• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Time to Get to Know Soviet Socialist Bernie Sanders Better

RECYCLING BERNIE’S AMERIKA

by  Steven Hayward   at  PowerLine:

We at Power Line are not categorically opposed to recycling. So I repair to an old post from the last election cycle in 2016. Back then Bernie Sanders got a lot of buzz over this ad featuring Simon & Garfunkel’s “America,” though as a lot of people at the time remarked, it looked more like scenes from Burlington, Vermont, the morning of a Phish concert:

My first thought on viewing it again is that Bernie has visibly aged in the short two-plus years since this video.

But the real point is that in this age of super-charged and reborn progressivism, this spot really needs a progressive rock backdrop, which I was only too happy to provide:

I really think Bernie should go with this version now. If he wants to be honest.

Lying Dems Turning Fascist….Will They Reach Their Communist Goal?

The Democrats’ Presidential Field and Communism

.

Everything that America stands for is being opposed by the resurgence of communism with its profound hatred of private property as the root of alienation and exploitation in society.  Inequality and the injustice that is believed to flow out of that inequality of ownership is, for the communist mentality, the starting point for a radical critique of American society, indeed of Western Civilization.  The left rejects belief in and gratitude for the fact that the U.S. rose out of the British rights framework which is inherently capitalistic. The liberty enshrined in our leading documents and law is closely justified by its support of private property as an inalienable right and by Christian values derived from a 2000 year old abiding faith in the God of the Bible and in Christ His Son.  Communism, by contrast, arose out of a Germanic cultural and dialectical mindset that was atheistic, so we are not surprised that communism should be so repulsive to our citizens.

In American politics we have many contenders for the Democrat Presidential nomination using deceptive rubrics such as Democratic Socialism, Green New Deal, Black Lives Matter (remember Stokely Carmichael in the sixties with the clenched fist “power to the people”?), progressivism, and even liberalism in a way wholly different from classical liberalism.   Bernie Sanders self-labels as a Democratic Socialist, but has participated in the Democratic caucus in the Senate, and is now a leading contender for the Democrat Party nomination for President.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez self-labels as a Socialist but was elected to Congress as a Democrat.  Just as these socialists are comfortable working in Washington DC as Democrats, we see that communists are comfortable with referring to themselves as socialists. An entire section of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) website is entitled “Bill of Rights [of] Socialism.” If socialists can be Democrats, and communists can be socialists, then we can entertain the possibility some or many of the Democrats and socialists are communists.

Further, has any reporter asked them, “Are you a communist? And if not, how do your views differ from those of communism?” They do not ask these questions because the questions themselves would be seen as a form of disparagement.

The fact that there are some differences among the Democratic candidates is not evidence in itself that they do not deserve to be stigmatized.  Historically, there were and are differences among different factions of communists.  The Mensheviks were violently opposed to the Bolsheviks.  Leon Trotsky had to flee the USSR because of his opposition to Joseph Stalin.  Here are some of the programs and policies listed by Rich Noyes that are being advocated by the Democratic Party primary candidates.  These positions extend the reach of the federal government and trample on the notion of right to one’s property, which trampling brings about a curtailment of individual liberty:

[1] ‘free’ health care, [2] ‘free’ child care, [3] ‘free’ college, [4] massive forgiveness of student loans, [5] reparations for the descendants of slaves, [6]  doubling the federal minimum wage, [7] tearing down existing barriers on the U.S.-Mexican border,[8] refusing to appoint any pro-life judges,[9] increasing the Supreme Court to 15 members and [10] eliminating the Electoral College.

Additionally, lurking in the background are infanticide (none have condemned New York’s latest and extreme law allowing abortion up to the point of delivery), confiscation by the feds of all privately owned firearms, and giving voting rights for non-citizens living within the borders of the USA, plus lowering of the voting age to 16.

Of the above list of items, number 1-5 appear explicitly in the extensive, bulleted platform of the Socialist Party 2018-2019.  The Socialist Platform also would lower the voting age to 15.

Yet, behind the Democrats, the Socialists, and the Communists is the overarching goal of the federal takeover of the means of production as advocated by communist founders Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, not merely enacting a list of reforms.  As the Socialists explicitly state,

We call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources [that is, ownership of the means of production]….  Although reforms will not in themselves bring about socialism, the fight for them will advance the cause by demonstrating the inherent limitations and injustice of the capitalist system.”

