Sounds like the perfect kind of guy we want advising the president, right?
Obama seemed to think so.
Okay, I understand you might think that Van Jones probably reformed his extremist views somewhere along the way, right? I mean, what kind of American president would knowingly bring a communist to come and work in the White House? If you think that, you’d be mistaken. Van Jones never abandoned his revolutionary delusions and diehard conviction of radically reshaping America. On the cusp of being appointed special advisor to President Obama, listen to the heartbeat of the man:
No, we’re going to change the whole system. We’re going to change the whole thing. We’re not going to put a new battery in a broken system. We want a new system! 34
If anything, Van Jones was saying all the right things as far as Obama was concerned. What else did you think Obama meant when this panLeninist said, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America?”35 The two of them were peas in a pod; both have grand plans to “change the whole system.” Thanks, but no thanks. Keep your change. I happen to like our Constitution. I happen to believe in the ideals set forth by our Founding Fathers. The last thing this country needs is a pack of socialist sycophants raping Lady Liberty.
Let’s set aside the fact that Van Jones displayed a complete lack of civility when he called Republicans “assholes.” And let’s not focus on the fact Jones was one of the nut jobs who, in 2004, signed a petition in support of the bizarre claim that the Bush administration was somehow behind the 9/11 terrorist attack.36 The fact of the matter is that the public learned the truth. They saw what a skunk this guy was and immediately demanded he be kicked out. All we heard from Obama was a chorus of crickets when he should have fired him on the spot.
Then again, Obama should never have hired him in the first place!
It took enormous public pressure from people like me in talk radio and on television hammering away his ties to communism before Van Jones resigned. None of that mattered to Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee Chairman. Dean said the resignation of Van Jones was a “loss for the country.”37 In a similar display of insanity, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) proudly presented Van Jones one of their Lilliputian awards while calling him an “American treasure.”38 In other words, the NAACP honored a stonehearted, unrepentant communist and ex-con, street thug in a suit.
While America dodged a bullet on that one, Van Jones wasn’t an aberration. Quite the opposite. He’s just one in a long line of unvetted socialist radicals. Several examples will suffice:
1. Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom: “We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system. We kinda agree with Mao Zedong that power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”39
2. Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg: “Here’s what I’ve said publicly in my pay determination—nobody should receive more than a base cash salary of $500,000 maximum.”40
3. Science Czar John Holdren: “The rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down. And there is going to have to be a degree of redistribution.”41 And, “Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”42
4. Former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn: “My two favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Theresa—not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most …”43 And, “Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control.”44
Do you see the common thread weaving Obama’s czars and socialist co-conspirators together? They speak of controlling what the press can know. They support the redistribution of wealth. They’re working to place limits on your freedom to make as much money as you want. And, they engage in a shameless approval of Mao’s strong-arm approach to governing through force if necessary.
Should I go on?
How about Obama’s Climate Czar Carol Browner who worked as a commissioner for the Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society. The Washington Times reports that the Socialist International is an “umbrella group for many of the world’s social democratic political parties” which just so happens to support “socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.”45 The Socialist International’s agenda is well known and it involves “gaining and exercising government power based on socialist concepts.”46
Just what we needed, another socialist environmental radical.
Of course, the moment Browner was appointed by Obama, out came the big airbrush. Almost overnight, her photo and bio were scrubbed from the Socialist International’s website.47 You might ask why is she attempting to hide her past service for a socialist organization, but then again we all know why. These vermin are stealth creatures of the night. Why deny it? Why not just say she’s a socialist and let the people debate it.
What is she trying to conceal?
Then there’s Obama’s Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, a real piece of work and a die-hard animal rights zealot. I’m not sure where he had his brains twisted, but Sunstein believes that animals—livestock, pets, and just about all forms of wildlife—ought to have “rights” so they can sue people in court.48 How? Last time I checked animals couldn’t talk. Sunstein proposes using private citizens acting as their representatives! This “bleating” heart lib wants to ensure that animals get a fair shake in court if they’re not being properly treated.
And you thought I was joking when I said liberalism is a mental disorder?
But there’s more.
In his 2004 book, The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein slips into cheerleader mode, rooting for socialism, and is frustrated that “In a variety of ways, subtle and less subtle, public and private actions have made it most difficult for socialism to have any traction in the United States.”49 But he is ever hopeful that socialism will take hold through, of all things, the farce known as climate change. He writes, “It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy.”50
Let’s not forget that John Holdren, Obama’s science czar, sat on the board of editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which was little more than a left-wing propaganda rag. In that capacity, he edited or wrote for the same propaganda sheet as these communist sympathizers. Why am I not entirely surprised to learn that the magazine’s co-founders, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were “accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project to the Soviets”?51 According to one report, “In 1994, Pavel Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, named Szilard and Oppenheimer as key sources of crucial atomic information to the Soviet Union.”52
In other words, they’re traitors!
