Author Archives: John Smith (twitter: @StopObama2012)

Obama: Constitution written “20 centuries” ago

Gaffetastic!

“Of the many responsibilities granted to a president by our Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice. The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often serving long after the presidents who appointed them. And they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time.”

The 12th Imam. Why a Nuclear Iran is Terrifying

The entrie transcript of this interview is available here. These are the parts I’m concerned about, which begin in the video at 36 minutes:

NBC’s Ann Curry: In your speeches, you pray for God to hasten the arrival of the hidden Imam, the Muslim messiah. Would you tell us, as I know you will speak about this at the general assembly, as well.  What is your relationship with the hidden Imam, and how soon do you think before the second coming?

Ahmadinejad: Yes, that’s true.  I prayed for the arrival of the 12th Imam. The owner of the age, as we call him.  Because the owner of the age is the symbol of the – justice and brotherly love prevailing around the world.  When the Imam arrives, all of these problems will be resolved.  And a prayer for the owner of the age is nothing but a wish for justice and brotherly love to prevail around the world. And it’s an obligation a person takes upon himself to always think about brotherly love. And also to treating others as equals.

All people can establish such a connection with the Imam of the age. It’s roughly the same as the relationship which exists between Christians and the Christ.  They speak with Jesus Christ and they are sure that Christ hears them.  And responds.  Therefore, this is not limited to us only.  Any person can talk with the Imam.

Curry: You’ve said that you believe that his arrival, the apocalypse, would happen in your own lifetime. What do you believe that you should do to hasten his arrival?

Ahmadinejad: I have never said such a thing.

Curry: Ah, forgive me.

Ahmadinejad: I – I – I was talking about peace.

Curry: Forgive me.

Ahmadinejad: What is being said about an apocalyptic war and – global war, things of that nature.  This is what the Zionists are claiming.  Imam…will come with logic, with culture, with science.  He will come so that there is no more war. No more enmity, hatred.  No more conflict.  He will call on everyone to enter a brotherly love. Of course, he will return with Jesus Christ.  The two will come back together.  And working together, they would fill this world with love.  The stories that have been disseminated around the world about extensive war, apocalyptic wars, so on and so forth, these are false.

This 53 minute long interview was conducted in September 2009 by NBC’s Ann Curry. The problem is that the parts discussing Ahmadinejad’s belief in the 12th Imam were not aired by the network.

Now let me provide a little information on the 12th Imam before I get back to Ahmadinejad. The Shi’ite Muslims believe in following the descendants of Muhammad and one of these is for many of them the 12th Imam.  From American Thinker by John W. Swails III Ph. D.:

To begin our overview of the theology behind the Hidden Imam, we have to recognize that the umma, the worldwide body of Muslims, is divided into two main sects, the Sunni and the Shi’a.  The roots of this division go back to the period directly following the death of Muhammad and the conflict over who should be his successor, or caliph.  The Sunni basically accept all the caliphs who have ruled as legitimate, no matter their genealogy, how they achieved the office, or how good a Muslim they were.

The Shi’a differ. They posit that the true successor to Muhammad has to be a descendant of the cousin and son—in—law of the Prophet, an enormously important figure known to all Muslims, Ali.  As a result, they are called the shiatu—Ali, or the ‘party of Ali.’

To complicate things further, the Shi’a are further subdivided into three main groups.

These three groups are known by the number of Imams they accept.  In the case of the Shi’a, the word for the designated prayer leader—imam with a lower case ‘i’— is also used to designate the descendants of Ali who were legitimate successors to Muhammad. Of course these select successors are marked with the capital letter: Imams.

This, the group of Shi’a which accepts four Imams is called the ‘Fourers’ or ‘Zaydis’ after the fourth Imam in their listing.  The ‘Seveners’ or ‘Ismailis’ are known as such for the same reason.  The ‘Twelvers’ are the group which constitutes over 90% of the population of Iran and around 60% of the population of Iraq.

Now unlike the Sunni caliph, the Shi’a Imam inherited from Muhammad not just his civil rule over the umma but also his prerogative of interpreting the Quran, his infallibility, and his sinlessness (that connotation of impeccability seems far lost today).  The eleventh Imam, al—Hassan al—Askari, died in 874.  He was succeeded by the twelfth Imam, the youthful Muhammad, who ‘disappeared’ in 274/878 in the cave of the great mosque at Samarra without leaving progeny.

He is now known as the ‘expected one,’ (al—Muntazar), the ‘promised one’ (al—Mahdi’), or the ‘hidden one,’ (al—Mustatir).  The theology of the Hidden Imam is that Allah realized at last that the rightful successor to Muhammad was not going to be accepted by Islam at large so he had to be taken into hiding and kept there until he would re—appear to purify the umma and take the world for Islam.

The period of the Twelfth Imam’s hiding was in two parts.  The period from 878 until 941 would be known as the ‘Lesser Occultation,’ a time when the Hidden Imam was still active in this earthly realm, communicating by messengers.  The Great Occultation began in 941, when all contact with the world was broken off.  This date has been misinterpreted by some authors as the date of his disappearance.  The Great Occultation continues to present and will end when he re—appears.

The Wikipedia definition is more indepth and can be found here if interested.

Basically it is believed God has hidden him from the world, but he will come back. Now lets learn about the conditions for his return.

Wikipedia:

Twelver Shi’as cite various references from the Qur’an and reports, or Hadith, from Imam Mahdi and the twelve Shi’a Imams with regard to the reappearance of al-Mahdi who would, in accordance with Allah’s command, bring justice and peace to the world by establishing Islam throughout the world.

Mahdi is reported to have said:

Shi’as believe that Imam al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. At this time, it is believed, half of the true believers will ride from Yemen carrying white flags to Makkah, while the other half will ride from Karbala, in Iraq, carrying black flags to Makkah. At this time, Imam al-Mahdi will come wielding Allah’s Sword, the Blade of Evil’s Bane, Zulfiqar (Arabic: ذو الفقار, ðū l-fiqār), the Double-Bladed Sword. He will also come and reveal the texts in his possession, such as al-Jafr and al-Jamia.

Shi’as believe that Jesus will also come, (after Imam Mahdi’s re-appearance to follow him.) the Imam Mahdi to destroy tyranny and falsehood, and to bring justice and peace to the world.

About.com: World News:

Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Twelvers — not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims — believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.

The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.

So basically, out of the chaos of the  apocalyps the 12 Imam will come and usher in world peace, with Jesus behind him, through Islam. On the whole not to different from the Christian belief of the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ, except of course, for the religious differences.

However, Ahmadinejad doesn’t just believe in the return of the 12th Imam, he seeks to “hasten” it.

From Telegraph.co.uk Jan 2006:

But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad – recently described by President George W Bush as an “odd man” – and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission.

In November, the country was startled by a video showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly last September.

When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: “What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow.”

The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad’s piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president’s belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.

One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad’s government was to donate about £10 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam into a holy well.

All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. A common rumour – denied by the government but widely believed – is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a “contract” pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran.

Iran’s dominant “Twelver” sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.

He is said to have gone into “occlusion” in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.

Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

Its most remarkable manifestation came with Mr Ahmadinejad’s international debut, his speech to the United Nations.

World leaders had expected a conciliatory proposal to defuse the nuclear crisis after Teheran had restarted another part of its nuclear programme in August.

Instead, they heard the president speak in apocalyptic terms of Iran struggling against an evil West that sought to promote “state terrorism”, impose “the logic of the dark ages” and divide the world into “light and dark countries”.

The speech ended with the messianic appeal to God to “hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace”.

From Telegraph.co.uk Sept 2007:

The Hidden Imam, as he is also known by his followers, will only return after a period of cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed – what Christians call the Apocalypse – and then lead the world into an era of universal peace.

Rumours abound of Mr Ahmadinejad’s devotion to the 12th Imam, and last year it was reported that he had persuaded his cabinet to sign a “contract” pledging themselves to work for his return.

Another example of his messianic tendencies surfaced after 108 people were killed in an aircraft crash in Teheran. Mr Ahmadinejad praised the victims, saying: “What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow.”

For many of the hundreds of delegates who attended Mr Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN this week, his discourse on the merits of the 12th Imam finally brought home the reality of the danger his regime poses to world peace.

Rather than allaying concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Mr Ahmadinejad spoke at length about how a Muslim saviour would relieve the world’s suffering.

The era of Western predominance was drawing to a close, he said, and would soon be replaced by a “bright future” ushered in by the 12th Imam’s return. “Without any doubt, the Promised One, who is the ultimate Saviour, will come. The pleasing aroma of justice will permeate the whole world.”

This is one of the U.N. speeches where he calls for the return of the 12th Imam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv9NOXAQmEA

More from the American Thinker article:

At the end of his speech at the United Nations in the fall of 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made an invocation to Allah to bring about the speedy reappearance of the Hidden Imam.

The media and, sad to say, many academic persons were at a loss to explain this eschatological reference.  The situation was complicated by later interviews in which Ahmadinejad reported that many of his co—religionists claimed that while he was making those remarks, they could see about him an aura of light.  He recalled that he too was aware of a celestial light at that time.  He also pointed to the fact that the ‘leaders of the world’ were watching him at that time with a fixed gaze, apparently unable to look away.

February, 1979, over two million lined the road leading from Mehrebad airport into Tehran during the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini, chanting ‘al—Muntazar.’

Khomeini immediately explained in a series of speeches that he was not al—Muntazar, one of the designations of the Hidden Imam, but that he had come to prepare the way for his appearance. In fact, Article Five of the constitution for the Islamic Republic of Iran, promulgated that same year, 1979, proclaimed that the basis for the constitution and its government was the authority of the Hidden Imam.

Moreover, the constitution promised that it would dissolve in his favor, following the  Hidden Imam’s re—appearance.

The IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) is, in actuality, an eschatological construct based on a messianic figure known as the Hidden Imam. With the ongoing pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and the war against the United States, all in the name of the Hidden Imam, it suddenly seems more important to know something about this whole concept.