Thus, the socialists admit upfront in their preamble that although they are calling for a myriad of “reforms,” their goal is not first and foremost to bring reform but to inculcate in the public a sense of the injustice of the capitalist system.

As we approach the Fourth of July, we must acknowledge not only that we overthrew the British enemy for the sake of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now it behooves us to overthrow the fifth column enemy within by the Democratic Party which seeks by verbal duplicity and nuance to pretend that it is not linked profoundly with socialist and communist aspirations, and that this linkage would pull us away from our sovereignty and the values of Western Civilization.

We reject communism as an ideology, theory, lifestyle…whatever anyone chooses to call it.  By what stretch of their ignoble imaginations have they come to describe America — even though it be flawed — as the land of exploitation rather than the land of opportunity when so many millions have voted with their lives to come here (black, white, and yellow, so-called) to improve their lot in life?

This writer calls on all communists/socialists/Democrats to repent of their devastatingly negative thinking/ideology, to come to their senses, and to appreciate the on-the-ground positive contribution of capitalism, democracy, and republicanism which include ways to redress grievances, albeit not perfectly. What a pathetic and paltry ideology is communism!  They must give up their Sanders-like rhetoric of superiority as though they hold the moral high ground. All candidates must denounce socialism and communism, and be pressed to do so by the news media.   The stench of their atheistic and class/race/sex bilge floats from the smokestacks of their consciousness.  Let us instead breathe in the clean air of truth as we fight against collectivism in our fight to uphold a Second Declaration of Independence by repudiating the Democrat Party.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/the_democrats_presidential_field_and_communism.html

Who Is Jerome Corsi?

Saturday evening, June 15, 2019:

I’ll be 85 late this coming summer.  I was born curious to a fault some friends might say.   I was a child born into the Great Depression,  into a limited income but new St. Paul Minnesota neighborhood of God fearing Judeo-Christian citizens who practiced in life what was preached on Sundays.   By my second grade of schooling I could read all about the World War our America had entered in newspapers, but had trouble handling school books.   I got a world atlas and world globe and a  handful of lead soldiers for Christmas in 1941 to help me understand the war effort better.

Most of my very best teachers until college were old maids, super well educated,  and blessed by loving the subjects of their domain, both students and topics of study.

Thank God I could read maps and encyclopedias.  By third grade I could draw a map of the United States with all 48 states by memory.   I knew our state and the world capitals too.  I loved learning about the world…..but, I could never learn to read novels.

My first career was teaching Russian and Social Studies to high schoolers from 1960 to 1972.  Minneapolis School Superintendent, Harvard’s John Davis, and Assistant Superintendent,  Yale’s Nathaniel Ober    fired me in 1971 allegedly for “not filling out a form properly”.   I was required to ignore the guns certain colored boys age 13 and 14 were bringing to school to stir up trouble bullying and robbing.

Nevertheless, I own hundreds of books and more hundreds of pamphlets; history from the Greeks, Romans, and Aztecs to today,  school readers from the 1870s,  biographies, and have often traveled  to Europe and twice to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics……the place where fascist socialist  Democrat candidate, Bernie Sanders, spent his Communist honeymoon…..the guy who is selling himself as a typical American Democrat Presidential candidate.

I have been a landscape gardener since I was about ten.   I created and still manage a half an acre of a beautiful landscape garden where I have lived the past 45 years.   We in Minnesota had a rough snowy wet winter and spring just passed.   Floods!  I have spent six weeks, around 250 hours, mulching,  struggling to salvage and repair the damage done.   A light drizzle returned early afternoon and sent me indoors to relax with something television,  and found a Jerome Corsi lecturing on CSpan 2.

He had written a volume called:  “SILENT NO MORE:  How I Became A Political Prisoner of Mueller’s Witch Hunts!”

He had been a victim of zombie FBI and CIA innuendo lefty man, the devious Robert Mueller, in similar fashion as had President Donald J. Trump.

I’ve kept abreast of the lies and fascistic attacks today’s Dems have thrust upon President Trump.   Jerome Corsi appeared to be a very  literate, persuasive,  articulate, seemingly honest in his self defense.  He had recently published a book about the Mueller “Deep State” attacks he personally had to handle.