With regard to smuggling U.S. atom bomb secrets to the former Soviet Union, Sudoplatov explains, “The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American atomic bomb—Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard.”53 And the man Obama picked to be his science czar worked for the same publication as these communist sympathizers. Either Obama is totally incompetent to have made such a blunder, or he knew full well what he was doing.
Both options are unacceptable.
This begs the question: Why did Obama pick socialist czars? Did he pick any patriots?
Did he pick any fans of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Ronald Reagan? No. Instead, he picked outright Marxists and lovers of Lenin. Two of them are thankfully gone—Van Jones and Anita Dunn—because they were exposed for who they really are, not because Obama wanted them gone. Can’t you see that the kind of people Obama is picking as his czars speaks volumes about what he believes and who he really is?
Czar by czar, Barack has put into place a far left infrastructure.
You may ask why there’s so much divisiveness in America. You don’t have to look a
ny further than Obama and his czars. They’re the ones who brought this division to America. If Mr. Lenin-lite was merely a Democrat trying to push liberal reforms and doing it in a legitimate way, yeah, there’d be disagreement, but there wouldn’t be this much rancor. There’s a real counter-revolution going on against the Leninist-Marxist revolution coming out of the Obama administration. That’s why the Tea Party movement is picking up steam. And that’s why even the left is starting to ask questions.
Against the backdrop of this parade of socialist czars, a New York Times reporter—who suffered from a brief moment of clarity—who was flying aboard Air Force One, asked President Obama a direct question: “Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?” Obama, stunned, stammered, “You know, let’s take a look at the budget …” and then, almost as an after thought, added, “the answer would be no.”54
We all know that’s baloney.
If it walks like a socialist … it’s a socialist.
If it talks like a socialist … it’s a socialist.
Apparently his own statement didn’t sit too well with Obama either. Which is why the president called the reporter afterward from the Oval Office and said, “It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question.”55 Really? Why is it so difficult to believe the reporter wasn’t serious? How many more socialist-Marxist czars does Obama have to appoint before we’re allowed to ask the question?
In September, 2009, North Carolina Representative Patrick McHenry called for a congressional review of Obama’s czars. McHenry said, “If the czars have high-level, decision-making authority as their titles would indicate, then it is my concern that their appointment without Senate approval represents a circumvention of our Constitutionally-mandated confirmation process.” Speaking of Van Jones, he added, “His ability to slip into a position of power without due Congressional diligence only further underscores the necessity for a confirmation process.”56
We’re still waiting for those hearings to begin.
And while we wait, Obama continues to stack the government with more Marxists. In May, 2010, Team Obama named Ben Scott to be a Policy Advisor for Innovation at the State Department. While it’s unknown what an “advisor for innovation” does, we do know something about Ben Scott and the communist organization where he was working at the time of his appointment.
Scott was the Policy Director of Free Press—a Marxist-founded outfit reportedly funded by George Soros.57 It’s the same radical firm from which Obama hired his former “green jobs” czar Van Jones, who was a board member of that organization. We know that their name—Free Press—is misleading. As one reporter pointed out: “Free Press is a well-known advocate of government intervention in the Internet.”58 In other words, they want more government control, not a free press.
This view held by Free Press is consistent with something Vladimir Lenin has said:
We Bolsheviki have always said that when we reached a position of power we would close the bourgeois press. To tolerate the bourgeois newspapers would mean to cease being a Socialist. When one makes a Revolution, one cannot mark time; one must always go forward—or go back. He who now talks about the ‘freedom of the press’ goes backward, and halts our headlong course toward Socialism.59
This begs the question: Why did Obama handpick a fellow traveler like Ben Scott? Answer: I predict Obama will seek to curtail freedom of the press as Hugo Chávez has done.
We also know that Scott’s writings included a book entitled, “The Future of Media” co-edited by Robert McChesney, founder of Free Press. Why does that matter? In February, 2009, McChesney, the former editor of a Marxist-oriented magazine, wrote: “In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.” You might want to read that again.
What more do you need to know? Ben Scott worked for a Marxist organization and collaborated on a book with a diehard Marxist who wants to dismantle capitalism and replace it with the failed system of socialism. Just what America needs—another Marxist mole inside the State Department.
Obama’s Judgmental Non-Judge Picked for Supreme Court
Barack Obama has appointed another socialist, Elena Kagan.
Of all the highly qualified candidates he could have picked to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, this time he picked a real prize. What do we know about Kagan? For starters, she tried to kick the military off the Harvard campus when she was Dean of the Law School because she didn’t like their “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. She took money from Goldman Sachs just as her boss, Obama, has done. And the empty skirts in the media are saying that Kagan doesn’t have much of a “paper trail” that would reveal her views on various issues that may come to the high court.
The fact of the matter is we do know something about her viewpoints. Look no further than her senior thesis at Princeton, which was entitled, “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900–1933.” Kagan laments, “In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness.”60
In other words, she’s a New York City radical Marxist lawyer through and through. In spite of her Marxist background, we know that Obama is replacing a liberal with another liberal. No surprise there. Her presence on the Supreme Court will not change the ideological balance.
The deeper issue, however, is that Kagan is completely inexperienced.
Not only does she lack meaningful judicial experience, she lacks any experience!
Kagan has never been a judge. She is a judicial nonentity. Judge Judy on television has tried more cases than this judicial wannabe. If you think I’m being unfair to bring this up, you’re wrong. I pointed out the same thing of Harriet Miers, whose nomination by George W. Bush in 2005 I also opposed. In fact, it was because of the Savage Nation that conservative voices raised their anger and made known to the White House they opposed that nominee. Miers’ nomination was withdrawn.
Kagan could and should suffer the same fate.
Of course, if it’s up to the weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate, Kagan will probably sail through. Lugar, Kyl, and Coburn, supposedly all solid conservatives, all voted in favor of her nomination as Solicitor General. They were joined by RINOs Gregg, Collins, and Snowe. So don’t count on the Republican Party to save you from Kagan or even put up a meager fight.
As I searched for a reason why Obama would make such a choice—aside from the fact that Kagan is just another Marxist hack he can control—I concluded that Obama views her lack of judicial experience as a plus. Being a judicial nonentity makes her a “well rounded” nominee. That’s the backward logic of the mental disorder of liberalism. However, Obama already has Christina Rohmer, Sonya Sotomayor, and Janet Napolitano. I’d say Team Obama is already “well rounded” with enough incompetent people. America doesn’t need another imbecile in a robe rubber-stamping whatever the hell this president wants to do.
From Churchill to No Will
Winston Churchill is one of the greatest champions of freedom the world has ever known. After Churchill led England to victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, he faced an election in Britain. Keep in mind that socialists and communists were on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the Nazi enemy they’d just helped to conquer. As such, socialism was seen by some as a legitimate political philosophy. You know, many of the sheeple viewed it as just another valid political antidote to Nazi tyranny. However, the opposite was true. Churchill was among the few who realized it. Churchill saw the menace that socialism represented for free people everywhere, which is why he used his radio broadcasts to expose what would happen if socialists came to power. Listen to Churchill’s words and tell me they’re not equally important to Americans today as we battle the forces of totalitarianism under the presidency of Barack Obama:
/> My friends, I must tell you that a Socialist policy is abhorrent to the … idea of freedom. Although it is now put forward in the main by people who have a good grounding in the liberalism and radicalism of the early part of this century, there can be no doubt that socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the state. It is not alone that property, in all its forms, is struck at, but that liberty, in all its forms, is challenged by the fundamental conceptions of socialism.
Look how even today they hunger for controls of every kind, as if these were delectable foods instead of war-time inflictions and monstrosities. There is to be one state to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. This state is to be the arch-employer, the arch-planner, the arch-administrator and ruler, and the arch-caucus boss.
[N]o socialist system can be established without a political police. Many of those who are advocating socialism or voting socialist today will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are shortsighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them.
No socialist government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo.61
More than sixty years after Churchill spoke these words, they describe exactly what is happening under our socialist president today. I should point out that Churchill’s opponent in that election, Clement Attlee, was the leader of the socialist Labor Party. Among the issues that Attlee was promoting were a national healthcare system and a birth-to-death welfare state. That’s precisely Barack Obama’s agenda.
Does that sound unfair?
Didn’t President Obama use every trick in the book to ram through socialized health care? (I’ll document more on that in a subsequent chapter.) Without question, Obama and his minions are out to do nothing less than imprison us in a totalitarian socialist system in which the federal government usurps our God-given right to make decisions for ourselves. That’s what his socialist redistribution of our earnings through confiscatory tax policies and legislative initiatives is all about. He’s assuring that trickle up poverty becomes institutionalized in America.
Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama’s Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security Page 7