In 2006 Joel Rosenberg wrote an article for NationalReview Online (NRO) on the subject and included excerpts from a book byAyatollah Ibrahim Amini:

I include key excerpts from the Ayatollah’s book:

When the world has become psychologically ready to accept the government of God and when general conditions have become favorable to the idea of the rulership of the truth, God will permit the Mahdi to launch his final revolution….A few selected individuals…will be the first ones to respond to his call, and will be drawn to him like iron to a magnet in that first hour of his appearance…..On seeing the fulfillment of many of the signs promised in the traditions, a large number of unbelievers will turn towards Islam. Those who persist in their disbelief and wickedness shall be killed by soldiers of the Mahdi. The only victorious government in the entire world will be that of Islam….Islam will be the religion of everyone….The Mahdi will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and the Christians; if they accept it they will be spared, otherwise, they will be killed….It seems unlikely that this catastrophe can be avoided….War and bloodshed [are] inevitable.

In his book, Al-Imam al-Mahdi, Amini describes the signs of the coming of the Mahdi in great detail. Chief among them: a massive earthquake and the launching of a global war to kill and/or subjugate Jews, Christians, and other “infidels” under Islamic rule.

In this video Ahmadinejad claims the 12th Imam “is in charge of the world”

Here is a British News Report on how Iran’s Government has become devoted to hastening the return of the 12th Imam.

Here Joel Rosenberg discusses the 12th Imam on The Glenn Beck Program in 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kpgiKf87Bo&feature=player_embedded

And here again in 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ3emqoV0cI&feature=related

Here he is in News Reports chanting “Death to Israel” and with a Hitler comparison

My summary is this:

Ahmadinejad and the entire Iranian Regime in power believe in the return of this 12th Imam, no problem. The Iranian Regime seeks to hasten his return, Big Problem. It is believed they have signed contracts to this end. The rhetoric coming out of Iran supports this belief. The argument to allow Iran to have nuclear power has been, “don’t worry they’re not going to attack and commit suicide.” But when Ahmadinejad praises victims of a plane crash, calling them martyrs, and advocates to “hasten” the return of the 12th Imam, which can only be accomplished after or during the Apocalypse, do you really want to take that chance? I don’t.

To hasten the 12th Imam’s return is to start the Apocalypse. I don’t want Ahmadinejad anywhere near anything dangerous, nuclear or otherwise.
Today President Ahmadinejad announced that the Islamic Republic had produced its first batch of 20 per cent enriched uranium. He is pictured here at the Natanz nuclear plant

Cass Sunstein: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Cass Sunstein. I really don’t have a good (tasteful) way to describe this man other than Extreme Left Wing Socialist Liberal. He has some extremely questionable and left wing views. The position Obama appointed him to makes him very dangerous indeed.

Here’s his Bio from Discover The Networks:

Born in September 1954, Cass Sunstein earned a BA degree from Harvard College in 1975. Three years later, he received a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he had served as executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.

After graduating from law school, Sunstein clerked for Justice Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (1978-1979), and then for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (1979-1980).

From 1980-81, Sunstein worked as an attorney-advisor in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and then took a job as an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School in 1981. Two years later he also became an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science. In 1985 he was made a full professor of both law and political science. He would continue to teach full time at the University of Chicago Law School until 2008, at which time his status changed to that of Visiting Professor. Today he also holds the title of Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

Sunstein is a contributing editor to The New Republic and The American Prospect and has frequently testified before congressional committees. He played a particularly active role in opposing the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998.

In 2008 Sunstein served as an advisor for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. After Obama’s 2009 inauguration, Sunstein was appointed to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In 1993 Sunstein published the book The Partial Constitution, which contains a chapter titled “It’s the government’s Money,” wherein Sunstein writes that “the Constitution … forbids government from refusing to pay the expenses of abortion in cases of rape or incest, at least if government pays for childbirth in such cases.” By Sunstein’s reckoning, a system whereby the government funds childbirth but not abortion “has the precise consequence of turning women into involuntary incubators” and “breeders” whose bodies are sacrificed “in the service of third parties” (i.e., fetuses).

With regard to citizens who object to having their tax dollars finance abortions, Sunstein writes:

“There would be no tension with the establishment clause if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things – national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others – to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections.”

Also in The Partial Constitution, Sunstein promotes the notion of a “First Amendment New Deal” in the form of a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would authorize a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure that a “diversity of view[s]” is presented on the airwaves.

According to Sunstein, private broadcasting companies do a disservice to the American public by airing programs only if their ratings are high enough, or airing commercials only if advertisers can afford to pay the cost of a 30- to 60-second spot:

“In a market system, this goal [of airing diverse views] may be compromised. It is hardly clear that ‘the freedom of speech’ is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard.”

“If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters,” Sunstein writes, “a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access [to the airwaves] will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome.” Government, he sayshas a moral obligation to force broadcast media companies to air commercials that represent a “diversity” of views:

“The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation.”

According to Sunstein, the judicial system should issue rulings to make it clear that private media companies do not have the final say in rejecting “diversity” commercials.

Asserting that government regulation of the broadcasting industry is consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, Sunstein writes: “It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech.'” He proposes “compulsory public-affairs programming [and] content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.”

Reasoning from the premise that public television stations provide benefits to society that profit-driven private enterprises do not, Sunstein calls for a government mandate that “purely commercial [television] stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”

On April 14, 1999, Sunstein published an opinion piece in The Chicago Tribune titled “Why We Should Celebrate Paying Taxes.” He wrote:

“In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”

In his 2001 book, Republic.com, Sunstein argued that the Internet posed a threat to democracy because it promoted cyberbalkanization, a phenomenon whereby people isolate themselves ideologically within groups that share their own political perspectives, while turning a blind eye to any views or facts that might challenge their beliefs. To counter this tendency, he called for government-imposed diversity on websites promoting a particular political perspective. Specifically, he suggested that all partisan websites should feature “electronic sidewalks” providing links to resources that offer opposing views. In a 2001 interview, he elaborated:

“Sites of one point of view [would] agree to provide links to other sites, so that if you’re reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views. Or maybe a pop-up on your screen that would show an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view. [break] The best would be for this to be done voluntarily, but the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated, and sometimes people don’t do what’s best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it. And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort, and to make sure it’s as neutral as possible if we have to get there, but to have that as, you know, an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better.”

Several years later, Sunstein retracted this suggestion as a “bad idea.”

In 2004 Sunstein published The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than EverArguing that citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that they are granted by the government, the book drew its inspiration from President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal of a new bill of rights. WorldNetDaily reports that among the mandates laid out in the book are the following:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

In The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein states that “if the nation becomes committed to certain rights [such as the foregoing], they may migrate into the Constitution itself.” He adds that “at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America’s constitutive commitments.” Another notable quote from the book is the following:

“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.” (p. 3)

Sunstein, who believes that the federal courts are dominated by conservatives, agrees with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s assertion that the Constitution is a “living” document whose meanings and mandates change with the passage of time.

According to The Weekly Standard:

“Sunstein would give up on the idea that law is supposed to be an apolitical discipline in which practitioners put aside their political beliefs. The judiciary Sunstein contemplates would have Democratic and Republican caucuses.”

Contending that “the judiciary is already politicized,” Sunstein says the notion that “judges are not policymakers” is a “myth.” Judges’ “political commitments,” he states, “very much influence their votes.” He contends that “judges are subject to conformity pressures, and like-minded judges go to extremes, in the sense that ideological predispositions are heightened when judges are sitting with others who were appointed by presidents of the same political party.”

In 2005 the American Constitution Society sponsored a conference at Yale Law School titled “The Constitution in 2020,” whose purpose was to give liberal/left lawyers and judges a forum wherein they could trade ideas on what they would like the U.S. Constitution to look like 15 years down the road, and how they could influence it toward that end. Sunstein participated in this forum, where he put forth his ideas about a “Second Bill of Rights.” According to The Weekly Standard:

“The essence of the progressive constitutional project is to recognize ‘positive’ rights, not just ‘negative’ rights, so that citizens are not only guaranteed freedom from specified forms of government interference, but also are guaranteed the receipt of specified economic benefits. The bottom line is that Congress would no longer have the discretion to decline to enact liberal policies. The triumph of the left would be constitutionally mandated.”

Sunstein has argued in favor of bringing socialism (in the form of expanded wefare benefits and wealth redistribution) to the United States, but contends that the country’s “white majority” opposes such a development because of deep-seated racism:

“The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics).”

Sunstein depicts socialist nations as being more committed than their capitalist counterparts to the welfare of their own citizens:

“During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum.”In 2007 Sunstein co-authored (with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner) a 39-page University of Chicago Law School paper titled “Climate Change Justice,” which held that it was “desirable” for America to pay “justice” to poorer nations by entering into a compensation agreement that would result in a financial loss for the United States. The paper refers several times to “distributive justice.”

Sunstein and Posner further speculate about the possibility of achieving this redistribution by means other than direct payments:

  • “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.”
  • “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.”
  • “If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation’s interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives.”
  • “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.”

In their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler brainstorm about ways to increase the number of organ donations that Americans make each year. They theorize that the main reason why more people do not arrange to donate their organs posthumously is because in order to do so, they are required to actively give “explicit consent” for such procedures, which few people ever take the time to do. To remedy this, Sunstein and Thaler advocate a policy of “presumed consent” — the opposite of explicit consent — whereby the the government would “presume” that someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation unless that person has explicitly indicated his or her wish to prevent such an action.

Sunstein and Thaler realize, however, that such a proposal “is a hard sell politically” because “[m]ore than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter.” Thus they propose an alternate solution — “mandated choice” — where the government forces all people to make a decision on the matter:

“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences. Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”

Under such a system, government “incentives and nudges” would replace “requirements and bans.”

Sunstein’s views about human cloning have been the subject of much controversy. By his reckoning, cloning should pose no moral dilemma because human embryos are “only a handful of cells.” In 2003 Sunstein wrote:

“It is silly to think that ‘potential’ is enough for moral concern. Sperm cells have ‘potential’ and (not to put too fine a point on it) most people are not especially solicitous about them.”

