Freedom in the United States of America doesn’t just mean expressing your freedom of speech or your right to petition the government. Sometimes, it’s about the freedom to fail … and fail we do … especially, it seems, when beer and explosives are involved.
[Warning: Language advisory]
10) Brazilian Rocket Science
I don’t know any Portuguese curse words, but I’d venture a guess that this video from São Paulo contains some choice epithets. Never, ever, ever hold the fireworks in your hand. Just don’t.
We on the Right may find ourselves tempted at times to look at the failures of Obama’s presidency and think that we’ve won. We may think that we’ve proven, once and for all, that stifling statism and stealth socialism cannot prevail in America.
Have you stopped to think that what we think of as failures may instead be part of a grand radical strategy? Former Florida Congressman Allen West has, and he shared his thoughts on Fox News:
West, a Republican, said he recently reread the Cloward-Piven strategy, proposed by two sociologists and political activists in 1966. The purpose of the strategy, offered to Democrats at the time, was to overload the welfare system so that people could be given “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.”
Obama’s economic policies may be intended to do something similar, West hinted during a Wednesday appearance on Fox News Channel’s ”On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”
“We’re seeing an incredible growth of the welfare nanny state; we’re seeing the poverty rolls explode; we’re seeing the food stamp rolls explode; we’re seeing more dependency on government largesse and programs,” he said. “We’re seeing a desperation and a despondency out there that’s being created by this administration.”
Authors Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven proposed a plan to end capitalism quickly by overloading bureaucracy with dependents so that the system would collapse under its own weight.
They proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.” Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces for major economic reform at the national level.”
Their strategy involved a radical tactic known as community organizing (sound familiar?) to whip the poor into a frenzy and drive them on to welfare rolls. Voting-rights drives and a push for a “living wage” factored in to the Cloward-Piven strategy as well. Cloward and Piven were also reportedly behind the controversy in the 2000 presidential election.
Does all of this sound far fetched? Bear in mind that, like President Obama, Cloward and Piven were disciples of Saul Alinsky.
I sure hope I’m wrong, but if Obama’s policies thus far are part of a Cloward-Piven styled strategy, 2014 is more crucial than ever in terms of stemming the tide of stealth socialism.
“Controversial House Democrat Alan Grayson lost $18 million as part of a criminal scheme run by a Virginia man that bilked more than 100 investors out of more than $35 million, according to federal court documents,” the Politico reports:
William Dean Chapman, 44, of Sterling, Va.,was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison on Friday. Chapman pled guilty to one count of wire fraud in May, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia, which oversaw the case.
Chapman was the founder and owner of Alexander Capital Markets. Customers would give their stock holdings to Chapman as collateral for loans. Chapman then improperly sold the stocks, despite assuring the customers that they would get back the full value of their holdings.
An unnamed elected official named “A.G.” was identified as having lost more than $18 million in what was essentially a Ponzi scheme run by Chapman.
After Chapman tried to withdraw his guilty plea at the last minute, federal prosecutors submitted a document that included Grayson’s name as part of their legal response to Chapman’s move.
“Don’t worry, Floridians. He’ll be much more careful with your money,” the American Glob quips.
Politico adds that “According to his most recent annual financial disclosure report on file with the House of Representatives, Grayson has a minimum of $22.8 million in assets, as well as at least $5 million in liabilities,” Based on the Politico article, I’m not sure if the net worth they quote is before or after losing $18 mil in a Ponzi scheme. In any case, just a reminder that being a raving and drooling anti-capitalist can be exceedingly beneficial to one’s net worth.
And Grayson reportedly being duped by a Ponzi scheme is very reminiscent of the reports of Bernie Madoff’s victims, many of whom were fellow elitist far left Obama supporters — and the president himself has much in common with Madoff:
Mr. Madoff, like Mr. Obama, only took money from rich people, fat cats, millionaires, evil private jet owners, those that can afford to get bilked. Both have account minimums, a status symbol used to create the illusion that only the select elite will be allowed to participate. In Obama’s case, it seems to be around $250,000 (for a couple, but only $125,000 for an individual filer) Madoff’s, reportedly, was a cool million.
