay marriage. It is not a reason to deny the personal rights of any people to pursue their sexual deviations privately (well, at least this particular sexual deviation. There are others, like pedophilia, that really must stay illegal). But it must be kept in mind that it is, indeed, a sexual deviation. It should not be a point of pride, nor should it be celebrated. Your right to indulge in unhealthy behavior does not strip me of my (or society’s) right to disapprove.

Here’s one more. Pornography (and for that matter prostitution, which is closely related) is not a free speech issue. Pornography is also a sexual deviation, and abundant evidence suggests that it is mostly coercive and violent, as well. Do you know any women (or men, for that matter) who wanted to grow up to be porn stars? Do daughters of affluent families choose to become porn stars? There’s a reason why virtually all porn performers are druggies. It’s an ugly, degrading lifestyle to which the participant must numb herself. If you use porn, stop. You are supporting something that is intrinsically evil, and particularly toxic to young men (and the young women who will eventually be in relationships with them). Again, the idea that society frowning on pornography is equivalent to society frowning on free speech is ludicrous. These distinctions need to be made, and made loudly.

Isn’t it great that we have free speech, so we can talk about these things? Speaking of that...

Next: silence is not golden…


10. Show zero tolerance for attacks on free speech

Real speech, of course. The kind of dialogue where ideas about the world and how it should work are discussed and debated. That is what the 1st Amendment protects, and this is a precious gift to us from the Founders. We need to literally guard it with our lives.

This year, that may well include battling back against attempts to censor internet discussion. It certainly includes vocal opposition to Leftist tyrants attempting to suppress opinion that they don’t like (see #6, above… or Sharpton, Al). And it includes taking on every smart aleck who tries to silence the Right by mocking us as uneducated or stupid. Unfortunately, sometimes the best defense on this issue is a good offense, which requires shining a nice bright laser spotlight on Leftist stupidity.

And last, but certainly not least: packin’…


11. Carry a gun

And fight for your right to do so, especially in those states where carrying a gun is discouraged. The 2nd Amendment indeed gives you the right – but more of us need to arm ourselves. No, not because the end of the world is coming. But because a well-armed family is a protected family. Teach your children respect for all weapons, and when they’re old enough, how to use them. Hunting is a wonderful pastime for young men in particular. Young people who have been taught to hunt, properly, grow up with respect for both firearms and nature. Win-win.

This is a case where using the right more often will probably help preserve it. So sometime in 2011, take the whole family for a fun outing at the shooting range!

Happy 2011!

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Left: Can't We All Just Get Along? Islam: NO.



I can only plead “holiday hysteria”… or more accurately “Christmas confusion”… or perhaps “Yule whirl.” Yup, it’s got to be the Yule Whirl that caused me to miss this headline in my hometown paper, the L.A. Times, two weeks ago:

“Majority of Muslims want Islam in politics, poll says”

As in, they would like policy decisions to be influenced by their faith? The way Christians bring their worldviews to the political debate, injecting concepts like individual responsibility, natural rights, and yes, pro-life morality?

Well… no. More like this:
“According to the survey, majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria would favor changing current laws to allow stoning as a punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft and death for those who convert from Islam to another religion. About 85% of Pakistani Muslims said they would support a law segregating men and women in the workplace.”
Oh.

The poll showed mixed reactions to terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, with about half of Nigerian respondents giving Al Qaeda a thumbs up. The other two groups got better numbers.

Let’s review. In seven countries with large Muslim populations, a significant percentage are “okay” with militant terror organizations – as long as they’re Islamist. And a majority look favorably on Islam’s growing role in politics.

If nothing else, this poll illuminates the deep and disturbed – one might even say schizophrenic – viewpoint of the Left, which would collectively wet itself if a poll showed that Christianity was having a growing role in politics, or more to the point, if Christians said they’d look favorably on that. Meantime, the Lefties continue defending the “religion of peace” that would KILL PEOPLE who convert to any other faith.