Why hadn’t I heard of him until now?  He was so articulate and rational!   I turned to the Leftist controlled internet  and found the following fascistic advertisement:

“Jerome Corsi (1946–) is a nutty right-wing political commentator, currently serving as the head of the InfoWars branch in Washington D.C. He was formerly a senior columnist for WorldNutDaily.

Despite getting a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard,[1] his modus operandi is to cash in on the fringe wingnut conspiracy theory du jour by giving it a veneer of legitimacy. Some of his more infamous works include:

Corsi is also the author of the novel The Shroud Codex, about the Shroud of Turin.[7] It’s full of blatant errors that make it look like it was never proof-read after he finished writing it. He also declared that Barack Obama was married to his male Pakistani roommate(!) before he married Michelle, which must set some record for combined unsubstantiated wingnuttery and homophobia in a single conspiracy theory.[8] And just like most conspiracy memes of this kind, the gauntlet got picked up by at least one fellow nutter (Scott Lively, no less) who was also dumb enough to think that it was a perfectly valid argument.[9] Most recently he has appeared on King-of-The-Crazies Alex Jones‘ Infowars program and claimed that Hillary Clinton was in a secret-M00slimLesbian relationship with her aide Huma Abedin.[10]

Corsi is also convinced that proof of Obama’s Kenyan citizenship can be demonstrated by the fact that there was a photo of him on a Kenyan calendar from 2005 when Obama was still a Senator from Illinois.[11] With standards of evidence like that, there’s every indication that he’s in a competition with Joe Arpaio for the 2012 Booby Prize in late-period Birther silliness.

Basically, Corsi is useful as a benchmark or barometer for current fashions of conspiracy theory and crankery. If Corsi writes on it, it’s hot on the fringe. Think of him as a device powered by crank magnetism.

In 2018, Corsi was subpoenaed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump-Russia connection, apparently in regard to Corsi’s association with Roger Stone.[12] On January 25, 2019, Stone was arrested and charged by Mueller’s team with obstruction of proceedings, making false statements, and witness tampering.[13] That same day, Corsi and Randy Credico,Wikipedia's W.svg another Stone associate, indicated a willingness to testify against Stone in court.[14]”

I’ll buy the book this coming Monday!  ghr

Today’s Christians Are the World’s Leading Victims of Persecution!

THE WAR ON THE CROSS

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

In numerical terms, Christians are far and away the world’s leading victims of persecution. Pretty much all of that persecution comes at the hands of Muslims. Raymond Ibrahim is one of the few who have labored tirelessly to expose the plight of Christians around the world, usually to an audience, here in the U.S., that seems almost entirely indifferent.

At PJ Media, Ibrahim addresses Islam’s war on the cross as a Christian symbol–a war that was ordered by Mohammed and that continues today:

A 37-year-old Muslim migrant in Rome was recently arrested for homicide after he stabbed a Christian man in the throat for wearing a crucifix around his neck. “Religious hate” is cited as an “aggravating factor” in the crime.

To be sure, this is hardly the first “religious hate” crime to occur in the context of the cross in Italy. Among others:

* A Muslim boy of African origin picked on, insulted, and eventually beat a 12-year-old girl during school because she too was wearing a crucifix.

* A Muslim migrant invaded an old church in Venice and attacked its large, 300-year-old cross, breaking off one of its arms, while shouting, “All that is in a church is false!”

* After a crucifix was destroyed in close proximity to a populated mosque, the area’s mayor said concerning the identity of the culprit(s): “Before we put a show of unity with Muslims, let’s have them begin by respecting our civilization and our culture.”

Other recent instances of the Islamic war on the cross, from other countries:

Egypt: A young Coptic Christian woman named Mary was mauled to death when her cross identified her as a Christian to Muslim Brotherhood rioters. Similarly, 17-year-old Ayman, a Coptic student, was strangled and beaten to death by his Muslim teacher and fellow students for refusing to obey the teacher’s orders to cover his cross.

Pakistan: When a Muslim man saw Julie Aftab, a Christian woman, wearing a cross around her neck, he attacked her, forced battery acid down her throat, and splashed it on her face—permanently damaging her esophagus, blinding her in one eye, and causing her to lose both eyelids and most of her teeth.

