To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
No more Clintons, no more Bushes. No means No, even the Latino George P. Bush.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
WASHINGTON — Thad Cochran, a Mississippi Republican who was first elected to the Senate in 1978, set up a generational and ideological clash in the state’s Republican primary when he announced Friday that he would seek a seventh term in 2014.
While Mr. Cochran, who turns 76 on Saturday, has the support of many leading Republicans in the state, he is already facing opposition from Chris McDaniel, 41, a state senator aligned with the Tea Party who announced his candidacy in October and has won the support of some conservative groups.
Mr. Cochran, who has raised less than $1 million for his re-election, had been thought to be leaning toward retirement. But Mississippi Republicans said they believed Mr. McDaniel’s challenge and pleas from powerful figures across the state that Mr. Cochran seek another term prompted the senator to mount what will probably be his final campaign.
There is also the prospect of Mr. Cochran reclaiming the chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committee if Republicans win back the Senate.
The primary could be the toughest race of his career. Mr. Cochran has faced little opposition in his 34 years in the Senate, routinely winning re-election by large margins over little-known Democrats. But the primary could offer insight into fundamental questions about the Republican Party: whether longevity and clout in a Deep South state that has traditionally venerated such qualities are enough to overcome national trends toward limited-government conservatism.
With some conservatives determined to replace Republicans like Mr. Cochran, he must appeal to elements of the primary electorate that prefer a more ideologically pure senator.
Mr. McDaniel has sought to seize on the new anti-spending fervor, casting Mr. Cochran — who has delivered billions of dollars in federal spending projects to his impoverished state — as an avatar of a bygone political culture.
“The national debt is the greatest moral crisis of this generation,” Mr. McDaniel said in announcing his candidacy in October. “So, let’s go forth from this place making it perfectly clear that the era of big spending is over. The age of appropriations must end.”
Mr. McDaniel has already gotten help in making this case from some conservative groups like the Club for Growth, which is already airing ads in the state praising him as “the new strong conservative leader Mississippi needs in the U.S. Senate.”
But Mr. Cochran is a formidable figure in a state that has long relied on federal largess and that rarely turns over its Senate seats. He will have the support of Mississippi’s political and business establishment, which are deeply worried about what losing Mr. Cochran would mean to a state that, without him, would have little seniority in its congressional delegation.
Leading Republicans in the state have already begun training their fire on Mr. McDaniel.
“Senator Cochran’s opponent’s record as state senator and his trial lawyer practice are something that the voters of Mississippi will want to take a closer look at, because it’s very different than the commercials that are being funded by out-of-state special interest money,” said Henry Barbour, a well-connected state lobbyist and member of the Republican National Committee. “I certainly will do all I can to help make sure Senator Cochran is re-elected.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: December 6, 2013
An earlier version of this article stated incorrectly the age of Senator Thad Cochran, as well as the number of the term he is seeking. He will be 76 on Saturday; he is not 76. And he is seeking a seventh term, not a sixth.
By Pete Souza. You just know he’s this kind of roommate.
The White House has revealed that contrary to earlier reports that the two had never met, Barack Obama and his uncle, Onyango “Omar” Obama, actually lived together in Cambridge around the time the former attended Harvard Law. Duh, Obama would have told everybody this if . . . someone had asked him about it, seems to be the administration’s mea culpa—quasi culpa?—here.
“Their relationship came into question Tuesday at the deportation hearing of the president’s uncle, Onyango Obama, in Boston immigration court,” The Boston Globereports.
Onyango Obama told the ladies and gentlemen of the immigration court that the current U.S. president couch-surfed at his pad or whatever for a few weeks back in the 80s.
Was Obama the elder cool about sharing his beer and making himself scarce if Obama the younger brought a girl home? This was not indicated in court.
A simple case of using secondary sources accounts for the original misinformation: “On Thursday, a White House official said the press office had not fully researched the relationship between the president and his uncle before telling the Globe in 2011 that it had no record of the two meeting,” according to the paper. “This time, press office staff members asked the president directly, which they said they had not done in 2011.”
To be fair: it is entirely possible to share an apartment with someone for a period of weeks without having met them. Many of the happiest Craigslist-facilitated living situations have exactly this set-up.
By Pete Souza. You just know he’s this kind of roommate.
The White House has revealed that contrary to earlier reports that the two had never met, Barack Obama and his uncle, Onyango “Omar” Obama, actually lived together in Cambridge around the time the former attended Harvard Law. Duh, Obama would have told everybody this if . . . someone had asked him about it, seems to be the administration’s mea culpa—quasi culpa?—here.
“Their relationship came into question Tuesday at the deportation hearing of the president’s uncle, Onyango Obama, in Boston immigration court,” The Boston Globereports.