In a 2002 paper (titled “Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone?”) for the Harvard Law Review, Sunstein wrote:

“Moral repugnance might well be a response to vaguely remembered science fiction stories or horror movies, or to perceptions based on ignorance and confusion (as in the idea that a clone is a complete ‘copy’ of the original, or a ‘copy’ that is going to be evil).”

Added Sunstein:

“For some people, cloning might be the only feasible way to produce a biological offspring. It would certainly not be ludicrous to say that as a matter of constitutional law, the state has to produce a strong justification for intruding on that choice in cases in which it is the only realistic option.”

Sunstein is an animal-rights activist who once said, in a speech at Harvard University: “We ought to ban hunting, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.” He also has stated that livestock and wild animals should have legal “rights” and should be empowered to file lawsuits; that the human consumption of meat is a practice that should be ended permanently; and that the use of animals for work, entertainment, science, and food is akin to “human slavery.” “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture,” Sunstein wrote in a 2002 working paper while at the University of Chicago Law school. He expanded on these ideas in his 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions.

On July 4, 2008, Sunstein married his second wife, Harvard professor Samantha Power, whom he had met when they both worked as advisors to the presidential campaign of Sunstein’s longtime friend and former University of Chicago Law School colleague, Barack Obama.

In 2008 Sunstein authored a paper proposing that the government use a variety of methods to limit or eliminate conspiracy theories critical of the U.S. government. These methods suggested that the government could:

  • ban conspiracy theories outright
  • impose a tax on those who advance conspiracy theories
  • engage in counter-speech to “discredit conspiracy theories and theorists”
  • hire private parties to engage in counter-speech
  • engage in informal communication with such private parties, encouraging them to help

Added Sunstein: “Our main policy claim here is the government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories.”

I changed none of the words above, only added some links direct to his books in Amazon, & to PDF files on his papers.

Lets take a look at some of his radical views caught on film.

Here he is discussing his book on FDR’s Second Bill of Rights

What you need to understand about FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights is that it mirrors the USSR’s Communist Bill of Rights, take a look.

Here he discusses Roe V. Wade

“The Constitution doesn’t refer specifically to Privacy Rights”

Here is Cass Sunstein discussing his book Nudge:

As you can see, your stupid, and since you won’t act in your own best interests, on your own, the government will just “nudge” you into doing what the government thinks is in your best interest.

And here’s a few on Animal Rights and Hunting

“A full grown horse or dog is beyond comparison more rational as well as a more conversible animal than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month.”

Here is a compilation, and he also discusses his position interpretation if the 2nd Amendment

“We ought to ban hunting I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun, that should be against the law, it’s time now”

“Our willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen as…..not the same as but in many ways morally akin to slavery and mass extermination of human beings.”

And Cass Sunstein on a way to regulate internet free speech

Basically the “Fairness Doctrine” playing out on every website you try to look at.

Now here is Cass Sunstein lying to get Senate Confirmation

Is there really any doubt he lied based on the information above?

Here is Senator Sessions explaining why he cannot vote to confirm Cass Sunstein

Unfortunately, Cass Sunstein was confirmed. Now lets try to understand the job to which this Radical has been appointed.

From WhiteHouse.Gov:

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA, pronounced “oh-eye-ruh”) is a Federal office established by Congress in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act. It is part of the Office of Management and Budget, which is an agency within the Executive Office of the President. It is staffed by both political appointees and career civil servants.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OIRA reviews all collections of information by the Federal Government. OIRA also develops and oversees the implementation of government-wide policies in several areas, including information quality and statistical standards. In addition, OIRA reviews draft regulations under Executive Order 12866.

What does that mean exactly? According to the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Sunstein, a friend of President-elect Barack Obama from their faculty days at the University of Chicago law school, will mark a sharp departure for the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Although obscure, the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.

Here Sean Hannity & Ann Coulter Discuss Cass Sunstein and his Radical Views

Cass Sunstein is a left wing idealogue that would elevate animals over people. Cass Sunstein reinterprets laws and has them sounding exactly the opposite of what actually is written. Cass Sunstein supports a Communist Bill of Rights and redistribution of wealth. Cass Sunstein believes the people are ignorant and need a little push, just a little “nudge,” to do the right thing (determined by government). Basically, Cass Sunstein believes the government should dictate every aspect of your lives, but remember, you are no better than animals. And Cass Sunstein has been handed the position, by Barack Obama, to redefine our written laws, and make these radical views law.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Global Governance and Barack Obama

Zbigniew Brzezinski could be called the Maurice Strong of Foreign Policy. While Strong used the UN and Global Organizations to advocate the need to redistribute wealth in the name of Global Warming/Climate Change, Brzezinski seeks to redistribute power to global organizations, or Global Governance. In all my reports I try to stick to mainstream or credible sources and focus on using the subjects own words to define them, and this one is no exception.

As Discover The Networks did not have a bio on him I had to get another source.

Here is his Bio according to Answers.com

Zbigniew Brzezinski was born in Warsaw, Poland, on March 28, 1928. After obtaining his B.A. and M.A. degrees from McGill University in Montreal, Canada, he came to the United States in 1953. He was awarded the Ph.D. at Harvard the same year and remained there, first as a research fellow at the Russian Research Center and then as assistant professor of government, until 1960. He became a naturalized American citizen in 1958.

In 1960 Brzezinski moved to Columbia where he continued his rapid climb up the academic ladder. He was promoted to full professor in 1962 and directed the Research Institute in Communist Affairs (later the Research Institute on International Change) from 1962 to 1977. From 1966 to 1968 he had gained valuable experience as a member of the Department of State’s Policy Planning Council during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Identified as a Democrat and a rival of , Brzezinski saw little action during Richard Nixon’s presidency. In 1973 he became director of the and had the to recruit a young and generally unknown governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter. For Brzezinski, the early contact with Carter brought handsome rewards.

Carter declared his candidacy for president in 1974, and Brzezinski quickly approached him with an offer of advice. Of the potential candidates, Henry Jackson of Washington had views on foreign policy that appealed to Brzezinski more than those of Carter, but Jackson did not look like a winner. To most other Democratic presidential aspirants, Brzezinski’s reputation as a “hard-liner” was . By 1975 Brzezinski emerged as Carter’s principal adviser on foreign policy issues.

National Security Adviser

Brzezinski was openly eager to be appointed assistant to the president for national security affairs and when President-elect Carter offered him the position in December 1976. He had not wanted to be secretary of state, confident that he would be more effective in the White House, at the president’s side. From the he was about the president’s idealism and the absence of other appointees likely to give Carter the “realistic and hard-nosed” advice needed in world affairs.

Carter had campaigned against the Ford administration’s “Lone Ranger” diplomacy, the activities of Henry Kissinger. He intended to have a more balanced organization reporting to the president, who would decide policy questions. A triumvirate composed of the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the national security adviser, such as had existed in the Kennedy years, seemed ideal. , Harold Brown, and Brzezinski would do the job.

Brzezinski agreed with Carter’s ideas on organizational structure, but never doubted that his presence in the White House and his daily briefing of the president gave him the upper hand. He moved quickly to assert himself, and neither nor Brown was equal to the challenge. What balance existed – and it was considerable – was provided, as it had to be, by Carter.

Brzezinski’s differences with Vance were often as well, especially on policy toward what was then the Soviet Union. Although Vance had few illusions about the Soviet leadership, he believed that improvement of Soviet-American relations was both necessary and possible. Further arms limitation agreements and cooperation in crisis areas such as the Middle East were essential to avoid nuclear war. He was not willing to progress toward a sounder Soviet-American detente by disregarding Soviet interests in the Middle East or fears of Chinese-American rapprochement. Brzezinski shared Vance’s conception of the Soviet Union and the United States as permanent competitors, but perceived little hope for significant improvement in the relationship. The United States had to be firm, seek every advantage it could garner at Soviet expense, and play on Soviet fears by “playing the China card.” Although Carter initially leaned toward Vance’s view, by the end of 1978 Brzezinski appeared to have prevailed. The handling of the decision to normalize relations with China marked the ascendency of Brzezinski and the increasing alienation of the secretary of state from the policies of the administration.

Another arena in which Brzezinski succeeded in establishing his was in the public presentation of Carter administration policy. Initially, all concerned had agreed that other than the president, the secretary of state would be the sole spokesman on foreign policy. Brzezinski quickly concluded, however, that Vance was not adequate to the task and took it upon himself. The result, given the policy differences that emerged between Vance and Brzezinski, was increased public confusion about America’s course and a decline in confidence in the president’s ability to keep his team running in tandem.

Hostage Crisis in Iran

Although disagreement over the handling of the hostage crisis in Iran finally drove Vance from the administration, Brzezinski had been unhappy with the original course Vance had plotted and Carter had approved during the last days of the Shah’s rule. Brzezinski was a advocate of a foreign policy that stressed concern for human rights, but when he perceived a need to choose between enhancing human rights or projecting American power, power came first. As the Shah’s regime disintegrated in late 1978, Brzezinski wanted the United States to urge the Shah to act aggressively, to use force against his opponents, to carry out a military coup. Carter refused, sharing the within the administration, generally for the means the Shah had already undertaken. After the Shah’s , the return of Khomeini, and the of the American hostages, a desperate president accepted a rescue plan that Brzezinski supported and Vance opposed. Vance resigned. The plan failed.

Brzezinski saw Iran as Carter’s “only” fatal error. Probably more than any other single issue, the prolongation of the hostage crisis cost Carter the election of 1980 (to Ronald Reagan) and resulted in Brzezinski’s return to private life in 1981. Of the accomplishments of the Carter administration, Brzezinski was proudest of its success in the Middle East (the Camp David accords), the normalization of relations with the People’s Republic of China, the Panama Canal treaties, SALT II, the commitment to majority rule in Africa, the identification of American policy with the human rights issue, and the plan to strengthen the military and strategic position of the United States by building the MX missile.

Adviser, Author, and Observer

Brzezinski remained a prominent during the Reagan administration. During this time he conceived and advocated a form of detente which he called “Mutual Strategic Security.” This proposal involved both space-based Strategically Deployed Interballistic missiles (SDI) and ground-based systems to be maintained by the United States. The United States, in turn, would limit its nuclear arsenal to a level well below “first-strike” capability. His conservative politics were notoriously in with right-wing Republican views, with regard to virtually every aspect of foreign affairs. His highly academic approach to foreign policy led some to see him as and . In his various writings he occasionally criticized other politicians for petty idiosyncrasies.

After leaving government service, Brzezinski, still a young man, wrote a memoir, joined the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University, served as a consultant to Dean, Witter, Reynolds, Inc., and waited for another opportunity to exercise power.

Brzezinski was widely interviewed in 1989 with respect to the Solidarity movement which arose in Poland, as well as the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He expressed guarded optimism for the success of the Solidarity movement in his native Poland, and he avowed support for the demise of Communism. He further advocated some degree of laissez-faire policy by the United States in dealing with Eastern Europe at such a fragile moment in history. He published his thoughts on these matters in a book, The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century. Brzezinski then took a into the 21st century, based on a retrospective of the past 100 years, in his publication, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century.

Throughout his career Brzezinski has utilized his aggressive to foster his policies, keeping him in the as a respected political advisor and critic. He has established himself as a deep thinker, as well as a philosopher through his many writings. His published opinions range from cold war politics to human rights to genetic engineering. His ideas are at once and moralistic, especially with respect to the culture of the United States. In a 1993 interview he stated that the “self-indulgent, , consumption-oriented society cannot project a moral onto the world … Our moral consciousness has been corrupted by … the equal we assign to all values as if they were competing products on the supermarket shelf.”

Here is in 1989 discussing the TriLateral Commission

And here in 2007 again

The Washington Post posted that Zbigniew Brzezinski backed Obama’s Presidential Campaign

Washinton Post:  August 2007

Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski. The former national security adviser announced on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt” that he is supporting the junior senator from Illinois for president.

Obama “recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world,” said Brzezinski, who keeps an office at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand. He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.”

Brzezinski, who had a relatively hawkish reputation in the Carter administration but has been an outspoken critic of President Bush and the Iraq war, rejected the notion that Obama’s Senate colleague Hillary Clinton is more experienced in foreign affairs. “Being a former first lady doesn’t prepare you to be president,” he said. “Clinton’s foreign policy approach is “very conventional,” he added. “I don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago.”

He also defended Obama’s position in his recent foreign policy tiff with Clinton, in which she called him “naive” for saying he would be willing to meet with the leaders of U.S. antagonists such as Iran and Venezuela. “What’s the hang-up about negotiating with the Syrians or with the Iranians?” Brzezinski said. “What it in effect means,” he said, is “that you only talk to people who agree with you.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski became a campaign issue for Obama when he called Brzezinski, “One of our most outstanding thinkers.”

From New York’s  The Sun: September 2007

WASHINGTON — Senator Obama is standing by one of his top foreign policy advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, despite concerns that aligning with the former aide to President Carter will undermine Mr. Obama’s support with the pro-Israel community.

Mr. Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser in the Carter administration, introduced Mr. Obama before a major policy speech on Iraq yesterday in Iowa, where the Illinois senator praised his work on the Camp David Accords and called him “one of our most outstanding thinkers.”

Mr. Obama’s embrace of Mr. Brzezinski has angered some supporters of Israel put off by Mr. Brzezinski’s criticism of the Jewish state in recent years and his praise for the authors of a book that condemns the influence of the “Israel lobby.” Mr. Obama’s campaign has disavowed the book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

A Harvard law professor and supporter of Senator Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, said Tuesday that Mr. Obama had “made a terrible mistake” by aligning with Mr. Brzezinski.

A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, Jennifer Psaki, yesterday pointed to the fact that Messrs. Brzezinski and Obama both opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, unlike Mrs. Clinton, and she suggested the Clinton camp was trying to smear Mr. Brzezinski.

Given Mr. Brzezinski’s opposition to the war, she said, “It’s not terribly surprising that those who embraced the war would try to discredit him now.” Ms. Psaki added: “Barack Obama has a strong record in support of a secure Israel and he will continue to foster a strong U.S.-Israel relationship when he is in the White House.”

The Clinton campaign declined comment.

This audio from 2008 shows how much he believes in Global Governance, “The distribution of Global Power”  and that the ends justify the means,  “Today it is infinitely  easier to kill a million people than to control a million people.”

Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Here in 2008 on MSNBC his arrogance is on full display.

In September of 2009 he stated that the US should shoot down any Israeli planes that fly over Iraq in a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

From ABC:

The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

“We are not exactly impotent little babies,” Brzezinski said. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? … We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.”

The USS Liberty was a U.S. Navy technical research ship that the Israeli Air Force mistakenly attacked during the Six Day War in 1967.

Brzezinski endorsed then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign in August 2007, which at the time was portrayed in the media as a boost to Obama’s foreign policy cred. The Washington Post reported: “Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski.”

Brzezinski was never an official campaign adviser, but Republicans jumped on the endorsement to push the meme that Obama wouldn’t be a friend to Israel, as Brzezinski’s views of Israel attracted criticism from some quarters in the American Jewish community.

“Brzezinski is not an adviser to the campaign,” former Ambassador Dennis Ross, then a senior adviser on Middle East affairs to the Obama campaign, said at the time. “There is a lot of disinformation that is being pushed, but he is not an adviser to the campaign. Brzezinski came out and supported Obama early because of the war in Iraq. A year or so ago they talked a couple of times. That’s the extent of it, and Sen. Obama has made it clear that on other Middle Eastern issues, Brzezinski is not who he looks to. They don’t have the same views.”

Brzezinski plays no role in the Obama administration; the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brzezinski’s comments come within the same week that the White House distanced itself from comments made by former President Carter, who said he thinks “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.”

For the September Issue of Foreign Affairs he wrote an article titled: An agenda for NATO, Toward a Global Security Web:

NATO’s 60th anniversary, celebrated in April with pomp and circumstance by the leaders of nearly 30 allied states, generated little public interest. NATO’s historical role was treated as a bore. In the opinion-shaping media, there were frequent derisive dismissals and even calls for the termination of the alliance as a dysfunctional geostrategic irrelevance. Russian spokespeople mocked it as a Cold War relic.

Even France’s decision to return to full participation in NATO’s integrated military structures — after more than 40 years of abstention — aroused relatively little positive commentary. Yet France’s actions spoke louder than words. A state with a proud sense of its universal vocation sensed something about NATO — not the NATO of the Cold War but the NATO of the twenty-first century — that made it rejoin the world’s most important military alliance at a time of far-reaching changes in the world’s security dynamics. France’s action underlined NATO’s vital political role as a regional alliance with growing global potential.

In assessing NATO’s evolving role, one has to take into account the historical fact that in the course of its 60 years the alliance has institutionalized three truly monumental transformations in world affairs: first, the end of the centuries-long “civil war” within the West for transoceanic and European supremacy; second, the United States’ post-World War II commitment to the defense of Europe against Soviet domination (resulting from either a political upheaval or even World War III); and third, the peaceful termination of the Cold War, which ended the geopolitical division of Europe and created the preconditions for a larger democratic European Union.

This article generated alot of buzz so the magazine conducted this interview with Brzezinski

Within it he discusses Nato governing and acting on decisions, not through Unanimious Consent, but through majority vote. He also talks about kicking out Members of the UN for bad performance, that he is against Israel acting on Iran, and Afganistan.

Here is in a CNN interview praising Obama’s Foreign Policy to the Middle East

Here he is addressing the Council On Foreign Relations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBlABD01U0

He discusses that people are “Politically awakened” and the difficulties that presents, and Global Governance.

However, lately his tune on Obama has changed a little.

January 2010 he wrote an article on Obama’s Foreign Policy for Foreign Affairs:

From Hope to Audacity, Appraising Obama’s Foreign Policy

The foreign policy of U.S. President Barack Obama can be assessed most usefully in two parts: first, his goals and decision-making system and, second, his policies and their implementation. Although one can speak with some confidence about the former, the latter is still an unfolding process.

To his credit, Obama has undertaken a truly ambitious effort to redefine the United States’ view of the world and to reconnect the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century. He has done this remarkably well. In less than a year, he has comprehensively reconceptualized U.S. foreign policy with respect to several centrally important geopolitical issues:
•  Islam is not an enemy, and the “global war on terror” does not define the United States’ current role in the world;
•  the United States will be a fair-minded and assertive mediator when it comes to attaining lasting peace between Israel and Palestine;
•  the United States ought to pursue serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, as well as other issues;
•  the counterinsurgency campaign in the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan should be part of a larger political undertaking, rather than a predominantly military one;
•  the United States should respect Latin America’s cultural and historical sensitivities and expand its contacts with Cuba;
•  the United States ought to energize its commitment to significantly reducing its nuclear arsenal and embrace the eventual goal of a world free of nuclear weapons;
•  in coping with global problems, China should be treated not only as an economic partner but also as a geopolitical one;
•  improving U.S.-Russian relations is in the obvious interest of both sides, although this must be done in a manner that accepts, rather than seeks to undo, post-Cold War geopolitical realities; and
•  a truly collegial transatlantic partnership should be given deeper meaning, particularly in order to heal the rifts caused by the destructive controversies of the past few years.

Here he is still praising Obama for his efforts into Global Governance but critices him basically, for not implementing them (fast enough?).

In July of 2010 Zbigniew Brzezinki brought back the word that doomed Jimmy carter to describe Obama. From NewsBusters:

Can you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from 1600 Pennslyvania Avenue?  It’s Pres. Obama & Co. reacting to Zbigniew Brzezinki pinning on Barack Obama the word that doomed Jimmy Carter: “malaise.”

On Morning Joe, Carter’s former national security adviser said there “is a sense of pervasive malaise” in America. What’s worse, suggested Zbig, Pres. Obama hasn’t been able to figure out how to deal with the malaise. Ruh-roh!

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think we’re now going through a phase in which there is a sense of pervasive malaise, which affects different groups in society in different ways. So people are dissatisfied; they’re slightly worried; they don’t see a good certain future for themselves or for the country, but in their own narrow sphere.  There’s no grand mobilizing idea. And I have a sense that Obama, who started so well, and who really captivated people—he captivated me!—has not been able yet to generate some sort of organizing idea for an age which combines a malaise that’s pervasive and percolating, and complexity.. . .

PAT BUCHANAN: We need a new paradigm!

BREZINSKI: And the President hasn’t articulated it.

BUCHANAN: No he hasn’t.

BREZINSKI: There goes any further invitation to the White House!

Brzezinski clearly understood the personal implications of his downer of a diagnosis: “there goes any further invitation to the White House!”  The panel all enjoyed a good chuckle, but could anything be much worse for PBO than to be seen as the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter?

So, is Zbigniew Brzezinski working for the Obama Administration? No, however he does hold influence through the organizations of which he is a member, but nothing direct.

He and Obama have similar goals and policies on Israel and Global Governance. What you can see is that Brzezinski backed Obama before, during the campaign and after, but now openly criticizes him, not for what his policies are, but because he hasn’t implemented them yet. And those policies are the ones where the USA would give up soverignty to Global bodies, like the UN.

I Want Your Money Trailer (2010) HD

Must see trailer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wty7974IKg

I Want Your Money trailer…Set against the backdrop of today’s headline – 67% of Americans don’t approve of Obama’s economic policies, the film takes a provocative look at our deeply depressed economy using the words and actions of Presidents Reagan and Obama and shows the marked contrast between Reaganomics and Obamanomics.

The film contrasts two views of the role that the federal government should play in our daily lives using the words and actions of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Two versions of the American dream now stand in sharp contrast. One views the money you earned as yours and best allocated by you; the other believes that the elite in Washington know how to best allocate your wealth. One champions the traditional American dream, which has played out millions of times through generations of Americans, of improving one’s lot in life and even daring to dream and build big. The other holds that there is no end to the “good” the government can do by taking and spending other peoples’ money in an ever-burgeoning list of programs.

The documentary film I Want Your Money exposes the high cost in lost freedom and in lost opportunity to support a Leviathan-like bureaucratic state.

Obama says his father served in WWII???

“My father served in WWII, and when he came home, he got the services he needed.”

Really? Obama’s website Organizing for America makes no mention of it.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. His father, Barack Obama Sr., was born and raised in a small village in Kenya, where he grew up herding goats with his own father, who was a domestic servant to the British.

Barack’s mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in small-town Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs during the Depression, and then signed up for World War II after Pearl Harbor, where he marched across Europe in Patton’s army. Her mother went to work on a bomber assembly line, and after the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through the Federal Housing Program, and moved west to Hawaii.

It was there, at the University of Hawaii, where Barack’s parents met. His mother was a student there, and his father had won a scholarship that allowed him to leave Kenya and pursue his dreams in America.

Barack’s father eventually returned to Kenya, and Barack grew up with his mother in Hawaii, and for a few years in Indonesia. Later, he moved to New York, where he graduated from Columbia University in 1983.

So Stanley Dunham, his maternal grandfather, served in WWII, but not his father, or stepfather Lolo Soetero, because of their dates of birth.

Congress.org Letter to Senators Jim Webb & Mark Warner:

Obama says his father served in World War II

Somebody doesn’t know how to do their math very well…

*Does he even know the difference between truth and fabrication?

*Now Barack’s father served in WW ll”
It must be true as Barack said it in a speech! Is he a compulsive liar? Were there no reporters who double checked these statements and called the party on this? They did for everyone else. Why not him? *Barack Hussein

Obama Sr. (Obama’s father)
*Born 4/4/36
Died 11/24/82 at the age of 46
He was 5 years old when WW 2 started, and less than 9.5 years old when it ended.

*Lolo Soetoro (Obama’s step father)
*Born 1935
Died 3/2/87 at the age of 52
He was 6 years old when WW 2 started, and 10 years old when it ended.
One of these guys must have been the youngest Veteran in the war.

Seeing how Obama wrote a book about his father, (Dreams from my Father) I don’t buy mistaken identity replacing his maternal grandfather for his father. This is just another one of his early lies.

Meet Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, an Obama Backer

In this interview, Percy Sutton ( One time attorney for Malcom X) reveals that, at the request of Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, he wrote a letter of support to get Obama into Harvard as President of the Law Review.

So now we must ask, who is this Dr. Khalid Mansour that pulled these strings for Obama. Lets take a look. From Discover the Networks:

Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour is a Muslim lawyer and a black nationalist who made news in 2008 when it was revealed that he had been a patron of Barack Obama and had recommended the latter for admission to Harvard Law School in 1988.

Before becoming a Muslim, al-Mansour in the 1960s was named Don Warden. He was deeply involved in San Francisco Bay Area racial politics as founder of a group called the African American Association. A close personal adviser to Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, al-Mansour helped the pair establish the Black Panther Party but later broke with them when they entered coalitions with white radical groups.

In the mid-1970s al-Mansour met Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Tatal, who today is best known for having offered a $10 million donation toward 9/11 relief efforts in 2001 — an offer that was rejected by New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani when the prince suggested that the terrorist attacks were an indication that America “should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause.” Al-Mansour’s relationship with the prince eventually led to al-Mansour’s hiring as attorney to King Saud. He has since been an adviser to Saudi billionaires who fund the spread of Wahhabi extremism in America.

Al-Mansour is an outspoken hater of the United States, Israel, and white people generally. In recent years he has accused the U.S. of plotting a “genocide” designed “to remove 15 million black people, considered disposable, of no relevance, value or benefit to the American society.” He has told fellow blacks that “whatever you do to [white people], they deserve it, God wants you to do it and that’s when you cut out the nose, cut out the ears, take flesh out of their body, don’t worry because God wants you to do it.” Alleging further that Palestinians in Israel “are being brutalized like savages,” he accuses the Jews of “stealing the land the same way the Christians stole the land from the Indians in America.”

And from the Discover the Networks Page on Obama:

Harvard Law School and Khalid al-Mansour:

In 1988 Obama applied for admission to Harvard Law School. At the time, a Muslim attorney and black nationalist named Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour asked civil rights activist Percy Sutton to send a letter of recommendation to his (Sutton’s) friends at Harvard on Obama’s behalf.

Al-Mansour formerly had been a close personal adviser to Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, having helped them establish the Black Panther Party in the 1960s. He thereafter became an advisor to a number of Saudi billionaires known for funding the spread of Wahhabi extremism in America. Al-Mansour also showed himself to be a passionate hater of the United States, Israel, and white people generally.

With al-Mansour’s help, Obama in 1988 was accepted by Harvard Law School, where he became president of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude in 1991.

Newsmax conducted an interview with Khalid al-Mansour after the Percy Sutton revelation and here is their article:

Who is Khalid al-Mansour?

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Who is the “mystery man” former Manhattan Borough Chairman Percy Sutton named as having aided Barack Obama financially at Harvard Law School?

Signs of al-Mansour’s work exists in Malaysia, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and spans four decades in the United States, Newsmax discovered while scouring hundreds of sources for the story it reported on the revelations Wednesday.

His life story could have been written as a Horatio Alger-style rise from rags to riches. He sees himself as something of the “return of Antar,” a mythical black poet-warrior of pre-Islamic times. His real-life exploits range from a surprise one-on-one meeting with the prime minister of India as a college student to mentoring Black Panthers’ founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale in the early 1960s.

Saga Starts With Meeting Saudi King

Al-Mansour’s rise to fame and fortune began with an introduction to the Saudi king in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in 1977.

“I was asked by a Saudi friend – he was a student down in Newport (Calif.) –to go home with him to Riyadh,” al-Mansour told Newsmax.

His friend was a member of the royal family and planned to ask the king for money to help with his studies in the United States. But the king was in no mood to be generous.

“He was mad. And then my friend told me that the basis of his anger was that OPEC was being sued,” al-Mansour said. “This was a very nasty conspiracy that involved some of the biggest respected political names in America. The king didn’t know all of that, but he knew he wasn’t happy.”

Al-Mansour’s friend told the kin he was a lawyer. “The King didn’t know if I was a good lawyer or bad lawyer, but said, ‘Will you do it?’ I said, ‘I’d have to study it.’ He said, ‘Just take it, and get out!’”

The king required that only one lawyer represent the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. “So you win or you lose, based on the outcome because no one’s going to listen to any excuses. You’re either a loser for life, or a winner for life,” al-Mansour said.

Al-Mansour was a winner – big time.

Changed Name After Studying Islam

Born the 11th of 12 children as Donald Warden to a polyglot father who often spoke glowingly about Islam, al-Mansour decided to change his name in 1964 after learning Arabic and studying Islam.

“I found that Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, if you put ’em together, it means that, if I’m eternally the slave of God, and I follow the right path, I will always be victorious. I liked that. So that became my name.”

He met and befriended Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the world’s 19-thealthiest person, when the prince was studying at Menlo College in California in the late 1970s. Al-Mansour’s law partner was representing the prince in a court case in California.

After getting a degree in business administration from Menlo in 1979, Prince Alwaleed went back to Saudi Arabia determined to become extremely successful, al-Mansur recalled.

The two began to work together, and the prince asked him to help him invest in Africa. “He said, let’s make our focus turning Africa around. He has never told me until today where this idea came from, but it became an obsession.”

Al-Mansour says he and the prince flew from country to country as he introduced the prince to heads of state. “It was easy for me, because I knew all the presidents.”

Mum on Relations with Obama

Al-Mansour deflected several attempts to get him to answer direct questions about his relationship with Obama and the Percy Sutton revelations it reported Wednesday.

“In respect to Mr. Obama, I have told him, because so many people are running after him, and when stories get printed they usually get distorted and then he has to spend a lot of time trying to unravel them – and then after the experience of Rev. (Jeremiah) Wright whom I’ve never met, but I’ve followed the media coverage – I was determined that I was never going to be in that situation. I never discuss Barack Obama,” al-Mansour said.

“I wish him the best, and hope he can win the election, and if he wins the election, that he adopts this campaign for education,” he said.