Obama and Madoff both like to hob-knob with the rich, famous, and influential of society, maintaining social networks that would put Donald Trump to shame. Their legendary early results spread like a virus among the privileged few.
Madoff devastated charities that had trusted him for his legendary investment prowess. President Obama will devastate charities with his proposal to vanish charitable tax deductions for the well-healed.
The major difference? One is behind bars, and one is still actively employed, planning new types of schemes to solve such “perceived” problems as global warming and economic inequality. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Madoff and Obama both held prestigious positions, enhancing their credibility prior to their meteoric rise to power. Madoff was the head of the NASDAQ (now FINRA), Obama was a junior senator from the squeaky-clean State of Illinois. Everyone knows that if you can’t trust a Chicago politician, who can you trust?
That’s the burning question, isn’t it?
— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) October 22, 2013
It is the second time the congressman has been the victim of a fraudulent investment scheme: He won $34 million after suing Derivium Capital, a company running pretty much the same scheme as Chapman. Grayson told the AP he invested with Chapman before he invested with Derivium, and hence he did not yet have any reason to view the investment as suspect.
How do you stumble into a Ponzi scheme twice?
I have not set foot inside a Blockbuster during this century — and apparently the same was true for just a lot of former customers:
Blockbuster, the video rental chain that’s been pummeled by the rise of digital and on-demand entertainment, said it will close its 300 remaining U.S. stores by early January.
The Blockbuster By Mail service will end in mid-December.
Blockbuster’s current owner, DISH Network Corp., said there will be about 50 U.S. stores operated by franchises not affected by the announcement. But DISH said it is also closing all its U.S. distrubution centers.
Talk about bad management. Blockbuster was late to the party on three new forms of video distribution: mail, internet, and kiosk. They got trounced once by Redbox and twice by Netflix. They were slow to change, apparently figuring that people really liked standing around on cheap carpet under bad lights where the whole world could watch them trying to decide between Mack Chestwell Blows Everything Up Real Good or Bikini Girls III: Revenge of the Sling.
Netflix came along with a nifty web front-end for a mail delivery-and-return rental service. By the time Blockbuster had a decent copy of that, Netflix was busy moving into digital streaming. Where’s that Blockbuster app for your Apple TV? Um… they’ll get back to you on that.
While Blockbuster was spiffying up their stores, the smart folks at Redbox figured out that vending machines could do 80% of what Blockbuster’s stores do, for a fraction of the cost and at an even smaller fraction of the real estate footprint. Easier to move around to hotter retail spaces, too.
Thanks to Redbox and Netflix, watching what you want when you want is far easier than it ever was when Blockbuster was still king.
Now that’s capitalism’s creative destruction at work — and it didn’t require any government mandates whatsoever.
Well, it’s official. I’ve been sent to the Facebook “naughty chair” for 12 hours. As I write this I’m still not able to access either one of my pages, personal or writer page, and it’s 1:46 am and I calculate that there are 14 minutes left in my punishment. That Mark Zuckerberg means it when he says it’s going to be a whole 12 hours.
What did I do, pray tell, that sent me, head hanging, to the corner with all the hate speechers and porn-posters? I got into an argument with a librarian who hates censorship. So she did what any logically challenged person would do and reported me to Facebook so they would censor me.
Unfortunately for Brittany Staszak, children’s librarian at Glencoe Public Library, actual laws (you know, the ones Congress makes without Mark Zuckerberg’s input), allow a person to re-post statements made in a public forum like Facebook or YouTube or anywhere else on the internet! So welcome to your 15 minutes of fame, Ms. Staszak. I hope it’s exciting for you! (Or at least as exciting as pushing the “report” button all day.) Here’s the exchange that got me thrown out of social media.
And then she reported me and made sure I was not able to access all the information in the form of media and internet access for the next 12 hours (actually we’re at 14 and counting now). Staszak wants to have her cake and eat it too by posting her ridiculous ideas in a public forum but at the same time pretending no one else has a right to comment on how crazy her ideas are.
October 4th, 2013, will forever be known as the day I fell into a giant porn hole. Imagine my surprise when I took my children for an outing with a friend to the Orland Park Public Library to look at books, surf the web and just have a relaxing afternoon. Instead I discovered an adult “masturbation lounge” lurking within a few hundred feet of the unsuspecting teen area.
