Post-American Presidency

by Spencer, Robert; Geller, Pamela

  Jay Nordlinger, National Review’s senior editor, identifies these conferences as more political than scientific—and decidedly pro-communist: “Ostensibly, this was an anti-nuclear group, but somehow they managed to serve the Soviet agenda, whatever it was that year. The Pugwashers declared themselves completely opposed to the concept of deterrence—and everything else that eventually ended the Cold War, and won it for freedom. Before Rotblat received the Nobel Prize, he and the Pugwashers were decorated by such peace-lovers as Husak, the Czechoslovakian dictator, and Jaruzelski, the Polish dictator. In fact, the Pugwashers were pleased to hold their conference in Warsaw after Jaruzelski imposed martial law.”

  Like Barack Obama, Holdren was from early in his career an advocate of the redistribution of wealth. In 1977 he coauthored the book Ecoscience with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, which espouses “the neo-Malthusian view.” This view, according to the Ehrlichs and Holdren, proposes “population limitation and redistribution of wealth,” and “on these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp.”8 They recommended that the “de-development of overdeveloped countries… be given top priority,” and called on the United States and other First World nations to “divert their excess productivity into helping the poorer people of the world rather than exploiting them.” (“Excess” according to whom?) How much of their excess productivity? Oh, 20 percent of their gross national products would be about right—indeed, necessary: “We believe an effort of this magnitude is not only justified but essential.”9

  They also advocated a “considerably more equitable distribution of wealth and income” within America itself, suggesting: “Possibly this would be achieved by some formal mechanism.”10

  The future president who lamented the fact that “the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society” would undoubtedly have approved—as his later appointment of Holdren made abundantly clear.11

  Holdren and his coauthors also came out for government controls on population growth—controls so strict that they might have made the most committed Maoist blush. “There exists ample authority,” they asserted, “under which population growth could be regulated.” They even claimed that “compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” And they recommended that the United Nations step in to enforce such laws if American authorities failed to do so.12

  The Erlichs and Holdren advocated more than just a role for the UN in internal U.S. affairs. They called for the establishment of a “comprehensive Planetary Regime” that would essentially control everything: it would “control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable… not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes.” It would also “be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade” and would be “given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits… the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”13 They would enforce these limits by means of a global police force: “Security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force.… The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”14

  When he accepted the Nobel Prize that was awarded to both Rotblat and Pugwash in 1995, Holdren demonstrated that he still held these views. “The post-Cold-War world,” he said, “needs a more powerful United Nations, probably with a standing volunteer force—owing loyalty directly to the UN rather than to contingents from individual nations.”15 And in a January 2008 address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), he called for “a universal prohibition on nuclear weapons, coupled with means to ensure confidence in compliance.”16

  Global warming offered him an opportunity to reaffirm his commitment to internationalism and the destruction of American sovereignty. In response to climate change, he recommended in February 2007 that the UN establish a “global framework” for enforcement of various restrictions, including a global emissions tax: “a requirement for the early establishment of a substantial price on carbon emissions in all countries, whether by a carbon tax or a tradable permit approach.”17

  CAROL BROWNER, SOCIALIST CLIMATE CZAR

  Among Obama’s czars, Holdren wasn’t alone way out on the far left. He shared a great ideological affinity with Carol M. Browner, the assistant to the president for energy and climate change—that is, the global-warming czar. Right up until Obama appointed her, she was publicly listed as one of the leaders of the Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a socialist organization that advocates “global governance” and calls upon First-World nations to commit economic suicide in order to put an end to global warming—the greatest fraud in human history. Never before has so much been spent, reallocated, and redistributed on the basis of… nothing. Once Obama’s appointment became public, however, the socialists hastily removed mention of Browner from their Web site.

  Guilty conscience?

  Browner was one of many socialist internationalists closely associated with the post-American president. The American representative of the Socialist International is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The DSA, of course, endorsed Barack Obama when he first ran for the Illinois State Senate, and he appeared for them on a panel discussion at the University of Chicago in 1998—on which he praised the virtues of a centrally planned economy: “The state government can… play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs.”18

  The Socialist International in 2008, while Browner was still listed among its leaders, declared that “market solutions alone are insufficient and will not provide the financial support and resources necessary to achieve the required combination of deep emission reduction, adaptation to already changing climate conditions, energy security and equitable and environmentally sound economic development.” If market solutions are insufficient, government controls must supply what is lacking.