As Mark Steyn said in America Alone, honest Muslims want America to be a Muslim country, and some have admitted as much. NewsBusters blogger Lachlan Markey points out that those Muslims are known in the media as “moderates” – apparently simply because they don’t favor flying airplanes into buildings. But they do favor a wholesale takeover of the West:
“There certainly are Americans who believe that our civil institutions should be based exclusively upon the Bible and that the Law of Moses should be our sole judicial system. But they are not a majority in the United States, and certainly are not considered ‘moderate.’”
There is a reason Christians do not support their faith imposed from above – it is because that is antithetical to the freely-chosen, individual decision that a relationship with Jesus Christ requires. Those few historical anomalies (often cited by critics) in which forced conversions were attempted were foolish and misguided.

This is why there are no Christian theocracies. (I guess you could argue about the Vatican.) Christianity has had a profoundly positive influence on Western culture and government, particularly in the U.S. – but it is not the “law of the land” anywhere.

But there are plenty of countries where Islam is the law of the land. Where homosexual behavior is not discouraged or frowned upon, but punishable by death. Where women are valued as little more than sexual devices that bear sons, and are easily discarded. Where flogging is considered “moderate” (hey, at least you’re not getting stoned!). Where sharia courts hand out sentences like “being blinded by acid.” And yes, where if you disagree with the law of the land, you die.

Islam offers nothing with which we can all just coexist, clever bumper sticker notwithstanding.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Radical-in-Chief: The Top 10 Wake-Up Calls We Missed (Thanks, Media!)