I would like to briefly note that none of this would have happened if the librarian who rudely chased me out of the children’s area (like an angry ghost haunting the stacks) would have just let me use a computer there like I had very nicely asked. I would have never known about the library’s terrible porn policy (they don’t have one) or about the numerous sex crimes that have occurred there (many, going back years and years). They could have continued catering to pedophiles completely
unmolested carefree, but for the rudeness of a single employee, who will be forever be known as Kathy the Library Poltergeist. I would like to take a moment to formally thank this harridan on the taxpayer payroll. Without her this story would still remain buried in the sticky recesses of the Orland Park Public Library’s “masturbation lounge.”
Instead of being able to use a computer in the children’s area with my children, I was ordered upstairs to the adult computer area with my children (whom I did not take with me on instinct and left instead with my friend in the more appropriate children’s area). When I saw the oiled breasts on the computer screen of Drooling Mouth-Breather (as he will forever be known), I took my eyewitness account to the front desk. Instead of being handed an “incident report” to fill out (that I later discovered are kept in giant overflowing envelopes) I was told, “We have a lot of those,” referring to sex-crazed porn addicts.
Have a nice day!
This launched what is now going on a month-long investigation that has revealed some extremely disturbing and possibly criminal activity going on at the Orland Park Public Library (OPPL), paid for by the taxpayers of Illinois.
As I hurried my children out of that den of iniquity, I was already planning a letter of complaint to the village, the library board, the library director, and anyone else I could interest in my horrifying experience. I fired off the missive to every email address I could find. I followed that up with a Freedom of Information Act request for complaints against the library, police reports involving sex offenders, library policies on porn, internet policies, and anything else I could think of to help explain this bizarre and dangerous situation where a building full of children (many of them unsupervised after school) could also be a place where pornography addicts go to get a fix.
The Orland Park Police Department was the only department that responded to my FOIA request in a timely manner. Neither the library board nor the library director, Mary K. Weimar (email@example.com), has responded to my letter of concern to this day.
The police reports that came back were terrifying but not surprising. The Orland Park Public Library has been for many years a haven for sex offenders who feel very comfortable exposing themselves to women and children and masturbating in public in the library.
Worse, the library’s internal reports show that there have been at least four instances of sex crimes committed in the library and library staff chose not to call the police. In fact, in two instances they sided with the offender instead of believing witnesses. One of these reports involved a man allegedly viewing child pornography. There were two witnesses and library staff chose not to call the police.
Because of other bad library policies, the computer histories delete automatically when the computers are turned off. Thus, the evidence was lost forever. And if they had found the illegal activity, they would not have been able to trace it to a specific user since there are no requirements to show an ID or a library card in order to get an anonymous login number where no one will ever know what you do. (Psssst… al-Qaeda! Orland Park Public Library is the perfect place to plot your next attack! Not even the NSA can figure out who you are!)
My colleague Kevin DuJan (who was with me that day) and I scheduled an opportunity to speak about what we witnessed at the next library board meeting. The library held all the requested documents until the day of the meeting so I wasn’t able to read all the incident reports and speak about them at that meeting (and that’s fine. They don’t know yet that I’m coming to the next one). We were met with open hostility and stony silence.
If you ever try to petition your local government for redress (which appears, conveniently, in the Constitution as your right, despite the opinion of OPPL’s terribly uneducated attorney, Jim Fessler, who thinks I have no right to demand answers from this august board), this is how they will act. Be warned. The upside is it’s really fun to watch them make mistake after mistake (on camera) and wind up in a public-relations nightmare. Imagine if the supervisor on staff on October 4th had taken the time to actually address my complaint instead of setting up the wall of silence and pretending that they are untouchable, unquestionable gods reigning high above the huddled masses that deserve nothing but disdain. All that did for them is put them on the side of sex offenders.
For your viewing pleasure, I submit to you my great adventure in front of the OPPL Board of Trustees. Pay close attention to the derision and sneering hurled at me at every opportunity. And stay tuned for much, much more in the coming days and weeks. I have barely scratched the surface of this cesspit.
I’m sure this made sense in his head when he wrote it.