  And that, of course, was just what Barack Obama wanted to impose. The Washington Examiner said in an editorial: “By appointing Browner to a White House post, Obama has at the least implicitly endorsed an utterly radical socialist agenda for his administration’s environmental policy. The incoming chief executive thus strengthens critics who contend environmental policies aren’t really about protecting endangered species or preserving virgin lands, but rather expanding government power and limiting individual freedom.”19

  Nevertheless, according to the Obama camp, Browner’s socialism came to them as a complete surprise. The Washington Times reported: “An aide on the Obama team said its information shows that Mrs. Browner resigned from the organization in June 2008. The aide, who asked not to be named because he was discussing internal matters, said the transition team was aware she had been a member of the group when she was vetted.”20

  But even if this was true and the White House didn’t know of Browner’s socialist ties, would those ties really have bothered them—or was this statement just window dressing for an adulatory press and an indifferent public? With Obama’s own socialist leanings and so many other socialists among his friends and associates, why would Browner’s socialism suddenly raise eyebrows among the Obamaites?

  It strained credulity.

  However, Tony Shapiro, spokesman for the Obama transition, said just before Obama became president that Browner was picked “to help the president-elect coordinate energy and climate policy because she understands that our efforts to create jobs, achieve energy security and combat climate change demand integration among different agencies; cooperation between federal, state and local governments; and partnership with
the private sector.” He didn’t say anything about her being picked because she was ideologically simpatico with the post-American president. Still, it was hard to escape that conclusion.

  And Shapiro’s description of her duties was noteworthy in itself. A socialist coordinating cooperation between various levels of government might reasonably be tempted to centralize. And apparently that would be just fine with Barack Hussein Obama.

  THE REGULATORY CZAR

  The administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or regulatory czar, is Cass Sunstein. Sunstein is also, like Obama himself, as well as Holdren and Browner, a socialist and redistributionist.

  And again like Holdren and Browner, Sunstein sees the global-warming scam as opening the door to full socialism in the United States: “It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.”

  Sunstein thought international climate-change regulations were acceptable simply because of their socialist character—apparently aside from the question of whether environmental changes actually showed that they were warranted: “We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.”

  In Sunstein’s view, wealthy nations have a duty to poor nations: “If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”21

  VAN JONES

  The most notorious socialist among Obama’s czars was one who served for less than six months: Van Jones. A radical black nationalist as well as a socialist hard-liner, Jones was Obama’s special advisor for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)—the environment czar—from March 16 to September 5, 2009, when he resigned under pressure after the full extent of his ties to socialism and race-baiting hate politics was revealed.

  Jones was radicalized by the acquittal of the white cops who had beaten a black man, Rodney King, in 1992. He remembered later: “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.” Arrested at a mass rally shortly thereafter, he recalled his jail experience fondly: “I met all these young radical people of color—I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’… I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.”22

  In those days Jones probably never dreamed that he would one day become a top White House official. He might have thought he would have had to sell out his principles to white, capitalist America in order to attain such a position. But instead, the White House came to him. The post-American president brought black nationalism and socialism to the heart of American power. The pose was different, the substance was the same: as Jones himself once put it, “I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”23

  He could have been describing the career trajectory of Barack Hussein Obama.

  After a public outcry led by television personality Glenn Beck, who called public attention to Jones’s hard-left leanings, Jones resigned. But if all the socialists, race baiters, and communists were removed from the Obama high command, there would be no one left.

  THE PAY CZAR

  Among Obama’s many socialist czars was Kenneth Feinberg, the special master for TARP executive compensation, or pay czar. Feinberg had sweeping and final authority to set salaries for executives at corporations including Bank of America, Citigroup, General Motors, and Chrysler—the large corporations receiving “bailouts” from the federal government in exchange for government control.24

  Columnist David Harsanyi warned that “this unprecedented intrusion into the economy accomplishes nothing—well, other than setting an array of dangerous precedents.” Among them, never-ending government control: “Yes, these companies were at the taxpayer trough. Which means that firms that accept aid from Washington should consider the ‘assistance’ analogous to the help offered by The Godfather at his daughter’s wedding. You’re in for life. Existing contracts have no real value. A single political appointee may have the power to decide what you’re worth.”25

  That’s exactly what Feinberg did. In October 2009 he slashed executive salaries, and in December 2009 he did it again, announcing a pay cut for mid-level executives at his pet corporations that left fewer than 10 out of 450 executives being allowed salaries over $500,000 a year.26 He turned a deaf ear to complaints that he was thereby rendering these corporations uncompetitive in a tough market. And what if the executives decided to leave the corporations under Feinberg’s control in order to earn higher salaries elsewhere? Economist Alex Tabarook predicts: “Chaos will be created at these firms as top people leave in droves. Will the administration then order people back to work?”27

  The appointments of all these socialists to key positions removed from conventional means of accountability was one more indication of the hard-left political convictions of the president who appointed them.

  THIRTEEN

  ACORN:

  FEDERALLY

  FUNDED FRAUD

  ACORN FUNCTIONS AS IF IT WERE THE PROVO ARM OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. ACORN PERFORMS ALL OF THE ILLEGALITIES—PHONY VOTER registrations, dummied-up fronts for laundered money, and worse. ACORN has specialized, along with the Black Panthers and the SEIU, in voting booth intimidation, blocking people from access, and the like. And when somebody gets caught, or a scam gets uncovered, the Democrats scramble and cover for their provo.

  The wheels started to come off the ACORN bus in September 2009, when a video came to light of a young man and woman posing as a thirteen-year-old prostitute and her pimp, discussing with ACORN officials how to set up a house of prostitution staffed with underage, illegal prostitutes. Helpful ACORN staffers advise the couple on how they can deceive the police and launder the money from this enterprise.1

  But that was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) had a long record of voter fraud, going back years. According to journalist Amanda Carpenter, ACORN’s taste for fraud appears to be growing rather than diminishing: in 2004, two Colorado ACORN officials submitted false voter registrations and were ultimately convicted of perjury. In 2006, ACORN submitted fraudulent voter registrations in five states.2 In November 2006, a Missouri grand jury indicted four ACORN workers for submitting over fifteen thousand phony voter-registration forms.3

  Then during the 2008 presidential campaign, ACORN faced voter-registration-fraud accusations in thirteen states. An ACORN staffer convinced one Ohio teenager to register to vote no fewer than seventy-three times. Every member of the Dallas Cowboys football team registered to vote in Nevada.4

  Over half of the voter applications ACORN submitted in Indiana had to be thrown out.5 This problem was not restricted to Indiana alone: according to former ACORN employee Anita MonCrief, more than 50 percent of voter registrations that ACORN submitted nationwide during the 2008 election were fraudulent.6

  ACORN is also a radical socialist, hard-left organization. A 2003 exposé of ACORN called it “the largest radical group in the country,” with “120,000 dues-paying members, chapters in 700 poor neighborhoods in 50 cities,” promoting “a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor” and sometimes even “undisguised authoritarian socialism.”7 ACORN is dedicated to stealth revolution, communism, demonizing honest American businesses and businessmen, ripping off the American taxpayer, and subverting free markets—among
other similar objectives.

  IT’S A POWER THING

  Barack Obama once worked as an ACORN “leadership trainer.” He hired ACORN affiliates for voter registration. Obama was a speaker at ACORN seminars. Obama was their lawyer.8 The Illinois Times reported in 2008: “Fresh out of Harvard Law School, Obama moved to Chicago to head up the local branch of Project Vote, a D.C.-based nonpartisan voter-registration organization focused on low-income communities of color. Recruiting staff and volunteers from community groups and black churches, he helped train 700 deputy registrars and devised a comprehensive media campaign based on the slogan ‘It’s a Power Thing.’ His volunteers hit the streets and registered more than 150,000 black voters in only six months. According to a 1993 report published in Chicago magazine, the elections ‘turned on these totals.’”9

  Obama continued to use the tactics he learned in the “It’s a Power Thing” media campaign during his presidential run, as the Illinois Times noted: “Vote for Change is the latest iteration of the Obama campaign’s comprehensive electoral ground game, one that will build on the methodical and underreported registration efforts staged by Obama supporters during the primary season. Just in the late contests alone, campaign volunteers enlisted 200,000 new Democrats in Pennsylvania, 165,000 in North Carolina, and more than 150,000 in Indiana.”10

  When ACORN’s federal funding began to be challenged, journalist John Fund observed that Obama “carefully declined to say whether he would approve a federal cutoff of funds to the group,” and that the president “took great pains to act as if he barely knew about Acorn. In fact, his association goes back almost 20 years. In 1991, he took time off from his law firm to run a voter-registration drive for Project Vote, an Acorn partner that was soon fully absorbed under the Acorn umbrella.”