Onyango Obama told the ladies and gentlemen of the immigration court that the current U.S. president couch-surfed at his pad or whatever for a few weeks back in the 80s.
Was Obama the elder cool about sharing his beer and making himself scarce if Obama the younger brought a girl home? This was not indicated in court.
A simple case of using secondary sources accounts for the original misinformation: “On Thursday, a White House official said the press office had not fully researched the relationship between the president and his uncle before telling the Globe in 2011 that it had no record of the two meeting,” according to the paper. “This time, press office staff members asked the president directly, which they said they had not done in 2011.”
To be fair: it is entirely possible to share an apartment with someone for a period of weeks without having met them. Many of the happiest Craigslist-facilitated living situations have exactly this set-up.
Why do I get the feeling that Obama was doing alot of 'Couch-Surfing' back in the 80's with more than one 'Uncle'?
Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark wants to be president and, given that he is a man who has worn many hats during his controversial rise through the ranks, many believe this qualifies him for the top political job. But serious questions abound about his actions as commander of the 1st Cavalry Division of the Army's III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas, in 1993.
Clark has worn the hat of first-in-his-class graduate of West Point, Rhodes scholar, decorated Vietnam combat veteran, White House fellow, four-star general and even Supreme Commander of NATO ? a post from which he was relieved.
There is one hat, though, that despite lingering suspicions and accusations Clark neither has confirmed nor denied wearing ? a hat that many Americans might find very disturbing for a military man seeking the top civilian post in the U.S. government without first registering with either political party or being so much as elected dog catcher.
In his recently published book Winning Modern Wars, Clark proclaims that the "American way was not to rely on coercion and hard pressure but on persuasion and shared vision," which has been taken by Democratic Party doves to explain why the retired general has been an outspoken critic of President George W. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. But while Clark may prefer a "kinder, gentler" persuasion in dealing with U.S. enemies abroad, critics are saying his actions at home should be reviewed before deciding whether he is qualified to be trusted with America's civil liberties.
For example, there is the 1993 siege of David Koresh's Mount Carmel commune in Waco, Texas, where four law-enforcement officers were killed and nearly 90 civilians ? men, women and children ? massacred by being shot and/or burned alive. Those seeking an investigation of his part in the Waco outrage say that Clark not only played a hidden role in the military-style assault on the Branch Davidians, but easily could have refused to participate in what was a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act that bars use of the U.S. military for civilian law-enforcement activities.
Although Clark never publicly has discussed his role in the attack on the Branch Davidians and did not respond to Insight's requests for an interview to discuss his role at Waco, there are indisputable facts that confirm he had knowledge of the grim plans to bring the standoff to an end.
Between August 1992 and April 1994, Clark was commander of the 1st Cavalry Division of the Army's III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas. According to a report by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the list of military personnel and equipment used at Waco included: 15 active-duty military personnel, 13 Texas National Guard personnel, nine Bradley fighting vehicles, five combat-engineer vehicles, one tank-retrieval vehicle and two M1A1 Abrams tanks. Additionally, Fort Hood reportedly was used for much of the training for the bloody attack on the Davidians and their children.
Based on the fact that military equipment from Fort Hood was used in the siege and that training was provided there, say critics, it is clear the commanding officer of the 1st Cavalry had direct knowledge of the attack and, more likely than not, was involved in the tactical planning.
West Point graduate Joseph Mehrten Jr. tells Insight that, "Clark had to have knowledge about the plan because there is no way anyone could have gotten combat vehicles off that base without his OK. The M1A1 Abrams armor is classified 'Secret,' and maybe even 'Top Secret,' and if it was deployed as muscle for something like Waco there would have been National Firearms Act weapons issues. Each of these M1A1 Abrams vehicles is armed with a 125-millimeter cannon, a 50-caliber machine gun and two 30-caliber machine guns, which are all very heavily controlled items, requiring controls much like a chain of legal custody. It is of critical importance that such vehicles could not have been moved for use at Waco without Clark's knowledge."
"This is something that the general staff would know in the daily situation report or manning reports. Clark would have known and, given his obsession for micromanagement, there is probably someone who can place him on the scene. He wouldn't have been able to resist going in. At the very least there is no way he didn't have knowledge," Mehrten continues.
So what if the general was aware that his military equipment was being used against American civilians, and so what if he even participated in the planning? Wasn't he just following orders from above?
"To follow that order," explains Mehrten, "is to follow a blatantly illegal order of a kind every West Point officer knows is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Clark's obligation was to say, 'No, I'm not going to do it.' Look, Clark went to the same institution I did and at West Point we had extensive instruction in military ethics and issues concerning how one avoids obeying an illegal military order. It is drilled into our heads from the earliest days as cadets that the 'I-was-just-following-orders' defense isn't necessarily a good one."