As with almost every “this is why the GOP sucks” thing I’ve seen in recent years, its premise is a bit iffy, which pretty much makes the rest of it a nothing burger. Here’s what the infamously disgruntled fauxpublican claims are the three major “policy” defeats the GOP has suffered in the Team Lightbringer era:
(1) The fight over Obamacare. Result: the most ambitious new social insurance program since Medicare, financed—unlike Medicare—by redistributive new taxes on investment and high incomes.
(2) The 2012 election. Result: Despite the worst economy since the Great Depression, the reelection of President Obama, Democratic retention of the Senate, and 1.4 million more votes cast for House Democrats than for House Republicans.
(3) The fight over the “fiscal cliff” at the end of 2012. Result: In order to preserve some of the Bush tax cuts, Republicans for the first time since 1991 left their fingerprints on a tax increase for upper income groups.
Number 1 is ridiculous since the Republicans weren’t even really in a position to put up a fight at the time and Obama, Pelosi and Reid resorted to every sort of procedural trickery there was to get the never-popular PPACA
shoved down our throats passed. The real “fight” over it came in November 2010 when many in the electorate realized what had happened and turned the House over to the GOP.
Number 2 isn’t really a “policy” defeat and has no value whatsoever without including 2010 in the win column, which Frum doesn’t do. The “more votes cast for House Democrats than for House Republicans” is seen as a victory even though it left the GOP in control yet the 2010 election that actually did something didn’t count? Buh-bye, Number 2.
Number 3 is the only thing he’s actually accurate about here and I don’t need to get my blood pressure up getting into that.
Frum then clicks off what he perceives are the seven bad habits of the GOP that led to these three defeats, two of which weren’t. It’s boilerplate Frum screed, working out his never-ending issues with the GOP so his new libmedia masters will continue to give him treats. Here is one part from the rest of it that will tell you all you need to know:
Barack Obama was never likely to be popular with the Republican base. It’s not just that he’s black.
It’s not “just” that he’s black…get it? But that’s totally part of it because of… racism.
Yet it plays to the zero-info leftmedia hacks who love him.
— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 8, 2013
There’s nothing that makes Hollywood more nervous than portraying Islamist terror. As far back as 1994, James Cameron’s True Lies was denounced as racially insensitive for imagining a chillingly plausible Islamist terror threat involving nuclear weapons. Cameron, anticipating accusations of unfairly linking terrorism with Islam and Arabs, took care to try for “balance” by placing an Arab-American character on the good guys’ side (the actor who played him, Grant Heslov, this year won an Oscar as one of the producers of Argo). Yet the advocacy group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) slammed the film anyway. The hysterical 1998 movie The Siege imagined that, in an overreaction to a terrorist attack, Brooklyn would be placed under martial law and all young Muslim men would be interned in Yankee Stadium. Ridiculous.
Since 2001, of course, Hollywood has almost completely avoided showing any Muslim involved in terror, changing the bad guys in 2002’s The Sum of All Fears from Palestinians to neo-Nazis. The 2005 Jodie Foster movie Flightplan, about an abduction on an airplane, used a hint that Arabs might be responsible as a red herring. The actual villain: an all-American air marshal played by Peter Sarsgaard. Several Middle East themed movies like Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies essentially saw a moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Islamists, saying both sides were up to comparably nasty stuff in the War on Terror.
Jazz and Islam, Part 9
Jazz was more popular than ever in the early ’60s. Then the Beatles exploded onto the American pop music scene, and that was the end of that. Jazz artists who had begun the decade engaging in innovative and enthusiastically received explorations of harmony and rhythm finished it by offering up tired, pale instrumental covers of psychedelic Top 40 hits. Ever since then, many of jazz’s fiercest partisans have spent an inordinate amount of time insisting that jazz is not dead — which, like the claim that “Islam is a religion of peace,” wouldn’t have to be endlessly repeated if it were obviously true.
If jazz is dead, two suspects who should be brought in for some intense questioning are two of the unlikeliest people ever to be thought of as the ones to have administered the coup de grace to America’s foremost native art form: Miles Davis and John Coltrane.