Al-Mansour wants Obama to launch an education and program” for black and Hispanic students, using his rock-star popularity to motivate young people, parents, and teachers to improve achievement standards.

Percy Sutton Revelations

Al-Mansour said is is aware of Percy Sutton’s revelations that identified him as raising money for Obama’s law school education when the presidential candidate was 25.

“But I’ve never confirmed it,” he said. “What you have since I’ve been out of the country is bloggers saying this is the new Rev. Wright — in drag! and he is a nationalist, racist, and worse than Rev. Wright. I’m not getting into that. Any statement that I make would only further the activity which is not in the interest of Barack, not in the interest of Percy, not in the interest of anyone. For the bloggers to not even have the courtesy to call me to ask what’s happening is a clear sign to me. There’s no need. There’s no benefit. So why do it?”

Asked specifically whether he had “spotted” Barack Obama while he was an undergraduate at Columbia as a promising student he wanted to help get into Harvard Law School, al-Mansour pleaded a faulty memory.

“I give a lot of speeches on college campuses, in the US and abroad. So I meet people all the time…. But I can’t say that I remember that.”

Nor would he confirm or deny that he had called Sutton, as Sutton reveals, asking him to help Obama get into Harvard.

“I’m not going to say that,” al-Mansour said. “That lends itself regardless of the answer and regardless of the truth to the type of sensationalism that I don’t consider productive to the goals that I have. I don’t see how this will promote education. I don’t see how this will promote a global respect. I don’t see how it deals with the basic issues we’re faced with in the country. I try to limit my comments to those kinds of issues, to avoid the tendency of the press to sensationalize both positive and negative.”

His attempts to deflect his support of Obama were pretty weak. Here he is practically campaigning for Obama:

Now for more on his radical views:

Here he is in an interview discussing one of his books and “Black Leadership”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HnRC25NXw8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKmeSSbHMoQ&feature=related

Here is a multi part lecture titled: What Your Traditional Leaders Will Never Tell You

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9, Part 10

Part 11, Part 12

Part 13, Part 14

Part 15, Part 16, Part 17

I know theres alot there, Yes I watched all of it. Suffice to say, Dr. Mansour is just a Muslim version of Reverend Wright. While Wright  uses Black Liberation Theology with a Christian-ish face, Dr. Mansour basically does the same with an Islamic face. He has some very radical beliefs on Christianity and on Jewish people.

This lecture is titled: The Birth & Death of Christianity

This could be called the short version of the above

And heres a couple of his book titles taken from BarnesAndNoble.com and Amazon.com

The Lost Books of Africa Rediscovered: We Charge Genocide by Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour

The Reflections of an African Arabian in American Captivity by Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour

Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour is just another radical skeleton that helped get Obama to where he is today. Without Dr. Mansour, Obama would not have gotten to Harvard Law. You can see the similarities of belief between Dr. Mansour, Obama, & Wright. Not the core religion, but the Black Liberation Theology. Obama was a Muslim in his childhood, and in his book stated politically he would stand with them, but I do not believe he himself is a Muslim now, but a Muslim sympathizer. Obama fully embraces Wright’s distorted version of Christianity and has made speeches confirming this. But hearing much of the rhetoric of Dr. Mansour, I can see how they could become close friends.

John Holdren: Science and Technology Czar

If I had to define John Holdren, I would call him a “Green Communist.”  However, President Obama has given him much different titles: Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. If I had to compare him to another person I’ve looked into previously, it would be Maurice Strong.

Lets take a stroll down memory lane and take a look at the man that advises our President in the fields of science and technology.

From Discover the Networks: John Holdren

John P. Holdren is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University‘s Kennedy School of Government. He also serves as Director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy program at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Holdren earned a bachelor’s degree from MIT in 1965 and a Ph.D. in plasma physics from Stanford University five years later. He taught at UC Berkeley for more than twenty years, and chaired the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science from February 2007 to February 2008. Today he directs the Woods Hole Research Center, whose mission is to “understand the causes and consequences of environmental change as a basis for policy solutions for a better world.”

In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.” That same year, he and professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: “If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”

In 1971 Holdren and Ehrlich warned that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.”

Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich (in their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutionscalled fora massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. “De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” The authors added:

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

On another occasion, Holdren, when asked whether Americans would “need to reduce their living standards,” said:

“I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous.”

The book he co-authored in 1973 titled: Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, from what I can determine is as radical as they come. I was not able to read the book at this time in it’s entirety, but luckily another blogger had a copy, and scanned many key pages providing a disturbing look into Holdren’s plans.

From ZombieTime.com:

John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children

.

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size

Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force

Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

More from Discover the Networks:

In 1977 Holdren and Ehrlich quantified their anti-capitalist philosophy in a mathematical equation, I=PAT, where a negative environmental impact (I) was the product of such undesirable factors as population growth (P), increasing affluence (A), and improving technology (T). In an effort to minimize environmental damage, they prescribed “organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than today’s, and movement toward some kind of world government.”

In the 1980s Holdren opposed the Reagan administration’s military buildup, warning that it would likely “increase the belligerency of the Soviet government.”

In 1984, Holdren served on the editorial board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a publication whose personnel were accused of providing vital nuclear information that helped the Soviet Union develop its first atomic bomb. Two of the magazine’s founding sponsors, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project, in which they were key participants, to the Soviets.

In 1986 Holdren predicted that “carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.”

In 2006 Holdren suggested that as a result of global warming, sea levels worldwide could rise by 13 feet by the end of the 21st century. A subsequent estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change placed the figure at 13 inches.

In 2006 he wrote an article for mitpress.mit.edu/innovations titled: “The Energy Innovation Imperative, Addressing Oil Dependence, Climate Change, and other 21st Century Energy Challenges.” Within the article he discusses, amongst other things, Carbon trading and population control, though not as bluntly as in the book discussed previously.

On Population Control:

Population. Lower is better for many reasons. If world population were 8 billion in 2100 rather than the mid-range UN forecast of about 10 billion, holding down the carbon emissions from the energy to make everybody prosperous would be that much easier. Fortunately, reduced population growth can be achieved by measures that are attractive in their own right (notably improving health care, reproductive rights, and educational opportunities for women).
On Cap & Trade:

Perhaps most importantly in the context of the character of energy challenges as elaborated in this article, companies are likely to continue to under-invest in developing and deploying low- and no-carbon energy options until there is a stronger marketplace incentive for such action, either in the form of a substantial carbon tax or its practical equivalent in the form of economy-wide emissions caps implemented through tradable permits.

More from Discover the Networks:

In the October 2008 issue of Scientific American, Holdren wrote: “The ongoing disruption of the Earth’s climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable.” “Carbon dioxide (CO2),” he added, “is the most important of civilization’s emissions and the most difficult to reduce. About 80 percent comes from burning coal, oil and natural gas; most of the rest comes from deforestation in the tropics.”

Today Holdren characterizes researchers who doubt whether human activity is responsible for global warming, or that global warming even poses a serious threat, as people who “infest” the public discourse with “dangerous” ideas that pose “a menace” to humanity.

Holdren is a longtome anti-nuclear activist. From 1987-97 he chaired the Executive Committee of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (PCSWA), an international group of scientists who promote arms control. In 1995 he delivered a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on behalf of the PCSWA. From 1993-2004 he chaired the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In 2005 he called on the U.S. to issue a “no first use” policy for nuclear weapons and to eliminate nuclear retaliation as a possible response to chemical or biological attacks.

I must note that Holdren’s office issued a denial to Fox News:

Holdren’s office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.

“Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth,” the statement said.

“Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake.”

The denial doesn’t really hold much water since his 2006 article subtly steers toward population control. Just the standard Obama Admin, “Deny, deny, deny” followed by the Alinsky ridicule, (Straining to conclude otherwise is a mistake).

So I’d say he learned to tone down the extremist rhetoric but has the same views and the same goals. You can see Holdren in many of the current policies of the Obama Administration, and why Obama picked him, their similiar goals. The nuclear disarmament, pending START treaty with Russia, Cap & Trade by Legislation or through EPA, and the Health Care Law to name a few.

Holder is a dangerous man with the dangerous view that men are killing this planet and must be forced to stop doing so, and the ends justify the means….

Obama’s Socialist Endorsements and Support

In my last post I showed that Obama was a member of  the Socialist “New Party” in the 1990’s. That membership came with privileges.

During his Presidential Campaign Obama had no shortage of aid from Socialist organizations. I have their support and aid to him below, in their own words.

The Social Democrats USA Socialist Party openly endorsed Barack Obama:

September 17, 2008     The Endorsement of Candidates for Political Office

This is directed to anyone interested in the process by which we, the Committee to Revive the Social Democrats, USA-Socialist Party of America, endorse candidates for public office. We do not formally endorse candidates nationally. We have made no filings with the Federal Election Committee or the Secretary of State of any state other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We have voted to allow local parties to endorse candidates for local public office and to allow them, if they choose, to use a Social Democratic Party or Socialist Party ballot line. We currently have no provision for formally endorsing the candidacies of any minor political party.

Our endorsement of the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama is aimed solely at our own members and supporters. We hope that our members can work locally to support the Obama campaign by filling in the gaps that the Democratic Party is leaving open. Obama’s platform calls for re-industrialization but is vague as to specifics. In coalition with trade unions and community groups we hope to draft local plans on re-industrialization and publicize them through the League for Industrial Democracy.

The Democratic Socialists of America actively promoted Obama and were proud to state every way they helped him get elected throughout the campaign. The DSA even reprinted an article by Francis Fox Piven hoping for an Obama victory. Francis Fox Piven is the mother of the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” of manufactured crisis and also an Honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.

From: Democratic Left “The magazine of the Democratic Socialists of America”   Vol XXXVI, No. 1 Summer 2008 Excerpts from:

Resolution on the 2008 Presidential Election

Thus, DSA has no illusion that a Democratic presidential victory, combined with bulked-up Democratic majorities in both houses of the Congress, will in itself bring about significant democratic reform. We do believe that such a political landscape would provide the most favorable terrain upon which mobilized, assertive social movements can pressure the government to appoint decent federal judges and agency administrators and enact desperately needed universal health care legislation, labor law reform, and a federally funded Mar-shall Plan to develop green technologies and green jobs.