He had the juice to say no, concludes Mehrten, "and he could have and should have. But if he had done so he probably wouldn't have gotten his next star. There is a reason critics say this man was not recommended by the military for that fourth star but got it anyway because of political clout, just as there is a reason that Chief of Staff Hugh Shelton brought him home early from Europe because of 'character and integrity issues.' Sure the Bradley vehicle could have been operated by a civilian, but that's unlikely. This military equipment is very specialized and would be virtually useless in the hands of untrained operators. But just using military equipment against civilians is running way afoul of Posse Comitatus. Legally, if he were involved in it and there were active-duty units where these armored vehicles came from, then it is a clear violation of the act. Clark's command at the time, 1st Cavalry, is an active-duty federal division and it is my understanding that these vehicles used at Waco were from Fort Hood ? his command."
Tom Fitton, president of the Washington-based Judicial Watch, believes Clark has some questions to answer.
"The question for Clark," explains Finton, "is a fair one in terms of corruption. Many Americans still are troubled by what occurred at Waco, and we're very interested in his role. Many people are going to ask what are his views of the force [attorney general] Janet Reno used at Waco and they'll want to know if he, were he to become president of the United States, would authorize that kind of force again. Specifically, was Gen. Clark comfortable allowing forces and equipment under his command to participate in a police raid or, at best, a hostage situation? People are going to want to know these things."
Michael McNulty, an investigative journalist and Oscar nominee for his documentary, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, tells Insight that, "From the standpoint of what went on that operation had military fingerprints all over it. The chain of command being what it is, Clark had some responsibility, but to what degree we really don't know."
McNulty takes a deep breath and then says, "My military sources tell me that Clark and his second in command got the communication from then-governor of Texas Ann Richards, who wanted help with Waco. At that point Clark or [Gen. Peter J.] Schoomaker should have asked themselves, 'Religious community? Civilians, they want our tanks?' and hung up the phone. Clark had to be involved at the tactical level, he had to know what the tactical plan was and he'd have to approve it. No one has ever asked these questions of this man. Clark wasn't even asked to testify before the congressional committee investigating the circumstances of Waco. For me the real question is one of character and, because of the cover-up that's gone on with Waco, it could even be a question of criminality. From the get-go, when the assignment came down from III Corps, which is the primary Army unit at Fort Hood and his division, Wesley Clark had the opportunity to say 'Hey, wait a minute folks, we're not gonna give tanks and personnel to the FBI to use on civilians!'"
True, explains McNulty, "Clark didn't do this in a vacuum. Whatever he did he at least is guilty of being a good German ? following orders. He was in a position to put his foot down and say no. It was his men, his equipment and his command. Everything that happened at Waco, from the beginning, the U.S. military was involved ? including the strategic and tactical planning that went on from Feb. 29 to April 19. Why weren't the guys making the decisions debriefed and questioned by the committee? I would hope that Clark would answer these questions now, the sooner the better, because it appears that Waco is about to follow him into the political arena full force."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
After a full 8 years of BO and then another 4-8 years of Hillary, the country as we knew it may be in unrecoverable territory by then.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
I'll tune out Hillary just as much as I tune out Obama. I can't stand to hear either of their voices.
In the end, I'll do whatever it takes to make sure my obligations are met.
Shrillary can go suck an egg.
I seriously hope Chris Christie runs. Yeah, I know, he's somewhat of a rino, but he's fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He's neutral-evil on guns, but he knows better than to go there. In the overall picture, I'd take him before McLame or Mittens or some other milquetoast knob job run up the flag pole by the RNC.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
Honestly... I'd like to see someone unknown run. Some "Abe Lincoln" type. Some guy who is "self-taught" and understands morals, comes from the West, or South, owns guns, hates politicians as much as most of us do, understands you HAVE to work for a living and nothing is handed to you on a silver platter, especially when it's taken from someone else who actually EARNED it.
Honestly... I'd like to see someone unknown run. Some "Abe Lincoln" type. Some guy who is "self-taught" and understands morals, comes from the West, or South, owns guns, hates politicians as much as most of us do, understands you HAVE to work for a living and nothing is handed to you on a silver platter, especially when it's taken from someone else who actually EARNED it.
Joe the Plumber guy.... someone like him.
The problem with that guy is that he has to get the votes of a millions latte sipping, tree hugging, flush out the baby abortionists, who want gays everywhere and energy nowhere.
It can't be done unless the Russians launch in 2015 Titor style and clean 'em all out.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Big change is needed one way or another. If said change comes through massive invasion, so be it. At least people will be forced to stand for something. Apathy would no longer be tolerated.
By: Andrew Walden FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Hillary Clinton has a written life plan, but there have been only two copies available to the public—until now. Written in 1969, and kept under lock and key during her years as First Lady, Hillary’s Wellesley College senior thesis has only been readable in person at the campus library and in a single microfilm copy made available to individual researchers on inter-library loan. Clinton lawyers have previously blocked people who sought to make it public.
A read of the 92-page thesis, titled “There is only the Fight, An Analysis of the Alinsky model” makes it clear why the Clintons wanted this document suppressed. Hillary doesn’t just want to pass laws or implement policy. Hillary explains: “If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution.” Somehow, recent articles on the thesis by the Washington Post, Boston Globe and MSNBC all missed this little detail.
“My senior year at Wellesley would further test and articulate my beliefs. For my thesis I analyzed the work of a Chicago native and community organizer named Saul Alinsky…I agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas…but we had a fundamental disagreement. (Alinsky) believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t.…my decision (to go to law school instead of training as an Alinsky organizer) was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.” This is critical to understanding Hillary’s life plan. Also notable are the many things about Alinsky which did not
Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was one of the nation’s foremost community organizers, publishing several books and creating organizations which continue today. He gave a wide ranging Playboy Magazine interview shortly before his death. In it he gives a detailed description of his 1930s life as a communist fellow-traveler.
Alinsky told Playboy, “I knew plenty of Communists in those days, and I worked with them on a number of projects. Back in the Thirties, the Communists did a hell of a lot of good work…. Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line. Without the Communists, for example, I doubt the C.I.O. could have won all the battles it did. I was also sympathetic to Russia in those days, not because I admired Stalin or the Soviet system but because it seemed to be the only country willing to stand up to Hitler. I was in charge of a big part of fund raising for the International Brigade and in that capacity I worked in close alliance with the Communist Party.
“When the Nazi-Soviet Pact came, though, and I refused to toe the party line and urged support for England and for American intervention in the war, the party turned on me tooth and nail. Chicago Reds plastered the Back of the Yards with big posters featuring a caricature of me with a snarling, slavering fanged mouth and wild eyes, labeled, ‘This is the face of a warmonger.’"
Alinsky’s roots, are in the corrupt machine politics of Chicago—also Hillary’s hometown. In the Playboy interview, Alinsky also describes his close work with mobster Frank Nitti and Al Capone’s gang and his relationship with the emerging CIO and the Roosevelt administration. He describes how he used these connections to make a 1930s deal with then-Chicago Mayor Edward Kelly to deliver a meatpackers’ union contract—one of his earliest “organizing” victories.
Interviewed about “A Woman in Charge”, his biography of Hillary Clinton, Carl Bernstein explains, “She chose Yale (in 1969) because, unlike Harvard, where she had also been accepted, it was an activist school that very much believed in the use of the law as an instrument for social change—in the mold of Thurgood Marshall…. This was the year of the Black Panther trial in New Haven. She monitored the trial to see if there were any abuses of the rights of the Panthers on trial, and helped schedule the monitors. Her reports were turned over to the ACLU.
“That summer she went to work at the most important radical law firm in America at that point: Truehaft, Walker and Bernstein in Oakland. They defended the Panthers. Two of their partners were members of the Communist Party—including Bob Truehaft, who was married to Jessica Mitford. I talked to Bob Truehaft not long before he died, and he said he was certain that Hillary came there because she subscribed to some of the kind of law they practiced and the kind of clients they defended. In her so-called autobiography, ‘Living History,’ she put in a couple of sentences about living in Berkeley with Bill that summer and working at that law firm, but she makes it sound like their work focused on postal rate increases. There’s not a word about radicals.”
In spite of the Clintons’ efforts to suppress information about this period, Hillary often refers back to it. In the July 23, 2007 Democrat presidential debate Hillary pointed out, “I have 35 years of being a change agent.” In a January 22, 2007 interview Hillary again referred to the same touchstone: “Bill and I started a conversation 35 years ago about our country.” In an 1993 Washington Post article, Hillary invoked her thesis in defense of nationalized health care and pointed out: “You know, I've been on this kick for 25 years.”
This probably explains the efforts by Clinton backers to deflect attention from the thesis.
Wellesley emeritus professor Alan Schechter a Clinton donor and friend calls the idea that her thesis is a key to understanding her character, “moronic”. Interviewed earlier this year by MSNBC, his blustering semi-literate response is another clue to the thesis’ importance.