Now don’t get me wrong: I am one of the most ardent fans either one of them could possibly have ever had. On my shelves are easily two hundred discs featuring one or (better yet) both of them. Their historical role as towering musical pioneers and composers, improvisers, and virtuosos of the first order is unshakeable. Yet in their own ways, where the vibrant and popular jazz of the 1960s is concerned, they became death, the destroyer of worlds.
John Coltrane took the road less traveled. He became enamored of Ornette Coleman, the great innovator of “free jazz” — and with good reason. Coltrane liberated his sound from the dense chordally based improvisations he pursued with characteristic passion in the late ’50s and early ’60s — first adopting Davis’s modal approach, and then emulating Coleman in exploring improvisations free from harmonic structures altogether.
In The Company You Keep, Robert Redford stars in as well as directs a story of an ex-Weather Underground radical who has been living quietly as a public-interest lawyer in upstate New York for more than 30 years. His true identity is discovered by an annoying reporter (Shia LaBeouf) after the apprehension of one of his co-conspirators (Susan Sarandon), who was one of four terrorists who robbed a bank and murdered several security guards in the process.
Redford, that noted “liberal activist,” shows where his sympathies truly are. This is a movie that argues:
1. The Weathermen were fighting for peace.
The Company You Keep begins with a montage of real news clips (and a fake one) edited together to tell the story that the Weather Underground grew out of the antiwar group Students for a Democratic Society and that its activities were meant to end the Vietnam War by “bringing the war home.” Nonsense. The Weathermen loved war and wanted more of it. They were a murderous group of Black Power and Marxist revolutionaries bent on the violent overthrow of the United States. After the 1970 accidental explosion that killed several terrorists who blew themselves up with their own bombs in a downtown New York City townhouse, the true intent of the bombs was revealed: They were meant to be used to blow up a library on the campus of Columbia University. Not exactly a military target.
The unexamined life, said Socrates, is not worth living; but sometimes I wonder whether the too-closely examined life is not worth living either, for examination uncovers dilemmas where none existed before.
Two articles in a recent edition of the New England Journal of Medicine ask the question of whether employers should, or have the right to, refuse to employ smokers, as increasing numbers do in the 21 states that permit such discrimination against them.
As is by now no secret, smokers are more likely to suffer from many types of illness than non-smokers, and their health insurance is therefore considerably more expensive than that of non-smokers. They impose costs on their employers which weigh upon all workers, smokers or not. (The authors do not take into account that smokers not only contribute to taxes by their habit but, by dying early, reduce pension costs.)
The authors worry that refusal to hire smokers would be discriminatory against people of lower social class, since it is among the latter that smoking is most prevalent. I am not sure that this is right: the majority of people in all social classes now do not smoke, while people who apply for jobs at any particular level are likely to be of the same social class. Except in the case where there is only one applicant for a job, then, it is likely that there will always be an applicant of any given social class who does not smoke. The discrimination remains against smokers, therefore, and not by proxy against members of lower social class.
It wouldn’t be fair to call The Incredible Burt Wonderstone a disastrous movie. It would be fair, however, to call it three or four disastrous movies crammed into one: It’s abysmally awful as a buddy flick, as a broad satire of Las Vegas, as a romance, and as a soulful character-based comedy. In a moviegoing year that is already piled deep with the remnants of terrible movies, this one skitters atop the garbage heap like a roach.
Steve Carell plays the title character, who in the opening scenes is a kid in the 1980s who turns to magic because he’s lonely. He’s the kind of boy bullies chase around the block, and after a rough day of being forced to eat tree bark, when he arrives home at an empty house we find out that it’s his birthday. But all he has to show for it is a note from his mom, a single present and instructions to enjoy making his birthday cake (if he wants to bake it himself). The present, though, is a box of magic tricks, together with a video by legendary magician Rance Holloway (Alan Arkin) that give him an opportunity to master something and a lifelong friendship with a classmate, the equally dorky Anton.
Cut to the present day, when Burt and Anton, under their goofy stage names, play packed houses every night in a Vegas hotel-casino despite putting on a groaner of an act complete with red velvet tuxedos, corny patter, and the theme song “Abracadabra.” The act seems to be a spoof of David Copperfield, Barry Manilow and Siegfried and Roy, staged with the maximum cheesiness of Gob’s magic act on Arrested Development. Carell and Steve Buscemi (as Anton) sport silly wigs and prance around being bitchy with stereotypically gay mannerisms. (Yet minutes later, Burt is revealed to be a ladykiller, the homoerotic scene between the two men forgotten.)
The arrival of an amazingly annoying Jim Carrey on the scene as Steve Gray, an underground hipster street musician modeled after Criss Angel and David Blaine, sets the woefully tame plot in motion: Will Burt and Anton adapt to contemporary tastes or will they fade into irrelevance?
The lyrics of the anti-US song performed live by PSY and several other popular Korean singers in 2004 (shortly after the US invaded Iraq) were first translated into English two months ago on CNN’s iReport:
싸이 rap :
이라크 포로를 고문해 댄 씨발양년놈들과
고문 하라고 시킨 개 씨발 양년놈들에
딸래미 애미 며느리 애비 코쟁이 모두 죽여
아주 천천히 죽여 고통스럽게 죽여
Kill those f***ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives
Kill those f***ing Yankees who ordered them to torture
Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers
Kill them all slowly and painfully
PSY’s anti-American views weren’t discussed when the K-Pop star appeared on Ellen.
Exit question: Will anyone in the mainstream media ask PSY if he still supports killing US soldiers and their family members?
Related at PJ Lifestyle:
Last Sunday, after publishing my article on President Barack Obama’s ideological influences, my wife April and I caught a matinee of Tim Burton’s Frankenweenie, a traditional family film you shouldn’t miss. Today, having swallowed last night’s bitter pill, I really want to go back and watch it again. The film’s fantasy — to bring your best friend back to life — speaks to a need many of us feel today as we recognize the America of years past no longer exists. We are not a “center-right” nation any more.
The black and white, stop-motion film remakes an early Burton short of Frankenstein reinvented into ’50s suburbia. Clever references to classic horror abound from the visual style to the characters’ names and designs. Victor, Burton’s adolescent alter ego, spends his days shooting amateur monster movies in his back yard with his dog Sparky. He’s an oddball amongst the picket fences and perfect lawns but he has his loving dog and a drive to create.
Then Sparky dies and Victor’s life collapses.
He goes to school, bored and depressed until his science teacher, a Vincent Price-inspired, Martin Landau-voiced Mr. Rzykruski, shows what happens to a dead frog with a few zaps of electricity. This moves Victor to attempt the dog-version of the classic 1931 Frankenstein sequence:
Political theology, as defined by Wikipedia:
Political theology or public theology is a branch of both political philosophy and practical theology that investigates the ways in which theological concepts or ways of thinking underlie political, social, economic and cultural discourses.
Writing amidst the turbulence of the German Weimar Republic, Carl Schmitt argued in Political Theology that the central concepts of modern politics were secularized versions of older theological concepts.
Center-Left polemicist John Avlon at The Daily Beast claims that “Over the past four years, no less than 89 obsessively anti-Obama books have been published.” This isn’t true — and Avlon knows it — as a casual stroll through “Interactive Hate: The Great Obama-Loathing Canon” reveals. Many of the titles he calls “books,” those who made them understood as short pamphlets. I recognize several that I helped edit and produce for a conservative 501(c)3. Others come from obscure, self-published authors with no influence.
Avlon’s big number of anti-Obama “books” hides the reality: plenty of titles with scary Obama pictures on the cover filled the market since 2008 but few offered little more than a polished collection of what you could find for free doing anti-Obama google searches. To understand the president one must look beyond the new release shelf.
Here are the 15 books I’ve found most useful in grasping the intentionally confusing worldview of our commander-in-chief: 4 recent books focused on Obama by conservative critics, 6 historical books on movements and ideologies, and 5 titles by the president, his supporters, mentors, and influences.
To grasp Barack Obama we need to understand the books he read when he first began his community organizing journey three decades ago. We have to put ourselves in the head of the young, college-age Barry to understand how ideological seeds grew into the disastrous public policy of his administration. To know where to begin we start with the two books by Barack Obama’s best, most underrated analyst, Stanley Kurtz.