Turkey: A 12-year-old boy in Turkey wearing a silver cross necklace in class was spit on and beaten regularly by Muslim classmates and teachers.

Malaysia: A Christian cemetery was attacked and desecrated in the middle of the night by unknown persons in the Muslim-majority nation. Several crosses were destroyed, including by the use of “a heavy tool to do the damage.” Separately, a Muslim mob rioted against a small Protestant church due to the visible cross atop the building of worship. It was quickly removed.

Maldives: Authorities had to rescue a female Christian teacher after Muslim “parents threatened to tie and drag her off of the island” for “preaching Christianity.” Her crime was to draw a compass—which was mistakenly taken for a cross—as part of a geography lesson in class.

Then there are France and Germany:

[T]he following occurred either in France and Germany, where attacks on churches and crosses have become endemic:

* A Muslim man committed major acts of vandalism at two churches, including by twisting a massive bronze cross. (Click for images.)

* Christian crosses and gravestones in a cemetery were damaged and desecrated by a Muslim (see his handiwork).

* A Muslim man who checked himself into a hospital for treatment went into a sudden frenzy because there were “too many crosses on the wall.” He called the nurse a “bitch” and “fascist” and became physically aggressive.

* After Muslims were granted their own section at a cemetery, and after being allowed to conduct distinctly Islamic ceremonies, these same Muslims began demanding that Christian symbols and crosses in the cemetery be removed or covered up during Islamic funerals.

* A German-language report from notes that in the Alps and in Bavaria alone, some 200 churches have been attacked and many crosses broken: “The perpetrators are often youthful rioters with a migration background.”

Live links at the link.

We have all seen this bumper sticker, and others like it:

Somehow I don’t think the message is being directed to the right audience.

American Boy Troublemaker “Obama” Speaks In Brazil

Obama offers blatant lies about US gun laws in speech given in Brazil

by Thomas Lifson  at American Thinker:

.

Former president Barack Obama reportedly told author Richard Wolffe, “You know, I actually believe my own b——-.”  So it is possible that he actually had no idea what he was talking about when he spread blatant lies about U.S. gun control laws to a large gathering on Brazil.  The BS of the Left could be all he ever bothered to absorb before shooting off his mouth.

Or perhaps he thought he could get away with telling lies because he was overseas and there were no television cameras recording his speech visible on platforms in the back of the auditorium.  He was in São Paulo to address an annual high-tech gathering called VTEX, which claims that 15,000 people a day attend it, but it is not clear how many were in the auditorium for his speech.

This is absolute BS. Nate Madden of The Blaze lays out the extent of the lies:

First off, not everyone can buy a gun in the United States.

Convicted felons and people under indictment for felonies cannot buy guns under federal law. Other “prohibited persons” include fugitives from justice, people convicted of domestic violence, convicted drug users, people adjudicated as a “mental defective,” illegal aliens, people who were dishonorably discharged from the military and people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship.

(snip)

Obama’s machine gun claim is wildly false:

In 1986, the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners protection act made it “unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.” Before that, automatic firearms were required to be registered under the National Firearms Act, which was first passed in 1934.

However, automatics that were already registered under the NFA were grandfathered in under the Hughes Amendment, meaning that “NFA guns” manufactured before 1986 are still legal for private ownership and transfer.

In order to buy one, however, you have to first apply a tax stamp from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives — which costs $200 and requires the notification of a local chief law enforcement officer — and then register with the bureau. That process can take months or longer.

And paying for the tax stamp is only a minor part of the expense of legally acquiring a pre-1986 transferable NFA machine gun. They can also get quite expensive, often costing tens of thousands of dollars or more.

Brazil, where Obama was speaking, has had strict gun control laws, but also has one of the highest murder rates in the world.  Just like Chicago.  However, Jessica Chasmar in the Washington Times notes that Brazil’s new populist president is moving the country in the direction of firearms freedom in order to stem the tide of lawlessness:

Mr. Obama‘s comments come just weeks after Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro signed a decree easing restrictions on gun imports and increasing the amount of ammunition a person can buy. In January, Mr. Bolsonaro signed a decree making it easier for Brazilians to keep weapons at home without first demonstrating that they have a need to own a gun.