An Obama presidency will not on its own force legislation facilitating single-payer health care (at least at the federal level) or truly progressive taxation and major cuts in wasteful and unneeded defense spending. But if DSA and other democratic forces can work in the fall elections to increase the ranks of the Congressional Progressive and Black and La-tino caucuses, progressive legislation (backed by strong social movement mobilization) might well pass the next Congress.

Senator Barack Obama has attracted considerable support as a presidential candidate who promises to end “politics as usual.” He has invigorated a significant youthful, multiracial cadre of supporters, as well as gained considerable support from liberal activists. The massive outpouring of small contributions in support of his campaign signals the potential power of his message, and his recent call for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies is encouraging.

In this issue you see the Democratic Socialists of America somewhat backing Obama, not for who he is, but for the agenda they can make him stick to. One key word you see is “Progressive.” Socialists work with Progressives continously because “Socialist” was a dirty word and we had forgotten the meaning of Progressive. You’ll see this word alot through the next 2 issues of “The Left.”

From: Democratic Left “The magazine of the Democratic Socialists of America” Vol XXXVI,No. 2 Fall 2008 Excerpts from:

“What’s Happening to America”

by Francis Fox Piven (emphasis  mine)

But wait! A glow of light is on the horizon. It is, of course, the approach of the 2008 election. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not making fun; in fact, I’m desperate for the 2008 election. I think the sheer scale of public disillusion with the Bush administration guarantees large margins of victory for the Democrats in the congressional contests. Of course, the Democratic majorities yielded by the 2006 election led to only feeble efforts to control the bellicose and delusional team in the White House. But larger majorities, especially a veto-proof majority in the Senate, would surely help. So, at the very least, the head-long rush over the cliffs of financial breakdown, spreading war, and ecological disaster may be cushioned and slowed. But our problems are truly serious, and we need a president to lead in reversing course and setting new directions, a strong president with good sense and democratic inclinations. Even more urgently, we need to get rid of the Bush administration, and as soon as possible before yet more harm is done. But public dismay with current policy directions notwithstanding, I don’t think Obama’s victory is by any means assured. I hope, of course, but I am worried about stolen votes and rigged computers, the right-wing rumor network, the formidable propaganda machine, and also the residual racism and xenophobia of lots of Americans that this apparatus will tap.

If turnout remains high, an Obama victory could mean a realignment of American electoral politics around a majority coalition similar to the one forged in the New Deal era, with African Americans and Latinos replacing the white South as the reliable core of the coalition. The composition of this new coalition would encourage presidential rhetoric that in turn could spur movement activism. It would simultaneously generate the hope that is always the fuel of movements from the bottom of society, and it would put in place a regime that is vulnerable to those movements. If there is political salvation in the American future, it can only be forged through the dynamic interplay between progressive social movements and elected politicians.

So here we have Francis Fox Piven “hoping” for an Obama win. This article was originally published in a different paper (The Advocate) but the Democratic Socialists of America felt the need to reprint it into their magazine. Mrs Piven is an Honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. Also you see her advocating for “Progressive” Social Movements to work with Politicians.

From the same issue of “Democratic Left” magazine

DSA Locals: from the Convention to the election ’08

SACRAMENTO DSA

Sacramento DSA worked intensely on the Obama campaign through Super Tuesday and continues electoral work with the Sacramento Progressive Alliance. The local held a Democratic Party platform event in July, highlighting DSA’s Renegotiate NAFTA campaign, fair trade, and immigration.
Here we can see the first sign of the Democratic Socialists of America actually moving beyond just lip service and actually working on the campaign of Barack Obama. After the election, in the next issue, they let us know everything their members did across the country to get Obama elected.
From: Democratic Left: “the magazine of the Democratic Socialists of America”
“What We Did in the Election”
compiled by Barbara Joye
As “the left wing of the possible,” DSA pursues a two-pronged strategy: building an independent progressive movement while encouraging our members to participate in electoral campaigns for candidates who will fight for policies that strengthen popular forces and weaken the grip of capital.For the past year, especially following the nomination of Barack Obama, many DSA members worked energetically on the presidential campaign, especially in swing states, as well as in behalf of an array of candidates for U.S. House and Senate, and state and local offices. Together with Democratic Party campaign staff or independent community groups, we registered voters, phone banked, knocked on doors, and helped organize other volunteers. We are now reflecting on that experience while gearing up for what we always knew would be the next, harder, step: working in coalitions to push the new administration to enact a progressive agenda.
I asked several DSA and YDS leaders to report on their electoral work this year and its significance for our organization. The response was quite positive, as most people had tasted victory, perhaps for the first time in a while. Even in Alaska, which went for McCain/Palin and barely managed to elect Democrat Mark Begich to the Senate, DSA Local Secretary/Treasurer Dick Ferris says that “overall,…progressive Democrats made gains” they can build on. They helped elect some members of the state legislature, and DSA members will be meeting with state representatives “to promote a progressive agenda for Alaska.”

Duane Campbell of Sacramento DSA points out that Obama’s victory resulted from an unprecedented mobilization of progressive sectors of the electorate – blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, union members, antiwar and youth voters, many voting for the first time. “Sacramento DSA is proud to have played an active role in this campaign, working through the Sacramento Progressive Alliance…in cooperation with Progressives for Obama.” At Sacramento State University, DSA members tabled and conducted voter registration, raised funds, rallied. and sponsored a progressive forum with candidates for a variety of offices. One of the candidates for state Assembly won by a narrow margin. What’s more, says Campbell, “Because we were already up and tabling, we became a center for the ‘No on 8’ campaign [Proposition 8 prohibits gay marriage] on campus, distributing literature, bumper stickers, and signs when no one else had them.”
By contrast, DSA members in Atlanta worked separately with a variety of organizations on various aspects of the presidential and senatorial elections: canvassing with the Democratic Party, phone banking with the North Georgia Labor Council and True Majority, registering voters with Women’s Action for New Directions, dropping banners on expressway overpasses, and helping the NAACP monitor the voting process.
“The experience was good,” says Carol Coney, a poll monitor. “If I hadn’t been there when polls opened at 7 a.m. to report that the computers were all down, who knows how long it would have taken to get them on line? I had Election Protection at that precinct within 20 minutes. It was good teamwork, and I felt good that the computers were only down for the first hour.” Unfortunately, even with our help, neither Obama nor the liberal senatorial candidate Jim Martin – who could have helped the Democrats achieve a filibuster-proof majority – were able to overcome the superior Republican organization in the state. Jorge traveled twice to North Carolina during the primaries to organize Latino voter registration in Winston Salem and Charlotte and help deliver votes that proved key to the Obama campaign and later the governor’s and senatorial races in that state.

In Ithaca, New York, Teresa Alt reports that DSA and single-payer activists had first supported Eric Massa when he barely lost his first bid for Congress in 2006. In addition to being an advocate of single payer health care, Massa is a retired career Navy officer who wants to get out of Iraq and supports fair trade. This year a coalition of DSA, single-payer backers, PDA, and the peace movement mobilized early in the campaign, helping raise funds at a key point. “We are delighted to announce that he won by a little over 5,000 votes,” says Alt.
Detroit DSA members focused on local and state races in which a progressive Democrat was running for an open seat – a setting where the efforts of a small but disciplined group could provide the margin of victory and also contribute to turnout for the national races. After interviewing candidates to make sure their views on labor issues, health care, the environment, living wage, and progressive taxation ran parallel to ours, they voted to support four candidates for state representative. Their fundraising party that raised $6500 provided critical seed money, as most contributions from progressive sources had already gone to candidates for national office. With steady help from DSA campaign volunteers, all four candidates won, despite redbaiting of one by the Detroit Free Press (which accused her of being funded mainly by radical groups like DSA) and robo-calls accusing another candidate of being a socialist.
Detroit DSA also did statewide mailings and e-mail blasts to members, urging them to vote for three lesser-known candidates running for local offices, all three of whom won. Finally, in the last three weeks of the campaign, DSA was approached by a county commission candidate who needed money for one last mailing to the voters in his district. He promised to work for a countywide living wage ordinance if elected, so the chapter conducted an internet fundraiser which collected $500 for him in just one week. He won by a narrow margin.

Dave Anderson played a significant role in Colorado, despite having no functioning local right now. He served as a precinct chair and on the steering committee of the local Progressive Democrats. They defeated two of three anti-labor initiatives that were on the ballot (including the first defeat of a right-to-work law since the 1970s) and expect the third to be struck down in court. “Maybe now we’re headed to a period where being a socialist publicly means more,” he comments. “Those big questions are being raised, like what do you do with the auto industry?”
In Columbus, Ohio, DSA members campaigned for both Obama and congressional candidate Mary Jo Kilroy, who, after a suspenseful count of provisional ballots was declared the winner in December, raising the Democrats’ majority in the House to 257. Another candidate supported by a DSA member but not by the national Democratic party lost in a different district.
Some YDS members were very active in their home states or elsewhere. In Rhode Island, Will Emmons of Brown University served as the volunteer organizer for a state representative’s re-election campaign. The representative, David Segal, had started his political career by getting elected to the Providence city council at age 22 as a Green Party member and, according to Emmons, “acts as a megaphone for progressive organizations around the state,” helping them accomplish their goals. “I thought working for Dave was a good use of my time because we need folks on the inside of the political system standing up to racist anti-immigrant legislation, fighting for renewable energy and green jobs, advocating for workers’ and union rights, and arguing for a robust public sphere,” says Emmons, although he acknowledges that most Democratic candidates are not as progressive as Segal.
New York DSA and YDS members were especially active. Some got up “at the crack of dawn,” says Jeff Gold, to take buses to support Obama in various locations in Pennsylvania, sometimes side by side with experienced trade unionists from Working America and at other times with first-time campaign volunteers. They also worked with the social democratic Working Families Party, which ran much of the New York Democrats’ field operations, to help the Democrats win their first majority in the state legislature since the mid-1960s (although at press time effective Democratic control of the state Senate is in doubt due to threatened defection by a group of conservative Democrats). DSA members living in rent-regulated housing in Queens and Long Island were especially active in behalf of pro-tenant Democrats on the WFP ballot line. Another member traveled all the way to south Florida to help turn out Jewish voters for Obama, especially during early voting, when it was easier to address problems at the polls.Many of the DSA members who reported their experiences said they enjoyed working with a wide variety of people and the opportunity to see the awesome Obama campaign machine in action. They were exhilarated by the unprecedented enthusiasm expressed by newly energized volunteers and voters. “I’m a seasoned volunteer of 25 years…, but it was different this time,” said one. They strengthened ties with local grassroots organizations, and helped to elect some progressives who, we hope, will support DSA’s Economic Justice Agenda. But to paraphrase FDR, now we have to get out and make them do it.
There you have it. The DSA not only campaigned for Obama but progressives as well. They wanted to get Obama elected and as many progressives as possible to keep him on their agenda. You can clearly see the relationship between Progressives and Socialists, and the lengths the DSA will go to to get them elected.
Now meet Bernie Sanders. According to Discover The Networks Bernie Sanders is:
  • a Self-identified socialist
  • Served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 2007
  • Founded the Progressive Caucus
  • Vocal critic of the Patriot Act
  • Was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006
  • Believes that global warming is caused, in large measure, by human industrial activity
  • Favors a single-payer, government run healthcare system
Amongst other things I bring him up because not only did he Campaign for Obama, but Obama, back in 2006, campaigned for Bernie Sanders. From NewsAlert:
When Vermont Congressman, self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, decided he’d run for Senate: Obama came to Vermont to endorse him. Obama could have endorsed the logical candidate the slated Democratic candidate,but he choose socialist Bernie Sanders. Here’s some of the quotes from the endorsement: Obama calls Bernie Sanders an “outstanding candidate”, Obama says “things can change”, Obama said “I want to make sure everybody is as enthusiastic as I am” concerning Bernie Sanders and “only a handful of wrong headed people don’t like him.” These amazing quotes are on this video the Obama campaign hopes you don’t see. Obama doesn’t seem to mind endorsing and hanging out with socialists.
Also in 2006, with then-Senator Barack Obama campaigning for him, Sanders won election to the U.S. Senate. He referred to Obama as “one of the great leaders of the United States Senate,” and went on to become a member of Progressives for Obama.

It is clear to me that Progressives and Socialists are united for the same goals with the same agenda. They are working to together to carry out the “Fundamental Transformation” of our great country. They united behind Obama for the campaign. The Socialists work hand in hand with Progressives. Woe to the Republic.

Barack Obama & The Socialist “New Party”

Barack Obama not only has ties to Socialist Organizations, apparently he signed a contract with one as well. First lets identify one of these Socialist Organizations, the “New Party”

From Discover The Networks:

Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson‘s 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials — most often Democrats. The New Party’s short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party’s Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.

The New Party’s modus operandi included the political strategy of “electoral fusion,” where it would nominate, for various political offices, candidates from other parties (usually Democrats), thereby enabling each of those candidates to occupy more than one ballot line in the voting booth. By so doing, the New Party often was able to influence candidates’ platforms. (Fusion of this type is permitted in seven states — Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont — but is common only in New York.)

Now that we understand that this group is indeed a Socialist Organization let’s look at their connections to Barack Obama. According to “The Progressive Populist” Obama was a Member of the New Party. The Progressive Populist describes itself as:

THE PROGRESSIVE POPULIST, a newspaper that believes people are more important than corporations, premiered in November 1995 as a monthly tabloid publication based in Storm Lake, Iowa, with editorial offices in Austin, Texas.

The Progressive Populist reports from the heartland of America on issues of interest to workers, small-business owners and family farmers and ranchers. It serves as “The People’s Voice in a Corporate World.”

We fight efforts by the Republicans, with the complicity of conservative Democrats, to enact the Contract on America that would roll back nearly every progressive advance since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.

And we resist attempts to amend or ignore the Bill of Rights, which we consider to be the greatest accomplishment of the American democracy.

The Progressive Populist is not a Democratic Party organ; we support progressive Democrats, progressive independent and third-party candidates who promote progressive democracy and, if any progressive Republicans show themselves, we will give them a hearing.

So it’s pretty clear anything they do is not to support the Right Wing in any way. Within an editorial published in November of 1996 titled, “Editorial The Next Campaign” they made the following statement:

New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George’s County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

So according to a Progressive Newspaper Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, This prompted me to look up every tie I could, and I found quite a few. I began digging through Issues of “New Ground” Which is published by “Chicago Democratic Socialists of America“. Here are some back issues and excerpts.

New Ground 42, September – October 1995

Chicago New Party Update

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP’s political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to “win”. This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia’s District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer’s vacant seat.

So he attended a membership meeting and had to sign a contract, Hmmm. Thiss next issue of New ground shows he got the Endorsement.

New Ground 45 March – April 1996

Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election

Barak Obama

Barak Obama is running to gain the Democratic ballot line for Illinois Senate 13th District. The 13th District is Alice Palmer’s old district, encompassing parts of Hyde Park and South Shore.

Mr. Obama graduated from Columbia University and promptly went into community organizing for the Developing Communities Project in Roseland and Altgeld Gardens on the far south side of Chicago. He went on to Harvard University, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated with a law degree. In 1992, he was Director of Illinois Project Vote, a voter registration campaign that made Carol Moseley Braun’s election to the U.S. Senate much easier than it would have been. At present, he practices law in Judson Miner’s law firm and is President of the board of the Annenberg Challenge Grant which is distributing some $50 million in grants to public school reform efforts.

What best characterizes Barak Obama is a quote from an article in Illinois Issues, a retrospective look at his experience as a community organizer while he was completing his degree at Harvard:

“… community organizations and organizers are hampered by their own dogmas about the style and substance of organizing. Most practice … a ‘consumer advocacy’ approach, with a focus on wrestling services and resources from outside powers that be. Few are thinking of harnessing the internal productive capacities, both in terms of money and people, that already exist in communities.” (Illinois issues, September, 1988)

Luckily, Mr. Obama does not have any opposition in the primary. His opponents have all dropped out or were ruled off the ballot. But if you would like to contribute to his campaign, make the check payable to Friends of Barak Obama.

That’s a clear endorsement. Here’s the following issue.

New Grounds 47 July – August 1996

New Party Update

The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP’s membership has increased since January ’95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December ’95 to 7000. Currently the NP’s fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

Secondly, the NP’s ’96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.

This one confirms the endorsement and Obama’s personal involvement with the New Party.

The website “NewZeal.Blogspot.com” has actually uncovered “New Party News” newsletters proclaiming Obama’s membership and more including a photo of him posing with New party members.

Obama File 41 Obama Was a New Party Member-Documentary Evidence

Below are scans from New Party News Spring 1996.

They prove that Barack Obama was a member of the Illinois New Party and was endorsed by them in his 1996 Illinois State Senate race.

Front page-scanned from a photocopy


Front page close up-scanned from a photocopy


Front page ultra close up-scanned from a photocopy


Note that the text refers to Barack Obama as a New Party member, while Willie Delgado is only “NP endorsed

The New Party clearly drew a distinction. Obama was on on the wrong side of the dividing line.

Page 2, scanned from a photocopy.


Page 2 closeup-scanned from the original.

The New Party ceased to be active after 1998 but Socialist support of Barack Obama did not stop then.

New Ground 69 March – April 2000

Chicago DSA Recommendations for the March Primary Election

At the tail end of the December CDSA membership meeting, we decided not to endorse any candidates in the Illinois primary elections but instead the Executive Committee would make recommendations about candidates with which members and friends could do as they please – as if they would do any differently in any case.

For the most part, it was not a terribly difficult task, one made easier because a great many good incumbents face no opposition or token opposition. Willie Delgado, Julie Hamos, Jessie Jackson Jr, Luis Gutierrez, Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis, for example, will all have easy nominations being essentially unopposed. At the February Executive Committee meeting, we voted the following recommendations:

For Congressman of the 1st Congressional District, the Executive Committee was faced with two very good candidates. As we are not making endorsements but merely recommendations, we felt no conflict in recommending both Bobby Rush and Barak Obama.

Barak Obama is serving only his second term in the Illinois State Senate so he might be fairly charged with ambition, but the same might have be said of Bobby Rush when he ran against Congressman Charles Hayes. Obama also has put in time at the grass roots, working for five years as a community organizer in Harlem and in Chicago. When Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity, much of what he had to say was well within the mainstream of European social democracy.

What’s that? Obama participated at a YDS (Young Democratic Socialists) townhall meeting in 1996? He sure did.

From Google Groups Chi.Politics

Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity on the South Side

The Democratic Socialists of America Present
The First Chicago Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity

EMPLOYMENT AND SURVIVAL IN URBAN AMERICA
a discussion of policy, problems, and possibilities

with

WILLIAM JULIUS WILSON,
Director, Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University
of Chicago

MICHAEL DAWSON,
Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago

BARACK OBAMA,
Candidate, State Senate, 13th Legislative District

TONI PRECKWINKLE,
4th Ward Alderman

JOSEPH SCHWARTZ,
Professor of Political Science, Temple University

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25TH
7:00pm
Ida Noyes Hall, Cloyster Club
1313 E. 59th Street, Chicago

Sponsored by:
*University of Chicago Democrats
*Chicago Democratic Socialists of America
*University of Chicago Democratic Socialists of America

For more information call:

University of Chicago Democratic Socialists

Doesn’t get much clearer than that folks. Here’s a few videos if your eyes hurt from all the reading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UndhQWndyw8

Here’s The O’Reilly Factor reviewing one of Obama’s radio interviews about “Redistribution of Wealth” with Newt Gingrich

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzkXkY5wNmg&feature=related

And the Obama Defense

Yes, Obama was an active member of the socialist New Party. Yes Obama accepted their campaign endorsement, yes Obama has Socialist Dreams and seeks to implement them.

Woe to the Republic

HatTip to TexasFred :)