Since its publication in October of 2010, Radical-in-Chief has served as my primary map for navigating the stormy media waters of the Obama presidency. I reviewed it here for the publication I edited at the time, instructed all my writers to read it, and applied a blunt headline to summarize its importance: “Case Closed: Barack Obama is a Socialist Working to Destroy America.”
My progressive friends laugh their heads off when I argue this with a straight face. They see Obama as a corporate sell-out still carrying on most of Bush’s war policy. Obama’s just a wimpy, moderate liberal and party hack beholden to Wall Street. To which I respond,
That’s what Obama wants you to think. In his memoir he admits attending Socialist Scholars conferences in New York City in the early 1980s. Stanley Kurtz has verified which ones he attended, who spoke there, and what ideas were argued. It’s there that Obama learned about what community organizing really is all about. And when you read these people’s books — like Saul Alinsky — they admit it quite openly that they are just pretending to be centrist pragmatists in order to dupe do-gooder liberals like I was and you still are so they can gradually implement a European social welfare state. There’s a reason why over 90% of Europeans would vote Obama. He’s one of them.
That’s when my friends usually change the subject.
How do we know for certain that Obama’s ideology is still the same as in the early 1980s when he began his career as a stealth socialist community organizer? It’s not just because his administration draws from the ranks of community organizers and employs the movement’s tactics on the national level. It’s because Obama still works with the same people who are still pursuing the same goals. All that’s changed is now Obama’s the “good cop,” a friendly politician, instead of the hardball activist “bad cop.”
In Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, Kurtz shows Obama’s second term plans. He reveals that the exact same community organizing mentors who trained Obama now work for him. Their goal? To quietly, as no one pays attention at the national level, use regulatory boards to implement “Regionalism.” The objective: create regions based around metropolitan areas that can swallow up and redistribute tax money from the richer suburbs to the poor inner cities. They would also seize control of schools, lower educational standards, and implement regulations to stop the growth of suburbia. Kurtz describes it as replicating the collapsing system of the European Union here in the United States. This is the “fundamental transformation.” And Kurtz unearthed documents within the archives of these stealth socialist community organizing groups irrefutably identifying Obama as a partner in the effort.
Barack Obama may have begun as a minor figure within the world of community organizing but by the mid ’90s he was a major player, responsible for directing millions through his position on the boards of numerous charitable foundations. The paper trail Kurtz assembles between his two books of Obama’s deep associations with this ideological movement to transform America lies too deep for any of the president’s defenders to explain. So they can only follow the president’s lead, a favored tactic of Alinsky, and obfuscate.
Just like the youtube deception with Benghazi, and just as we see in the next two books, focusing on the methods of ACORN and Eric Holder’s Department of Justice…
Related from Ron Radosh: The Book to Defeat Obama: Stanley Kurtz’s Spreading the Wealth
Related at PJ Lifestyle:
Related at PJ Lifestyle:
You can have it all! It’s a feminist mantra that has been repeated so often that it has become a cliche. Of course, women aren’t the only ones that want to “have it all.” Men have been chasing that same will-o’-the-wisp since time immemorial. After all, who wouldn’t want to have all his heart’s desires? Who wouldn’t want to rise to dizzying heights in his career, get married to someone he or she loves, be mommy or daddy of the year to 2.1 rugrats, be in peak physical health, and have a great house, lots of friends, and an abundant supply of money? Unfortunately this is one beautiful dream that very few, if any, people will ever get to live. There are many good reasons for that.
1) Goals grow over time: Human beings are goal-setting animals and our goals only grow over time. Someone who gets promoted to regional manager will immediately start to covet the company VP slot. The person who wins a championship in just about anything immediately begins to think about what he’ll need to do to repeat. The musician who has a hit record wants to sell even more copies of his next album. This is why a college student with no car and a $15 Salvation Army couch in his studio-apartment living room can be completely satisfied with his material possessions at 18 even though he may feel poor at 50 if his car is a decade old, his small house is run down, and he can’t afford a new washer. You’re either growing and improving as a human being or you’re starting to rot inside, and this makes it very difficult to ever be completely satisfied with any aspect of your life.
A Facebook friend shared this viral image today and I decided to put on my Buzzkillington hat in response:
See some of PJ Lifestyle’s previous discussions and debates about religion: