Author Stanley Kurtz has exposed the sordid underbelly of both 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.’s past and present, as I pointed out
Or as we knew it.
Behind the scenes, using deceit at will, they have patiently and stealthily progressed toward their goal of reshapingin 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 Underground, Students 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, 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 oforganizing 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, 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) isan 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 of one ambitious president-to-be. So it is instructive to take a close look at this pivotal publication. Kurtz says the is:
“All about long-term strategy, realistic short-term objectives, and the deep-down social change that onlyorganizing 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 issues like urban redevelopment and , 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 Obamato Hyde in Chicago) and become community 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) 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 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 system.”
They also lie about specifics when it suits their purposes. For instance, Obama lied about his affiliation with ACORN (the granddaddy of 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 theis 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-led, pushed through a major expansion of in Illinois in the midst of the worst state budget crisis in two generations. Kurtz finishes the story:
“United Power’s policy experts consciouslyto 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 organizing 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’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, 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 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 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 tool.undertake subprime lending practices in the name of racial fairness. Now, we all know that
5. The socialists instigated the country’s financial meltdown
As already pointed out, ACORN, a bunch oforganizers 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,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 crisis that precipitated America’s financial meltdown was minor. They say ACORN directly influenced only about a quarter of this type of bad . 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. pays you dog-food wages. Your has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You 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 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, socialistorganizing 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 , 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 theirmerely 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 itlike 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, 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 channelingto 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’sin 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 , 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’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– 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 glitteringthrown by a Chicago 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:
Read the book. Order it here:
Diane Schrader read the book.