Abysmally ignorant or blatant liar?  Either way, Barack Obama is a hideous ex-president.

Former president Barack Obama reportedly told author Richard Wolffe, “You know, I actually believe my own b——-.”  So it is possible that he actually had no idea what he was talking about when he spread blatant lies about U.S. gun control laws to a large gathering on Brazil.  The BS of the Left could be all he ever bothered to absorb before shooting off his mouth.

Or perhaps he thought he could get away with telling lies because he was overseas and there were no television cameras recording his speech visible on platforms in the back of the auditorium.  He was in São Paulo to address an annual high-tech gathering called VTEX, which claims that 15,000 people a day attend it, but it is not clear how many were in the auditorium for his speech.

This is absolute BS. Nate Madden of The Blaze lays out the extent of the lies:

First off, not everyone can buy a gun in the United States.

Convicted felons and people under indictment for felonies cannot buy guns under federal law. Other “prohibited persons” include fugitives from justice, people convicted of domestic violence, convicted drug users, people adjudicated as a “mental defective,” illegal aliens, people who were dishonorably discharged from the military and people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship.

Obama’s machine gun claim is wildly false:

In 1986, the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners protection act made it “unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.” Before that, automatic firearms were required to be registered under the National Firearms Act, which was first passed in 1934.

However, automatics that were already registered under the NFA were grandfathered in under the Hughes Amendment, meaning that “NFA guns” manufactured before 1986 are still legal for private ownership and transfer.

In order to buy one, however, you have to first apply a tax stamp from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives — which costs $200 and requires the notification of a local chief law enforcement officer — and then register with the bureau. That process can take months or longer.

And paying for the tax stamp is only a minor part of the expense of legally acquiring a pre-1986 transferable NFA machine gun. They can also get quite expensive, often costing tens of thousands of dollars or more.

Brazil, where Obama was speaking, has had strict gun control laws, but also has one of the highest murder rates in the world.  Just like Chicago.  However, Jessica Chasmar in the Washington Times notes that Brazil’s new populist president is moving the country in the direction of firearms freedom in order to stem the tide of lawlessness:

Mr. Obama‘s comments come just weeks after Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro signed a decree easing restrictions on gun imports and increasing the amount of ammunition a person can buy. In January, Mr. Bolsonaro signed a decree making it easier for Brazilians to keep weapons at home without first demonstrating that they have a need to own a gun.

Abysmally ignorant or blatant liar?  Either way, Barack Obama is a hideous ex-president.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/obama_offers_blatant_lies_about_us_gun_laws_in_speech_given_in_brazil.html

Eight Years of Obama’s Communist Orbit, 2009-2017 in Washington, Created Today’s Dem Schiff, Nadler, Blumenthal Red Fascists!

Obama Appointees in the Communist Orbit

.

This week Rush Limbaugh repeated a quote from James Comey in a  New York Magazine interview:

“I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”

It’s hard to pin too much on that quote.  Perhaps Comey was joking by calling his vote for Jimmy Carter a vote for a Communist, in mockery of his supposedly fellow Republicans.

Joking about support for Communism is not all that funny in the Obama administration. Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan actually did vote for a Communist presidential candidate.  Brennan and Comey are two of the central players in the Russia Collusion Hoax.

Obama choose Communists and Marxists for the highest, most powerful positions in our land, including his closest political advisors, and his head of the CIA.  These facts are not in dispute.  Most are openly admitted by the people in question, as necessary damage control.  Our press  chooses not to report them.

Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.

John Brennan

Brennan (who was sworn in as CIA director on a draft of the US Constitution, without the Bill of Rights, instead of a Bible) said that while he had voted Communist, he wasn’t an official member of the Communist Party – and was relieved that he had been accepted into the CIA.

Barack Hussein Obama

His Kenyan father was a communist, who met Obama’s mother, a radical leftist, in a Russian language class.  Stanley Dunham, Obama’s white grandfather, chose a notorious member of the Communist Party to be Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

Obama wrote in his memoir that in college, he sought out Marxist professors.  A Marxist student at Occidental College, John Drew, confirms that Obama was a revolutionary Marxist in college.  Drew recounts:

Obama… believed that the economic stresses of the Carter years meant revolution was still imminent. The election of Reagan was simply a minor set-back …As I recall, Obama repeatedly used the phrase “When the revolution comes….”  …”There’s going to be a revolution,” Obama said, “we need to be organized and grow the movement.”  In Obama’s view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable revolution. …Obama seemed to think their ideological purity was a persuasive argument in predicting that a coming revolution would end capitalism.