It is easy to label Alinsky “communist” and be done with it. But that would cost the reader the opportunity to study the inner nature of Alinsky’s activities. It is that inner nature which plays itself out over three decades later in Hillary’s quest for power. As Hillary explains:
“Alinsky outlines American history focusing on men he would call ‘radical’, confronting his readers again with the ‘unique’ way Americans have synthesized the alien roots of radicalism, Marxism, Utopian socialism, syndicalism, the French revolution …”
Alinsky’s experience with the gangs and his lifelong symbiosis with Chicago machine are part of that synthesis. Alinsky believed that the end justified any means. This common amoral attitude has led many radicals over the cliff. The Alinsky difference? The Washington Post points out: “To mark his differences with the bomb-throwers, he subtitled his second book ‘A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.’" That pragmatism and the absolute belief in his own rightness were his only moral compasses as a community organizer.
In the MSNBC article, Schechter clumsily tries to distance Hillary from Alinsky: “…she's not a radical at all. I think she's very mainstream. She's a pragmatist. She's a much more thoughtful, cautious, careful, pragmatic person…” Of course Alinsky’s organizing technique was the application of pragmatism to radicalism. Schechter is perhaps laughing at an American public he sees as ignorant. But his arrogance is brittle. Given Hillary’s high negative poll ratings, it may be the American voter who has the last laugh. Clinton critic Peggy Noonan is exactly right when she describes Hillary’s senior thesis as the, “Rosetta stone of Hillary studies.”
While claiming radicals represent democracy, Hillary makes no bones about the connection between Alinsky’s successes and machine politics. Speaking of Alinsky’s signature community organizing effort in The Back of The Yards, a run-down Chicago neighborhood, Hillary explains: “… much of the community’s influence is traceable not to its ‘burning passion’ but to its most illustrious resident, Mayor Richard J. Daley. Mayor Dailey’s assumption of political power in the early 1950s curiously parallels the Council’s growth in power. Many of the mayor’s staff are also residents and share the mayor’s loyalty to the neighborhood.” (P 21-22)
In 2000, the late Barbara Olson got a copy of Hillary’s thesis and noted: “Perhaps the most prescient part of the thesis is a quote from a profile of Alinsky in The Economist: ‘His charm lies in his ability to commit himself completely to the people in the room with him. In a shrewd though subtle way, he often manipulates them while speaking directly to their experience.’ Although her thesis was written several years before she cornered Bill Clinton in the Yale Law School library, Hillary had come to recognize the potential power of a man of exceptional charm.”
Since it has remained effectively hidden for most of 38 years it cannot be said that the thesis guided anybody’s actions other than Hillary’s—but that makes the document more significant, not less. “There is only the fight” starts from the end of Alinsky’s life to anticipate the path her fellow radicals would soon begin taking from campus activism to positions of power as the bureaucrats, journalists, academics, and elected officials of today. Hillary then charts the course which will place her at the head of this transformed cultural, intellectual and power elite.
Communists seek to acquire power through social revolution and then re-shape man. Hillary’s theme is the same as Alinsky’s: Acquire power and use it to re-shape man through social revolution. For the past three and a half decades the radicals whose formative experiences were shaped by the year 1968 have been doing exactly that. As Hillary explains:
“A Radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in existing laws and methods of government. These proposed changes are aimed at the roots of political problems which in Marxian terms are the attitudes and behaviors of men.” (P 10)
In Living History, Hillary explains: “He (Alinsky) believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t. …my decision (to go to law school instead of training as an Alinsky organizer) was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.” Graduating from Wellesley, Hillary went on to Yale Law School—perhaps the ultimate “insider” preparation. The path she chose not to take is appended to her thesis: a written invitation from Alinsky to join his “Industrial Areas Foundation Training Institute”. cause Hillary to have “fundamental disagreement.”
The Washington Post also points out Alinsky as a point of reference for Hillary: “…She told an interviewer shortly after Bill Clinton became president that government programs were too often administered from on high, with too little effect. ‘I basically argued that [Alinsky] was right. Even at that early stage, I was against all these people who came up with these big government programs that were more supportive of bureaucracies than actually helpful to people. You know, I've been on this kick for 25 years.’”
Hillary’s thinking, described extensively in her thesis as part of a joint Hillary-Alinsky critique of the War on Poverty, may underlie the eventual Clinton acquiescence to the mid-1990s welfare reforms imposed by the Republican-controlled Congress. While free-marketers view social programs as stifling individual economic initiative, Hillary viewed the stultifying effects of dependency creating programs as an obstacle to radicalizing the recipients. Unlike small-government conservatives, Hillary does not oppose massive federal programs, she wants to use them in a way which polarizes and politicizes the nation.