Author Stanley Kurtz has exposed the sordid underbelly of both Obama’s past and present, as I pointed out in my first post analyzing the blockbuster Radical-in-Chief. Kurtz revealed the hidden players who have shaped the president’s worldview – and it turns out, they’re all socialists! Not socialist as in a label tagged on so-called liberals in general – but real, collectivist, revolutionary, America-hating socialists. Kurtz has done all the digging the leftstream media should have been doing back in ’08, and yes, he proves far beyond a reasonable doubt that (spoiler alert) Obama is a socialist. The ties between our president and each of the socialists Kurtz profiles are convincingly solid. But the more disturbing realization that will dawn on you as you read this book (and read it you must) is that these socialists, who have been (more or less) quietly among us for quite awhile, have made tremendous progress on their road to dismantling America as we know it.
Or as we knew it.
Behind the scenes, using deceit at will, they have patiently and stealthily progressed toward their goal of reshaping society in a Marxist image – while the rest of us have been napping. So here are the top ten wake-up calls from Radical-in-Chief – or as you might consider them, the top ten facts we didn’t get from the mainstream media about Obama and his cadre.
Starting with: Why socialist revolutionaries abandoned terrorism.10. The socialists have given up on terror – for now
Homegrown terrorism was once an attractive option for many socialists still among us, including the bumbling Weather UndergroundStudents for a Democratic Society (SDS), and their infamous member Bill Ayers, whose association with Obama (almost) got the Anointed One in trouble during the election. But let us take a moment to remember those socialists who are no longer among us. Exhibit A might be Diana Oughton, who was Bill Ayers’ girlfriend when she blew herself sky-high while attempting to create, reports Kurtz, “a nail-bomb designed to tear through the flesh of ‘pigs’ – soldiers and their dates at a dance.” That was his little sweetie, his main squeeze. Of course he bravely rebounded and hooked up with his current wife, another little sweetheart name of Bernardine Dohrn, and together they advocated bombings of police and military installations to demonstrate dramatic resistance to the “pigs.”
“Violent conflicts with the pigs would serve as the catalyst of revolution, bringing the true nature of American oppression home to the public. In the Weatherman view, the highest form of community organizing would use attacks on pigs to spark off a violent, neighborhood-based conflagration… for Ayers and the Weathermen, then, revolution and communityorganizing were two sides of the same coin. Community organizing would galvanize white working-class youth to follow America’s own rebellious internal colony of inner-city blacks into the revolutionary fray. The inspiration for it all would be the continuing revolt of that de facto external colony, Vietnam, against the American monster.”
However, this strategy was not particularly effective at garnering recruits, as they discovered in July 1969 when “a squadron of Weathermen,” Kurtz reports, marched onto Detroit’s working-class Metro Beach carrying a Viet Cong flag and passing out literature:
“SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) is recruiting an army right now, man, a people’s army, under black leadership, that’s gonna fight against the pigs and win!!!”
Unshockingly, this persuasive rhetoric failed to turn the working class beachgoers, some of whom were Vietnam vets, into card-carrying commies. Eventually, Ayers and his compadres wised up, and realized that attacking the people they were trying to recruit was just a tad counterproductive. So, they turned to other means…
9. The socialists are pragmatic
At about the same time the Weathermen were planning terrorist attacks on the “pigs,” another faction of the SDS (which bombers like Ayers would eventually join) was producing a pamphlet called “Socialism and the Coming Decade.” Its authors, Paul and Heather Booth, Steve Max, and Harry Boyte, would go on to play influential roles in the political education of one ambitious president-to-be. So it is instructive to take a close look at this pivotal publication. Kurtz says thebooklet is:
“All about long-term strategy, realistic short-term objectives, and the deep-down social change that only patient community organizing can bring. For all that, the program itself remains radical, with clear support for the Vietnamese communists and a guaranteed annual income for all Americans among its positions… even so, the SDSers behind (the booklet) counsel patience… in these non-revolutionary times, we’re told, ‘a conscious organization of socialists’ needs to found and guide communityorganizations among the working class. These neighborhood groups can mobilize workers around concrete issues like urban redevelopment andhealth care, thereby giving ‘the socialist movement relevance to the daily lives of the people.’ Over time, patient neighborhood organizing and struggle will prepare the workers’ consciousness for the socialist revolution to come.”
So putting aside, for now, “the revolution to come,” note that these prominent socialist leaders, who years later would have a myriad of ties to Obama, were primarily preaching that socialists should move into working class neighborhoods (like when Obama moved to Hyde Park in Chicago) and become community organizers over issues of local interest (like the school reform project Obama took on), using patience to slowly guide people into more socialist ways of thinking. Kurtz shows, over and over again, how this strategy, unlike waving around Viet Cong flags, has actually been successful in capturing the loyalties of large sectors of the population. But it isn’t enough to just come into a community and claim you want to reform schools…
8. The socialists are deceitful
Modern socialists are some of the best liars in the world. They lie about their true motives:
“The interesting point here is the tension between what socialist-leaning organizations really wanted (anti-corporate campaigns) and what they sometimes had to agree to in response to their membership’s interests (fighting the mayor’s plan to construct an expressway). While the Weathermen were in hiding, hatching their absurdly unrealistic terror plans, the Booths and their fellow radicals were learning how to lead in the real world. In exchange for patient willingness to pursue popular projects of less-than-ultimate interest to themselves, socialist organizers could occasionally harness the power of the ‘masses’ to actions with genuinely radical potential – like an attack on the banking system.”
They also lie about specifics when it suits their purposes. For instance, Obama lied about his affiliation with ACORN (the granddaddy of community organizing groups). There is substantial evidence for this claim by Kurtz, including a video of Obama when he was attempting to obtain ACORN’s endorsement. In the video, the future president is heard saying, “I’ve been always a partner with ACORN… I’ve been fighting with ACORN, alongside ACORN, on the issues you are about my entire career.” Kurtz goes on to note:
“The contrast between Obama’s proud but private affirmation of his longtime relationship with ACORN and his denial of that relationship during the campaign is striking… a combination of lawyerly evasion and outright falsehood.”
Obama had to deny his deep involvement in ACORN because if we’d known the truth it would have killed his campaign (more about ACORN in #5). After proving that Obama lied about this issue, his involvement with Ayers, his history with Jeremiah Wright, and a number of other topics, Kurtz concludes: “At this point, President Obama’s credibility on the matter of his radical political past is virtually nil.” In other words – he’s a liar.
7. The socialists love code words and phrases
See if you recognize any of your favorites, in this excerpt in which Kurtz discusses the “stealth organizing” tactics of socialist Saul Alinsky, who he says was smart enough to avoid Marxist language in public:
“Instead of calling for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, Alinsky and his followers talk about ‘confronting power.’ Instead of advocating socialist revolution, they demand ‘radical social change.’ Instead of demanding attacks on capitalists, they go after ‘targets’ or ‘enemies.’ …In Dreams from My Father… Obama suggests that the only real solution for black is ‘changing the rules of power.’ That phrase is classic Alinskyite code for the sort of broad-scale social changes that lead to socialism.”
They’ve come a long way in their rhetoric from “let’s kill the pigs” to “changing the rules of power,” no? Another code phrase we still hear a lot in relation to our president is “pragmatic problem-solver.” This is the phrase the socialists want us to use as an Obama label, rather than the clearer and truer “socialist.” But Kurtz points out this is really part of the Alinskyite “good cop/bad cop” strategy. About ten years ago, a group called United Power, funded by Obama-ledfoundations, pushed through a major expansion of health insurance in Illinois in the midst of the worst state budget crisis in two generations. Kurtz finishes the story:
“United Power’s policy experts consciously worked to remain on friendly terms with legislators on all points of the political spectrum, yet workedbehind the scenes to encourage the hardball Alinskyite confrontation tactics of their grassroots allies. (This) account teaches us an important lesson about Obama. The president is not a moderate. He is instead a classic Alinskyite ‘good cop.’ Obama’s role is to provide a veneer of moderation to what is in fact a radical enterprise, all the while encouraging his tactically ruthless Alinskyite supporters.”
6. The socialists play hardball
Socialist Heather Booth (referred to in #9 above) wrote a very revealing little pamphlet called “Socialist Feminism” (is there any other kind?). Kurtz maintains that this work illustrates why Alinskyite socialists embrace hardball organizing tactics, as Booth discussed communityorganizing related to the abortion issue. Let me quote at some length, as it is most instructive:
“Instead of simply working to expand legal protections for abortion, Booth tells feminists to figure out which corporate executives serve on the boards of churches that oppose abortion. That way, organizers can launch ‘direct action’ campaigns against these executives, presumably, laying siege to their homes and boycotting their businesses. When your ultimate goal is the overthrow of the capitalist ruling class, initimidating businessmen is not a problem. On the contrary, it moves the battle beyond conventional legal reform and toward radical consciousness – which is Booth’s explicit goal. Most Americans are put off by Alinskyite tactics, implicitly feeling them to be violations of the underlying rules of fairness and civility on which society depends. Yet if in your heart you stand outside of society and hope to see the current system swept away,breaking the rules actually helps to get you where you’re going. In other words, Alinksy’s tactics are more than a means to an end. His tactical radicalism points to an underlying socialist ideology.”
In other words – why would anyone have to resort to stealthy, deceitful, code-word laced activity, if one wasn’t trying to hide something? Community organizers across the country have been increasingly employing these and similar tactics in an effort to begin to reshape society. What’s more, these community organizers care not one whit about demanding expensive programs that government can ill afford to provide. They don’t care if the state or country goes bankrupt – it’s a quicker road to the revolution if the current structure is shredded, after all. Another key Alinskyite strategy is making outrageous demands – like, for instance, demanding that banks undertake subprime lending practices in the name of racial fairness. Now, we all know that ACORN eventually was successful in obtaining that demand (more about that in #5), but at the time it was pretty outrageous. And to ACORN, it was a win-win proposition. If the banks cave, they won. If the banks resisted, community organizers in a group like ACORN stoke the anger among their members, and the supposed injustice from the banks was a useful recruiting tool.


5. The socialists instigated the country’s financial meltdown
As already pointed out, ACORN, a bunch of community organizers extraordinaire who love nothing more than Obama, is the group that really began pushing en masse for subprime lending, cloaking it all as fairness to minority mortgage applicants. Along the way they embraced some unique tactics. Good old-fashioned squatting made a comeback under ACORN, when the subprime lending push was just beginning. Kurtz says ACORN protesters:
“…would break into abandoned homes, seize them for designated ACORN members, and begin to make repairs. A picture in the April 8, 1989Chicago Tribune, for example, shows a group of ACORN protesters with bullhorn and crowbar prominently displayed.”
Kurtz goes on to detail how, sometimes, banks under pressure would actually agree to hand properties over to ACORN. This tactic undoubtedly lured in many new ACORN recruits with hopes of being selected as a new “owner.” This tactic was a beautiful mini-picture of what ACORN wants to see on a massive scale – goods appropriated from businesses or the state, and doled out to “the poor.” In any event, some say that ACORN’s involvement in the subprime mortgage crisis that precipitated America’s financial meltdown was minor. They say ACORN directly influenced only about a quarter of this type of bad loan. But as Kurtz points out, ACORN served as a “critical catalyst,” lobbying to spread subprime lending across the country. And the organization was shameless and ruthless long before it was exposed by student filmmakers last year:
“ ‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bankYour job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.’ So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Timesthat went on to direct prospective home buyers fitting this profile to ACORN’s loan counseling program. Considered in the wake of thesubprime mortgage crisis of 2008, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness. At the time, however, those who supported ACORN’s lending programs saw it as both an embodiment of economic justice and a force for civil rights.”
Minority mortgage applicants, in particular, were manipulated by ACORN into pursuing these bad loans. But that’s not the only way socialist community organizers manipulate minorities.
4. The socialists have mastered race-baiting
For all their talk of unity, socialist community organizing groups like ACORN often end up polarizing groups instead. But nowhere is the polarization more profoundly evident these days than in the racial arena. So-called Black Liberation Theology, with its radical socialist agenda, is a natural outgrowth of the kind of thinking mentioned in #10, above. “Hating Whitey” played a role in the Black Panthers of the sixties, and plays a role in the Jeremiah Wrights of today. As Kurtz notes, Bill Ayers has been saying the same sort of thing as Jeremiah Wright, “but with a good deal more rhetorical subtlety.”
“Wright’s famous ‘God damn America’ remark followed an oration blaming black poverty and imprisonment on the government – and implicitly on America’s entire political and economic system.”
No new ground being covered there, if you’re a socialist – Wright is just covering it more “colorfully” (excuse the pun). The irony is that Wright and Obama both insisted that Wright was being quoted out of context, but when one digs into the teachings of James Cone, who created the Black Liberation Theology that Wright espouses, “it’s evident that the only thing worse than quoting Jeremiah Wright out of context is quoting him in context” as Kurtz puts it. Cone refers to whites as “the oppressor.” What’s more, there’s a reason all that anger is being directed toward whites – it’s to aid in the revolution. Indeed, Cone says the goal of black intellectuals should be to “aid in the destruction of America as he knows it.” Whites must pay for their guilt – the story of American oppression must be told so powerfully that white men will “tremble, curse, and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil.” Indeed, white society is the “racist Antichrist” and the white man “the devil.” Some of the adherents to Black Liberation Theology, like Iva Carruthers, one of Wright’s theological colleagues, even claim that the lack of the chemical melanin in white skin accounts for the superiority of black culture. Well there you go! Fifty Cent is superior to Beethoven, due to Beethoven’s melanic deficiency. That clear, everyone?
Anyway. Far from being unaware of Wright-style black church politicization, as Obama claimed during the election, Kurtz did a little digging and found clear evidence that not only was Obama fully aware of Wright’s views, but he likely shared them. Consider this discussion of an article written in the Chicago Reader when Obama first ran for office:
“Obama, we’re told, is sharply critical of churches that try to help theircommunities merely through food pantries and community service programs. Obama rejects the strictly community-service approach of apolitical churches as part of America’s unfortunate ‘bias’ toward ‘individual action.’ Obama believes that what he derogates as ‘John Wayne’ thinking and the old ‘right wing… individualistic bootstrap myth’ needs to be replaced: ‘We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.’”
You get all that? The “bootstrap myth”? The collective this, that and the other thing? If it walkslike a collectivist and talks like a collectivist… can we finally all admit that our Prez is indeed a collectivist?
But back to the racial issue – despite his protests to the contrary, Obama didn’t just stumble into Wright’s church looking for Jesus. Obama was a big fan of exactly the type of political movement that Wright was preaching – indeed he was looking for fiery black preachers who would push their congregations away from that old pesky “bootstrap” stuff and toward agitating for wholesale government change. There’s a reason Obama copped a book title from one of Wright’s sermons. Duh.


3. The (mainstream) media loves the socialists… or the (mainstream) media is stupid
Or maybe a little of both. On all these issues – Obama’s connections to Wright, his ties to Ayers, even a true picture of his political viewpoint – it’s almost as if the media had covered their collective ears and yelled “LA LA LA we can’t hear you” to the chorus of conservative questions that desperately needed answers. A few choice Kurtz comments related to this media malfeasance:
“To this day, few Americans know anything about the controversy over Obama’s ties to the (socialist) New Party. Along with other critics, I wrote about Obama’s New Party connection during the 2008 campaign, yet the mainstream press avoided the issue. This is another reason why popular perceptions of the Obama’s politics continue to differ so greatly. American conservatives who read online sources tend to know things about Obama’s radical political past that the broader public has never heard.”
“So in channeling foundation money to the projects of Ayers and his radical allies, Obama was offering crucial support to Chicago’s thriving contingent of socialist organizers and educators. That would be a story even if Ayers had never planted a single bomb forty years ago. This isn’t a question of guilt by association, in other words, but of guilt by participation.”
“…it should nonetheless have been obvious in 2008 that Obama was far from the post-racial, post-ideological, post-partisan politician presented to the country by the mainstream press and the Obama campaign alike. Obama’s public record in the Illinois state legislature reveals him to be a profoundly race-conscious, exceedingly liberal, free-spending even in the face of looming state budget deficits, and partisan. Seen in the light of his state legislative career, moreover, the president’s associations with radical figures like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and Reverend James Meeks clearly emerge as intentional political partnerships, rather than peculiar instances of personal misjudgment. The socialism question aside, the press averted its eyes in 2008 from even the most obvious contradictions in Obama’s carefully tended personal myth.”
2. The socialists’ agenda is, ultimately, still absolutely chilling
As Kurtz points out repeatedly, the socialists may have gone undercover – they may be patiently biding their time, slowly infiltrating education, entertainment, and (of course) the media – but there’s plenty of evidence that they haven’t forgotten their original mission to radically transform America into a collectivist, socialist state. Kurtz sums this up neatly himself:
“These sixties veterans may have postponed their short-term revolutionary plans, but they never abandoned their core socialist beliefs.”
Indeed. In 1974, socialist John Judis (ties to Obama=yes) wrote that “openly socialist electoral victories” (and we’re still not there yet) “would be but a prelude to a broader social revolution and probable ‘armed struggle.’” Hmmm. A year later, socialist Heather Booth (ties to Obama=yes) wrote that socialist women need:
“collective actions… where they see the enemy cringe in front of their eyes… truly reaching socialism or feminism will likely take a revolution that is in fact violent, a rupture with the old ways in which the current ruling class and elites are wiped out.”
As Kurtz says, Booth’s easy contemplation of the wiping out of the ruling class is just a tad disturbing, is it not?
Bill Ayers also wistfully spoke of annihilating the ruling class, ironically during “a glittering partythrown by a Chicago foundation in honor of his book on juvenile crime. With so many wealthy and powerful civic leaders in attendance, Ayers joked about the event privately with friends, calling it the “Ruling Class Party” and explaining to a young follower how someday the revolution would sweep away all those folks. Nor have Ayers and wife Dorhn ruled out terrorism in the future – last year in her work Race Course Against White Supremacy (you’ll want to ask Santa for that one!), she opined that violence is not so much the fault of criminals as of our racist society.
“Welfare reform laws and low-wage work – themselves forms of ‘state violence’ – are the real crimes, says Dorhn. The implications of Dorhn’s writings are clear. Since Americans suffer from pervasive and structural ‘state violence,’ mass violence against the state would be entirely justified. While Ayers and Dohrn had abandoned their terror tactics, you can see why they’ve refused to either apologize or rule out future terrorism. They still believe revolution is justified.”
And finally, consider this choice Ayers morsel – and bear in mind it was published in 2001, while Obama and Ayers were serving together on a Leftist foundation board:
“Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. Birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them… I can’t quite imagine putting a bomb in a building today – all of that seems so distinctly a part of then. But I can’t imagine entirely dismissing the possibility, either.”
1. Our president is a (stealth) socialist
I can’t reproduce all the evidence here, although I’ve alluded to it plenty. All of these sickening, shocking, disturbing, outrageous quotes – they were made by people whose ties and connections to our current president run deep and strong. There really is no evidence to support Obama’s oft-stated contention that he’s just a “problem-solver” – his solutions always come from the same mindset, and that mindset is socialist.

Read the book. Order it here:



Diane Schrader read the book.