Obama tells us the  radical socialist conferences he attended before law school gave him his road map in life, i.e., their plan to put a stealth black candidate in the White House.  Obama’s biggest job and his political career in Chicago were launched by self-avowed communist Bill Ayers.  Obama’s run for state representative was as the hand-picked successor of a socialist state representative, who was publicly active in communist circles.  Obama’s calling in life was work as a hard-left Alinskyite radical agitator.  Until he became president, Obama was a 20-year member of an openly Marxist church whose members had to take a pledge against the middle class.  When did Obama reject Marxism?

Valerie Jarrett

Valerie Jarrett is Obama’s closest personal advisor to the present day.  She lived with the Obamas in the White House, had dinner with them nightly and still lives with them in retirement!

“Her late father, James E. Bowman.. was involved with communist front groups and was in contact with a paid Soviet agent in the 1950s who was wanted for espionage.  Jarrett’s maternal grandfather, Robert Rochon Taylor, was investigated by the FBI for his membership in communist groups and his business relationship with the same Soviet agent …Her late father-in-law, Vernon D. Jarrett, was assigned by the Communist Party USA to a special cultural arts cell …he was flagged by the FBI as an internal security risk to be swiftly arrested in the event of a hot war with the Soviet Union. The FBI also investigated his wife, Fernetta “Fern” Jarrett, for communist activities.”

Kengor discusses new documents obtained by Judicial Watch that show Valerie Jarrett’s father was active on behalf of Stalin in fomenting racial divisiveness in America, as a member of the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born (ACPFB).

ACPFB “was founded by the Communist Party in order to exploit racial divisions in the United States for its own revolutionary purposes.” Its modus operandi was to polarize Americans along racial lines in order to advance the Soviet agenda.”

David Axelrod

Axelrod was the Chief Strategist for Obama’s presidential campaigns, and a Senior Advisor in the White House.  His mother worked for a communist newspaper.  His father, according to Axelrod in his memoir, “listed his party affiliation as ‘Communist.’  Axelrod got his start in Chicago politics through working for hardline Stalinist Soviet agents Harry and David Canter.

“The Canters were old hardline pro-Soviet communists, so much so that the senior Canter, Harry Jacob Canter, was actually brought to Moscow during the height of the Stalin period to work for the Soviet government as an official translator of Lenin’s writings. Harry was active in the old Industrial Workers of the World and had been secretary of the Boston Communist Party. He was not shy about his political enthusiasm. In 1930, he ran for governor of Massachusetts on the Communist Party ticket. After that, he sojourned to the Motherland, taking his entire family to Moscow with him, including his son David, who one day would come know [sic] David Axelrod…  the Canters actually knew and worked with Obama’s old communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis…Davis — again, Obama’s mentor — also knew and worked with Valerie Jarrett’s grandfather and father-in-law in Communist Party/left-wing circles in Chicago in the 1940s.)”

Other Communists, Red Diaper Babies and Marxists in Obama’s Circle

Susan Rice, Obama’s National Security Advisor, was up to her eyeballs in the Russia Collusion Hoax against candidate and then President Trump.

Rice wrote a 426-page dissertation praising, as “a model and a masterpiece in the evolution of international peacekeeping,” … the political ascendancy of Zimbabwe’s Marxist dictator, Robert Mugabe. In her dissertation, Rice lauded Mugabe as a “pragmatic, intelligent, sensible, gentle, balanced man” who possessed considerable “patience and restraint.”

David Maraniss, the Washington Post journalist chosen to write Obama’s biography, which covered up Obama’s radical past, was also a red diaper baby.  He father was a member of the Communist Party and worked through a cell in Detroit to secretly influence workers through his articles for the Detroit Times.

Frank Marshall Davis, the biggest influence on Obama’s black identity from age ten through college years, was a card-carrying member of the Communist party.