Hillary quotes one Chicago official of Lyndon Johnson’s ‘War on poverty’ talking about the Temporary Woodlawn Organization, an Alinsky group:
“We … believe it imperative that some means be developed to reclaim these poor, hard-core youth…to test whether the mechanisms of the gang structures could not assist in shifting attitudes toward productive adult citizenship.” She then quotes Nathan Glazer describing the involvement of gangs in Alinsky’s TWO group: “(it is as if) someone had been convinced by a sociologist that change and reform are spurred by conflict and decided that, since all good things can come from the American Government, it ought to provide conflict, too.” (p 34-35)
This is not the only connection between gang violence and Alinsky organizations. Hillary later notes, “The relationship between the Newark riots in the summer of 1967, and the local poverty agency which was one of the few in the country to operate autonomously, is still a matter of investigation.” It was these ‘polarizing’ events which transformed black voters from solid Republicans to being over 90% Democrats. As ethnic whites headed to the suburbs, American cities controlled by segregation-oriented Democrat political machines were transformed into political bastions of radicalism. Decades later the result can be seen in decaying, crime-riddled northern inner cities often represented by America’s most extreme elected leftists.
Hillary argues, “Alinsky claims a position of moral relativism, but his moral context is stabilized by a belief in the eventual manifestation of the goodness of man. … the main driving force behind his push for organization is the effect that belonging to a group working for a common purpose has on the men he has organized.” (p. 10) This rhetoric is familiar to anybody who has listened to leftist apologetics for the human rights abuses of socialist regimes. All means are justified by a theoretical end which is somehow never reached.
Hillary gushes orgasmicly: “The key word for an Alinsky-type organizing effort is ‘power.’ The question is how one acquires power, and Alinsky’s answer is through organization… For Alinsky, power is the ‘very essence of life, the dynamic of life’ and is found in ‘…active citizen participation pulsing upward providing a unified strength for a common purpose of organization….’” (P. 7-8)
What is the “social revolution” Hillary and the radicals-cum-insiders want? Hillary doesn’t want to merely make law or implement policy; she wants to re-shape humanity in her own image. She explains: “A radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in the existing laws and methods of government. These proposed changes are aimed at the roots of political problems which in Marxian terms are the attitudes and the behaviors of men.” (p. 6)
How will Hillary bring about the new man? Hillary -- currently the most polarizing figure in American politics -- wrote 38 years ago: “…polarization between those who believed in him and those who denounced him as a hate-monger delighted Alinsky: ‘In order to organize, you must first polarize. People think of controversy as negative; they think consensus is better. But to organize, you need a Bull Connor or a Jim Clark.’”
The purpose of organizing is not to achieve the stated goals of the organizers, but to create the new man. “…the main driving force behind his push for organization is the effect that belonging to a group working for a common purpose has on the men he has organized.” There is only the fight—any stated cause is secondary to the goal of creating the new man. This knowledge is necessary to any understanding of the left in America today.
If there indeed is “only the fight.” Then what else is left of life? In her 1969 commencement speech at Wellesley, Hillary said, “Every protest, every dissent… is unabashedly an attempt to forge an identity in this particular age. That attempt at forging for many of us over the past four years has meant coming to terms with our humanness.” For Hillary when she says “only” the fight, she really means it. “The fight” is her identity. In order to make “the fight” everyone’s identity, “political correctness” was invented.
Her 1969 commencement address, a denunciation of Republican Sen. Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, the first black US Senator elected in over 100 years, did forge Hillary’s identity. As Carl Bernstein points out, “When he finished, Hillary got up and extemporaneously excoriated him. As a result of that speech, she was featured in Life magazine as exemplary of this new generation of student leaders. They ran a picture of her in pedal pushers and her Coke-bottle glasses. That article made her well known in the student movement in the U.S. …When she arrived (at Yale), her reputation preceded her. It was perhaps greater than her real accomplishments. She was becoming a generational spokesperson, anointed by others. That’s when she met Bill; at that point she was much more famous that he was.”
Hillary describes an Alinsky speech: “‘Is There Life After Birth?’, presented before the Episcopal Theological Seminary in 1967…Alinsky concludes that what is at stake is our individual and collective sanity. Unlike the philosopher or artist, he looks for salvation in the political system.” (p. 68-69) Life itself flows from the political system. Believers may note where it is that Alinsky and Hillary do not look for ‘salvation’.
The view of life as political power may help explain Hillary’s recent proposal to create a national public service academy modeled on military academies. She wants to create an even-larger cadre of people whose entire existence revolves around the acquisition and use of power. Ironically, as Hillary made the announcement July 28 at a College Democrats conference in South Carolina, a heckler waving a sign reading, “She doesn't care, all she wants is the power” was hustled out of the auditorium.
Hillary’s point of departure from Alinsky is not really a difference. Like all socialists, Alinsky and Hillary find themselves starting from the ruins of past failures.
As Hillary explains: “One of the people who now recognizes (sic) the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict organizations is Alinsky himself. A critique of the power/conflict model for community organization in 1969 can no longer be a critique of the Alinsky-method because that method has undergone a significant evolution since its coalescence in 1939. Those who build models frequently leave their obsolescent ruins behind them for others to play with while they begin building anew. Alinsky’s evolution within the context of the last thirty years places in relief America’s great challenge: the search for a viable community….” (p. 61)
The post WW2 period was marked by massive wealth-creation and the establishment of the “viable communities” known as suburbs. Americans first voted with their feet and were then pushed by urban disturbances created in part by federal funds distributed under the ‘War on Poverty’.
Hillary and Alinsky focus not on this socio-economic transformation, but on the reduced opportunities for power based on radicalization of the shrunken population left behind in the cities. More than two decades of post-war economic prosperity literally yanked the poor out from under Alinsky leaving “ruins” of the former Alinsky model. Prosperity, founded on private property, undermines the potential for radical social revolution. Hillary quotes Alinsky: “The radical places human rights far above property rights.” (p 6)
Hillary’s plan to slip this trap leads her to desire massive Federal power to use as a post-industrial era replacement for community organizing. She explains: “A primary reason for the obsolescence of (Alinsky’s) power/conflict model is that the unit to which it applies, the territorially-defined community, is no longer a workable societal unit. …
Accompanying the decline of the traditional neighborhood as a living unit were the massive centralization of power on the federal level and the growth of the suburbs. Federal centralization reduced local and state power…(p. 62)
“Alinsky, when asked by Daniel P. Moynihan to work with the new Nixon administration, grandiosely offered Moynihan his plans for solving the urban crisis, the destruction of the environment, and the dissatisfaction of the citizenry. He urged the establishment of work projects in the Southwest to bring water to that area, in the Middle West to save the Great Lakes, in the Mississippi Valley to prevent flooding and in any other part of the country where men and women are needed to counteract modernity’s assault on the land…. (p 73) (Apparently massive public works do not constitute ‘modernity’.)
“Alinsky's proposals carry obvious spin-off effects. The need for workers could be filled from among the un- and under-employed in the cities. The model integrated communities constructed to house the workers would be self-governing. The projects, administered by bureaucrats and staffed by credentialed experts, would provide attractive recompense and job satisfaction to lure people away from the megalopoli.” (p. 73)
For Hillary, even world war and economic depression are seen in terms of their political impact: “When one moves beyond the city and local issues, the idea of independent national organizing seems impossible. The Depression demonstrated the feasibility of federally controlled planning, and a massive war effort convinced us of its necessity.” (p. 72)
This should inform any understanding of the Clinton critique of President Bush’s handling of the War on Terror. Limited war does not convince anybody of the necessity of “federally controlled planning.” Those expecting her to bring peace may be in for a big surprise if she wins the Presidency in 2008.
Hillary’s life work has been to acquire and use Federal Power to polarize Americans and through conflict create the new man. A Hillary Presidency could be the last chance for her aging generation of campus radicals to remake America in their own image.
That Hillary Clinton’s college thesis was a paen to Saul Alinsky will be the subject of much politico-psychoanalysis for years to come. As HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor Amanda Carpenter’s article makes clear, the study of Alinsky’s methods apparently created much of Sen. Clinton’s political persona, and formed the basis of her political methodology. So who was Alinsky?
Alinsky was born in Chicago in 1909. Hillary Rodham’s thesis is very revealing of Alinsky’s view of American life. It says, “…after graduating from the University of Chicago, Alinsky received a fellowship in criminology with a first assignment to get a look at crime from the inside of gangs. He attached himself to the Capone gang, attaining a perspective from which he viewed the gang as a huge quasi-public utility serving the people of Chicago.”Alinsky -- in that and other experiences -- became an academic-turned-radical, a personality type first found among the press covering the Russian revolution of 1917-18 and that became much more common five decades later, forming the basis of the Vietnam anti-war movement. He and others like him would find America’s adversaries -- within and outside the law -- more attractive than America itself.
Saul Alinsky’s radicalism was expressed in his 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” In that book, Alinsky said, “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.” Alinsky never saw himself as the devil, but as some radical angel who could bedevil “the Establishment” and force it to change to assuage pressures from community organizations.
In her closing, Hillary compared Alinsky to others who had been feared, “… as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy…just as Eugene Debs, Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King had been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths -- democracy.” Ms. Rodham apparently admired those three in the same manner and degree that she admired Alinsky.