Frank Marshall Davis was a pro-Soviet, pro–Red China communist. His Communist Party USA card number, revealed in FBI files, was CP #47544. He was a prototype of the loyal Soviet patriot, so radical that the FBI placed him on the federal government’s Security Index. In the early 1950s, Davis opposed U.S. attempts to slow Stalin and Mao. He favored Red Army takeovers of Central and Eastern Europe, and communist control in Korea and Vietnam. Dutifully serving the cause, he edited and wrote for communist newspapers in both Chicago and Honolulu, courting contributors who were Soviet agents. In the 1970s, amid this dangerous political theater, Frank Marshall Davis came into Barack Obama’s life.”

Reverend Jeremiah Wright

Obama’s pastor and personal hero and mentor, was an avowed Marxist.  His church congregants had to sign a pledge to support redistribution of wealth and reject ‘middleclassness.’ Discoverthenetworks reports:

Rev. Wright’s devotion to the tenets of liberation theology, which is essentially Marxism dressed up as Christianity. … calls for social activism, class struggle, and revolution aimed at overturning the existing capitalist order and installing, in its stead, a socialist utopia where today’s poor will unseat their “oppressors” and become liberated from their material (and, consequently, their spiritual) deprivations.  An extension of this paradigm is black liberation theology, which seeks to foment a similar Marxist revolutionary fervor founded on racial rather than class solidarity.

Is it any surprise that collusion with Russia, according to Victor David Hanson, was a feature of the Obama presidency?

The Obama administration colluded with Rusian agents who produced the Steele Dossier.  It was paid for by Clinton, but it was Obama’s minions at the FBI, CIA and White House who weaponized this soviet disinformation against President Trump.

We are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia – President Trump’s voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair election process.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/obama_appointees_in_the_communist_orbit.html

A Little Knowledge IS a Dangerous Thing….especially among those Leftist Dems!

Americans Are in Desperate Need of a Lesson on the History of Slavery

by William Sullivan   at  American Thinker:

.

Democrat hopeful Pete Buttigieg recently advocated removing Thomas Jefferson’s memory from the public square and ending the practice of naming public events in his honor.  The legacy of Jefferson, he said, is “problematic.”  “There’s a lot to admire in his thinking and his philosophy,” he said, “but then again if you plunge into his writings, especially his notes on the state of Virginia, you know that he knew slavery was wrong.”

It’s a stunning display of his ignorance, certainly.  But interestingly, Buttigieg has unknowingly pinpointed precisely why Thomas Jefferson should be eternally revered by our society, which believes that enslaving other human beings is wrong.

That is, that Jefferson knew that it was wrong at the time.

Thomas Sowell explains, brilliantly as ever:

Of all the tragic facts about the history of slavery, the most astonishing to an American today is that, although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century[.] …

Everyone hated the idea of being a slave but few had any qualms about enslaving others.  Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century — and only then in Western civilization.

Among those who turned against slavery in the 18th century were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and other American leaders.  You could research all of 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there.

In other words, these prominent men having turned against an institution that had been normal throughout human history was an expression of a revolutionary idea.  To imagine that the idea that slavery is morally wrong would be embraced by everyone overnight, in such a world, is nothing short of childish fantasy.

The Founders knew that such change would require not only time, but a practical argument against the institution as well.  Moreover, it would require proof that slavery is harmful.

Scotsman Adam Smith, another revolutionary thinker who deeply influenced our Founders, also rejected slavery.  His was not solely a moral argument, but also an economic one.  “I believe,” he wrote, “that the work done by free men comes cheaper in the end than the work performed by slaves.  Whatever work [the slave] does, beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance, can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own.”

We could expound upon what was then just a theory with some evidence supporting it, but with the luxury of hindsight, we don’t have any need.  Time fleshed it out, fully, to be a law of economics.

As the Industrial Revolution progressed, the industrial Northern states in America found this law immutable.  Moreover, so did the planters in the agrarian Southern states, which relied much more heavily on slave labor and were more resistant to ending the practice.

As Alexis de Toqueville observes in Democracy in America (1836), even before America’s founding, “the planters were struck by the extraordinary fact that the provinces comparatively destitute of slaves increased in population, in wealth, and in prosperity more rapidly than those who contained many of them.”

The Founders, even those in the Southern colonies, had come to understand that slavery was both a moral and economic evil that was “cruel to the slave” but economically “prejudicial to the master,” according to de Tocqueville.

The question became how to eliminate it.  As Thomas Sowell writes:

Deciding that slavery was wrong was much easier than deciding what to do with millions of people from another continent, of another race, and without any historical preparation for living as free citizens in a society like that of the United States, where they were 20% of the total population.

The Founders rejected slavery as a moral evil, certainly.  They also recognized its economical inefficiency, and perhaps most importantly, they scribed the precepts that would end it into our Constitution.

The Constitution etched in stone a prohibition on the importation of slaves from the year 1808 onward.  Why would the Founders commit to such a strict prohibition if they intended for America to be a slaveholding nation in perpetuity?  The document implements few absolute prohibitions on all the new States, so that answer is simple.  They wouldn’t.

It also scribed a lingering detriment to slaveholding states with the three-fifths clause, which determined that slaves would equal three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining representation in Congress.  In short, if slaveholding states were to continue having meaningful representation in Congress, they would be required to gradually remove slavery as a primary means of economic production.  All states assented to this provision through ratification, then considered a “compromise,” which eventually doomed the slaveholding states.

Irrespective of how you feel about the Constitution’s vision for the future of slavery, one cannot deny that the dominoes fell in such a way as to destroy the institution forever.

As the North industrialized and commerce flourished in freer markets, the need for free hands to perform labor for wages increased.  The realization that free markets were economically preferable to slavery led to massive influxes of European immigrants to fill the need.  So, as Northern states abolished slavery, former slaveowners in the North sold their slaves to the South, where there was still a value for the slave.

The South could not import slaves after 1808 due to a constitutional ban.  So the same “laws that prevented slaves from the South coming North,” according to de Tocqueville, “[drove] those of the North to the South” as the South sought more slave labor.

All of this led to the death spiral of the Antebellum South.  It was the above dynamics, and not the importation of slaves, that caused the population of slaves in the South to “explode” to roughly 33% of the population by 1860.  Largely agrarian, with fewer urban centers of massive population of fully countable people in the Census, the Northern states owned overwhelming representation in Congress, the circumstances of which led the South to believe themselves underrepresented by the United States.

Sowell lays this out, too, in the only way a sensible historian can:

The question [of slavery] was finally answered by a war in which one life was lost for every six people freed.  Maybe that was the only answer.  But don’t pretend today that it was an easy answer — or that those who grappled with the dilemma in the 18th century were some special villains, when most leaders and most people in the world at that time saw nothing wrong with slavery.

Perhaps, rather than focusing on the fact that some Founders owned slaves, we would do better to remember their uniqueness in morally opposing slavery in their time and for having presented the economic formula through which it was expunged from American society forever.

Breathing life into such ideas in a world where trade was dominated by the existence of slavery faced public opposition, as all but the most dimwitted should understand.  But it’s impossible not to observe the following conclusion, to which I’m often led.

Slavery ended because the visionaries who founded our nation had the moral courage to suggest that individual laborers have a right to property, which includes a right to the product of their labor — i.e., wages.  That’s the moral argument.

But beyond that, it is economically more efficient for everyone to be paid wages for his labor and provide for himself, than to be reared in his youth, supported in his working years, and cared for in his later years by a master who determines what his labor is worth — all of which is done absent the consent of the individual.

That’s interesting to me — because the same argument our Founders made against slavery is the same argument that we conservatives now make against socialism.

That’s what really makes me wonder.  Is the fact that the Founders owned slaves really the problem?  Or is the Left frustrated by the fact that our Founders’ ideas, which unquestionably led to slavery’s end, would impede the Left’s vision of a government master that cares for us all from cradle to grave, and decides for us how much our labor is worth in the economy, as somehow considered less American than Thomas Jefferson?

To modestly amend Adam Smith’s observation, the work done by free men comes cheaper in the end than the work performed by workers in a socialist economy.  Whatever work either a slave or a worker in a socialist economy does, beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance, can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own.

Slavery and socialism, in other words, could be considered synonymous.  Liberty is something else entirely.  Our Founders should be continually celebrated for having recognized that there’s a difference between the two things and for advocating liberty over slavery.

 

William Sullivan blogs at Political Palaver and can be followed on Twitter.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/americans_are_in_desperate_need_of_a_lesson_on_the_history_of_slavery.html