Young Hillary Rodham’s admiration of Alinsky is, in a way, revealing of her young self. In one part of the thesis, she quotes an article from The Economist that called Alinsky, “Plato on the Barricades”:
His charm lies in his ability to commit himself completely to the people in the room with him. In a shrewd though subtle way he often manipulates them while speaking directly to their experience. Still he is a man totally at ease with himself, mainly because he loves his work which always seems to be changing -- new communities, new contests, new fights.
But that is a description of the young Bill Clinton as much as it is of Alinsky. Alinsky died in 1972. Bill and Hillary Clinton married in 1975. We will never know if she was drawn to him because she saw a reflection of her lost radical hero.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
Honestly... I'd like to see someone unknown run. Some "Abe Lincoln" type. Some guy who is "self-taught" and understands morals, comes from the West, or South, owns guns, hates politicians as much as most of us do, understands you HAVE to work for a living and nothing is handed to you on a silver platter, especially when it's taken from someone else who actually EARNED it.
Joe the Plumber guy.... someone like him.
The problem with that guy is that he has to get the votes of a millions latte sipping, tree hugging, flush out the baby abortionists, who want gays everywhere and energy nowhere.
It can't be done unless the Russians launch in 2015 Titor style and clean 'em all out.
Talk about "timing". Just got this in email a minute ago, LOL
Yep, Economics 101a.
Joe The Plumber - GREAT STORY
Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it. Joe drives to Obama's house, which is located in a very nice neighborhood, where it's clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 per year.
Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the room that contains the leaky pipe under a sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama, who is standing near the door, that it's an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes.
Obama asks Joe how much it will cost. Joe immediately says, "$9,500."
"$9,500?" Obama asks, stunned, "But you said it's an easy repair!"
"Yes, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free," explains Joe. "It's always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law, and it did pass earlier this year, so now all plumbers have to do business this way. It's known as 'Joe's Affordable Plumbing Act of 2013.' Surprised you haven't heard of it."
In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there's no way he's paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves. Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe's price, Obama does nothing. The leak under Obama's sink goes unrepaired for the next several days.
A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there's a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return. Joe goes back to Obama's house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says, “Let's see - this will cost you about $21,000."
"A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!" Obama quickly fires back.
Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase. "Well, because of 'Joe's Affordable Plumbing Act,' a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free plumbing I'm doing for the people who make less than $250,000. As a result, the rate I have to charge my wealthy paying customers rises every day.
"Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the group of people who get it free has skyrocketed, and there's a long waiting list of those who need repairs. This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, and they're not being replaced - nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they won't make any money. I'm hurting now too - all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won't pay their fair share."
Obama tries to straighten out the plumber: "Of course you're hurting, Joe! Don't you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services, you'll be broke, and then what will you do?"
Wow. Seems like a day for coincidences..... Got this email just now from the same old guy that sent the other one. I haven't spoken to or emailed him in MONTHS.
Subject: Semper Fidelis
Hillary Clinton thinks that with 4 dead Americans, "what difference at this point does it make" Sadly, she won't understand this poem. I recall the President referring to the Benghazi incident as "a bump in the road".
Today I heard an ex-Navy Seal being interviewed regarding a book he has written about how to handle crisis situations in our lives. At the end of the interview he asked if he could make a comment on Benghazi and, of course, the anchor said yes.
He then thanked Fox News for keeping the Benghazi story in the news, since other news organizations are not. He said the Seals who died deserve that the public know the truth about the whole affair . . . but, the way things go these days that seems unlikely.
The poem was written by a MARINE CORPS Officer (ANONYMOUS). Very thought provoking and poignant. Please read it and pass it on . . . it's one way to keep the issue alive.
The Battling Boys of Benghazi
We're the Battling Boys of Benghazi, no fame, no glory, no paparazzi.
Just a fiery death in a blazing hell defending the country we loved so well.
It wasn't our job, but we answered the call, fought to the consulate and scaled the wall.
We pulled 20 countrymen from the jaws of fate, led them to safety and stood at the gate.
Just the two of us, and foes by the score, but we stood fast to bar the door.
Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied, so we fought and we fought and we fought till we died.
We gave our all for our Uncle Sam but Barack Obama didn't give a damn
just two dead Seals who carried the load no thanks to us - we were just "bumps in the road."
This e-mail should be circulated as much as we can possibly keep it going. I think this is the feeling of the general population and it should be pursued until something is done with the incompetency in Washington who literally sat in the White House and State Department watching their execution on live streaming video and did absolutely nothing to save or rescue them.
Re: 2016 Election
J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press
By Pete Souza.
Originally Posted by American Patriot
I don't think I have to actually say this, but Barack Obama is a big, fat liar. Has been and will continue to be one.Originally Posted by American Patriot
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks