The Destructive force of American Radicalism

Today I came across a video bit that got me started on this post.  I don’t watch late night TV or talk shows in general, so I had not seen the interview.  Perhaps some of have already viewed it.
I get the feeling sometimes that people might think that I waste too much time posting on Barack Obama.  But, I find it so hard to believe that there are so many people who still believe he is the Messiah and the hope of America.  There are also a lot of people, including a few of my children, who believe that Biden is really the President.

It is my hope that what is posted here today will clear up both of those fallacies.  Hopefully, you will see that Barack Obama has been undermining our government and doing everything in his power to destroy our nation since he arrived in Chicago years ago.  He was bred, educated and groomed for this position.  He has not relinquished his control over Washington.  He has been pulling the strings all along.  He has been jetting across the nation and the world organizing radicals and radical groups as well as fundraising for the cause.  He has some kind of hypnotic power over people.  It is demonic.  The forces behind him are dark and powerful.  I think he believes he is so smooth and clever that he is unstoppable, and his ego is eating it all up.

Our nation is under attack from radicals hell bent on it’s destruction!!  We need to wake up and recognize what is happening.  We must find a way to eliminate this threat without compromising the standards that have made our nation great!

Radicals have no respect for rules, laws, respect for any authority, or consideration of any peaceful compromise.  They want what they want and they want it NOW.  They don’t care who has to suffer or even die in the process.  They don’t even care if the entire nation is burned to the ground, they see no value in any part of it as it exists.


Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model examines the roots of the current administration’s effort to subject America to a wholesale transformation by looking at the work of one of the President’s heroes—radical Chicago “community organizer” Saul Alinsky. The guru of Sixties radicals, Alinsky urged his followers to be flexible and opportunistic and say anything to get power, which they can then use to radically change existing social and economic institutions. In this insightful new booklet, Horowitz discusses Alinsky’s work in the 60s—and his advice to radicals to seize any weapon to advance their cause. This became the philosophy of Alinskyite organizations such as ACORN and influenced the future President who came up through the Chicago network created by Alinsky’s network. After analyzing Saul Alinsky’s work and pointing out that the godfather of “social organizing” created “ not salvation but chaos,” Horowitz then he asks the crucial question: “And presidential disciples of Alinsky, what will they create?”


Study Saul Alinsky to Understand Barack Obama


There is a vast and perplexing dichotomy between President Obama’s rhetoric — peppered as it is with vows of ethical purity and moral rectitude — and his actual conduct as president — characterized by flagrant cronyism and corruption.

Indeed, this dichotomy only makes sense in context of Obama’s knowledge of, and affinity for, the theories of radical community-organizer Saul Alinsky.

Born in Chicago to Russia-immigrant parents in Chicago in 1909, Alinsky studied social sciences at the University of Chicago before dropping out of grad school.

Attracted to a variety of left-wing causes, Alinsky began organizing for the labor movement before moving on to organizing communities in the slums of Chicago.

As the Washington Post summarized, Alinsky, “… concluded that electoral politics offered few solutions to the have-nots marooned in working-class slums. His approach to social justice relied on generating conflict to mobilize the dispossessed.”

Alinsky synthesized his theory of political agitation is his famous 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals”, considered a founding text of modern community organizing and a classic of radical-leftist agitation-propaganda theory.

Obama received a comprehensive course in Saul Alinsky during his years as a community organizer in Chicago, an experience Obama recalled as “the best education he ever had.”

Years later in 2007, The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza interviewed then-senator Obama and found him still “at home talking Alinskian jargon about ‘agitation,’” and fondly recalling organizing workshops where he had learned Alinsky-esque concepts like “being predisposed to other people’s power.”

In those years, Obama was schooled by disciples of Alinsky himself, including Mike Kruglik, who remembered Obama as “the best student he ever had,” a “natural … undisputed master of agitation.”

Kruglik should know because he studied at the Industrial Areas Foundation, the community organizing school founded by Alinsky. Obama completed the national training course taught by the IAF in Los Angeles.

He (Obama) then went on to teach Alinsky concepts and methods at community organizing workshops and seminars in Southside Chicago.

Obama also served on boards in Chicago, including the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation, which dispensed grants to groups specializing in Alinsky-style agitation.

One Alinsky-promoted method for political agitation, a recipe for “how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves,” is summarized in his famous Rule # 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

That is exactly what Obama as president is doing now to the “rich,” making them a target and scapegoat for all of our ills, as in this from his 2012 State of the Union address:

“[A] quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

“Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else — like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans?”

Scapegoating the rich is working just as intended, encouraging the increasingly-violent and rabidly anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street movement, which Alinsky would doubtless support were he alive today.

As one-time Obama supporter Mort Zuckerman laments “.. the door to [the Occupy Wall Street movement] was opened by the Obama administration, going after the ‘millionaires and billionaires.’… To fan that flame of populist anger I think is very divisive and very dangerous for this country.”

Indeed it is. But the name of Alinsky’s game is divide and conquer, demonize some to extract power for others. Decades ago, Alinsky told an interviewer, “Now it’s up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change.

Obama the student has become Obama the master.

video image To Watch This Video On BitChute Click the Title Link Below:

Saul Alinsky was a socialist activist from Chicago. He wanted America to become a socialist country. He wrote the book “Rules for Radicals”, where he proposed the creation of an army of “community organizers” with the purpose of training communities of “have not” people to pressure the government in order to achieve “change” and moving the government to the left of the political spectrum. Young Obama studied Alinsky’s theories and became a “community organizer” himself. Hillary knew Alinsky personally, even invited him to speak at her college and exchanged correspondence with him. Both, Hillary and Obama took Alinsky’s theories beyond the book: Instead of organizers pressuring the government, Obama and Hillary decided that the organizers will be the government.
3 years, 8 months ago

video imageTo Watch This Video On BitChute Click the Title Link Below:

Who was Saul Alinsky and his connection to Obama?
2 years, 3 months ago

video imageTo Watch This Video On BitChute Click the Title Link Below:

During a conference recently in Japan, former president Barack Obama said he wants his foundation to create a million young Obama’s to carry on his legacy. He described it as a relay race in human progress. If you drink the Obama Kool-Aid™, you probably believe Obama reversed a bankster engineered recession, created an unprecedented number of jobs, prevented Iran from getting nukes, killed the supposed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and made health insurance a right. None of this is true. Obama advanced endless war, mass murder, and crimes against humanity. If we take him at his word, Obama wants to create a million war criminals to follow in his bloody footsteps

Obama is the first president to keep the US at war for the entirety of his eight-year regime. During 2016 alone the US dropped 26,171 bombs on wedding parties, funerals, kid’s soccer games, hospitals, schools, people in their homes and walking their streets, and farmers tilling their fields in seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

The Obama-friendly (CIA-MSM) is keeping the issue of Obama’s ‘shadow government’ on the ‘QT’ as long as possible to get his organization built up to be used to sabotage the Trump Presidency. He’s doing this through a radical Alinsky group that he founded called ‘Organizing for Action’ (OFA), an army of agitators placed throughout the country. OFA is a 501c-4, so that Obama doesn’t have to show the donors. The agitators are professionally trained agitators in an Alinsky-type program lasting six weeks.

Tet Offensive Super Structure: 32,000 agitators have gone through the OFA training, with another 25,000 to go through the training in March of 2017 (Antifa). Obama wants to merge the OFA, the Obama Foundation, with the DNC (Tom Perez leading), with the OFA proprietary voter database, OFA’s email list of Obama supporters, the CIA-MSM, elements in academia.

Not clear, at this time, is any alliance with the Mexican transnational cartels, militarized migrant groups, CIA and DOD (D.U.M.B.s), that would could be used to create chaos at the California Mexican border through infiltration, and forced mass migration.

NBA hall-of-famer Charles Barkley laid into politicians of all stripes — Democrats and Republicans alike — for promoting racial division in the country, saying they are trying to “make whites and blacks not like each other.”

Patrisse Khan-Cullors, the leader of Black Lives Matter and a self-described Marxist, recently purchased a $1.4 million home in an exclusive Los Angeles neighborhood where the vast majority of residents are white, according to reports.

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitatorsnumbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House. Barack Obama is the first ex-president in 228 years of U.S. history to structure and lead a political organization, a shadow government, for the explicit purpose of sabotaging his successor — duly elected President Donald Trump.
1 year, 2 months ago

video image To Watch This Video On BitChute Click the Title Link Below:

This explains a lot about the agitators and riots we are seeing. Looks like Obama doesn’t want to give up running America.
1 year, 9 months ago

video imageTo Watch This Video On BitChute Click the Title Link Below:

If you have been telling the truth and sharing information regarding Obama’s plan to turn America over to globalists/communists you have very likely been assailed by people using SAUL ALINSKY’s techniques as outlined in RULES FOR RADICALS.

Yes folks, the RED MENACE is back and most young people have no clue what they are doing. You see, history has been rewritten so that Communism looks like the best option for World Peace but if these uninformed children really understood the plan they would realize that communism is actually a way to entrap them.

Universities, Movies, Music, Religion and almost everything has been infultrated (as J.F. Kennedy and many others died trying to expose). These commies call it new names like “Democratic Socialism” and “Change” but it’s still the same old crap in a bright shiney package.

Obama (Barry Soetoro) is the prophet of this New Age brand of Globalist enslavement and i can promise every young person who fell into this trap that they will not get what they think they were promised (as should become increasingly apparent..if it is not already apparent).

I suggest to all of you who tell the TRUTH and are assailed by name calling and intimidation that from now on you simply write “I do not respond to those who play by Alinsky rules for radicals.. drive through please“… You see KNOWLEDGE IS POWER and if you get a copy of RULES FOR RADICALS then you have a copy of their playbook and in it you will see exactly how unfairly they play.

LIARS cannot be trusted to tell the truth and Alinsky’s crap is useless once it is understood by those who value Truth, Justice and real FREEDOM (something socialistic communism promises but never delivers).

Please spread this to your friends and tell them that it is not wise to respond to anyone who uses such tactics except to point out that we know what they are doing.

Here again are the rules they play by:

“Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. … Here our concern is with the tactic of taking.
2 years, 11 months ago

video image To Watch This Video On BitChute Click the Title Link Below:

Obama talks civic engagement, community organizing with young leaders
BY MCCLATCHY FEBRUARY 9, 2018 AT 4:38 PM President Barack Obama, while speaking at the University of Chicago during his first public speaking event since leaving office, said the single most important thing he can do now is to help support and prepare the next generation of leaders.
In other words as he stated ” to create a million young Obama’s to carry on his legacy.” 

Read more at:

Obama discusses being behind-the-scenes string-puller on ‘Late Show’ with Colbert

Obama discusses being behind-the-scenes string-puller on ‘Late Show’ with Colbert

Visionary contemplates power-wielding in sweats from the basement. Late Show video via Twitter

As Monica Showalter suggests, the notable thing about this is former-President Obama’s willingness to talk about it in a popular forum, where his comments are sure to be noticed.  He’s not trying to bury allusions to it, and apparently neither is the Democratic Party.

In the clip, Obama doesn’t come right out and say that he’ll be a string-puller behind a “Biden” administration (and presumably behind a “Harris” administration as well).  But he talks cheerfully of being just fine with having his effectthat of a ventriloquist, as he outlines it – from the shadows, in lieu of holding office for a third term.

It’s obvious he’s not talking about merely crafting messages.  He’s talking about writing policy, and just having other people placed to be the front-men or -women (he uses the term) for policy that comes from him.

Here’s the video clip:

And, courtesy of Monica Showalter at American Thinker, the transcript:

… [A]nd I used to say, you know what, if I can make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a front-man, or a front-woman, and they had an earpiece in and I was just in my basement in my sweats looking through the … stuff, and then I could sort of deliver the lines but someone was doing all the talking and ceremony, I’d be fine with that

As Showalter says, plenty of people have assumed all along that this would be the general arrangement with the next Democratic presidency.  (Journalist Lee Smith has made the case a number of times.)  There was a reason why Obama bought a home in Washington, D.C. and set up shop there with his political advocacy group Organizing for Action.  Long-time aide Valerie Jarrett has even been living in the Obama home in Kalorama and working from it.

But it’s still jarring to see the framework of the operation chatted about in Obama’s signature breezy tone.

That said – and I thank Showalter for making an eloquent case – this strikes me as not as much to be expected as it might seem, on the face of it.

Oh, it’s perfectly to be expected that Obama will be a nexus of policy spinning in Washington, if Biden takes office in January.  But is it really to Obama’s or Biden’s (or Harris’s) benefit to have that be such an open secret?  What is really the point of talking about it?

It serves from one perspective to undermine Biden and/or Harris.  There’s no need to go anywhere particular with that observation to recognize that it’s simply a valid one.  It sets the Biden-Harris ticket up as a figurehead enterprise.  Why do that in advance?

If the point is to reassure some Democratic constituency, I would think whichever constituency needs that reassurance already has it.  There’s no need to send smoke signals from Stephen Colbert’s late-night show.

Long-time readers know I don’t think Obama is the ultimate string-puller to begin with.  I don’t think there’s only one, for that matter.  The dark-money donors of Democracy Alliance seem to be the place to start in that regard.  Obama won’t have the executive pen and phone, or command of the U.S. armed forces again; as a seat of political power, he is dependent on the dark-money crowd now, not the other way around.

Notably, the agenda Biden has been talking about – to the extent he talks; there are also the disclosures from his media representatives – comports fully with the transnationalist progressive agenda of the Democracy Alliance donorsDavos, Paris, Aspen – wherever they meet, they’ve been talking up the same agenda for 30 years.  It’s an agenda that sells out U.S. law, and our understanding and expectations about liberty and rights, completely.

Perhaps Obama is announcing himself as a lightning rod and a negotiating front-man in his own right, not just to clarify his importance to process, but to deflect attention from the donors behind the curtain.  He’ll be the one in sweats in the basement, unlike President Whoever, tooling around doing the ceremony thing in suit jackets and leather-soled shoes.  But Obama will be the donors’ point man.  Congratulations, America.


Watch: Obama Talks About Using a ‘Stand-in, a Front-Man’ for a Third Term

If you didn’t vote for Joe Biden for president, and the former vice president actually takes office on Jan. 20, you’re probably worrying yourself over the prospect that it’ll turn into a de facto third term for Barack Obama.Well, if you listen to Barack Obama, you needn’t worry: It’s definitely going to turn into a third term for him.Granted, when he appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” late last month, Obama didn’t say it in as many words. He couldn’t, because portraying Joe Biden as the Dmitry Medvedev to his Vladimir Putin might seem a bit … off to Americans. In fact, the way he phrased it meant that it mostly flew under the radar for a few weeks. However, in an interview he did with late-night TV’s most obsequious Democrat booster, we were treated to some grade-A unintentional honesty.Asked if he missed his old job when he looked at the headlines from the Trump administration, Obama mentioned that there were plenty of people who wanted him to have a third term. Alas, there was that pesky 22nd Amendment in the way, limiting him to two terms.But wait! There’s a catch.“If I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a frontman or frontwoman, and they had an earpiece in, and I was just in my basement in my sweats, looking through the stuff, then deliver the lines, but somebody else was doing all the talking — I’d be fine with that,” Obama said.

There seems to be a genuine loathing among us conservatives when talk-show hosts or other entertainment figures bring Democrat politicians on for interviews and treat them with uncritical adoration. I’ll never get this, because if you want to hear Barack Obama say the quiet part out loud, the best chance you have is when you’ve got Stephen Colbert sitting across from him with puppy-dog eyes, feeding Obama softball questions at the same time he’s feeding his ego.

The exact situation Obama is describing would be difficult to pull off — although given his former second-in-command’s reliance on the teleprompter, Obama feeding Biden lines while the 44th president was in the basement in his sweats isn’t as far out of the question as you might imagine.

In a more general sense, however, the idea that a potential Biden presidency could be shaping up to be a third-term for Obama is something even the media is doing a grimace emoji over.

Biden has been crystal clear on two public policy goals: Signing back on to the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate agreement. Both were signature moments (literally) of the Obama administration. Neither actually accomplished what it was intended to do: The Iran deal did nothing to deter Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in the long run and the Paris accord will do little to reduce climate change.

Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman under Obama (Jen Psaki was much more than that.  She was hand picked, funded and trained by Obama and became his right arm), is Biden’s choice for the White House press secretary. Obama’s secretary of agriculture was former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Biden’s secretary of agriculture, if all goes as planned, according to CNN, will be … former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Obama surgeon general Vivek H. Murthy is set to become Biden surgeon general Vivek H. Murthy, CNN reported.

Ron Klain was Biden’s chief of staff when he was vice president. Biden wants him to be his chief of staff again, this time for a more attractive office. Susan Rice, former national security advisor under Obama, is Biden’s choice to head up the White House Domestic Policy Council, the AP reported.

NPR noted that as of Saturday, of 16 Biden cabinet picks, 12 were Obama appointees. The best thing that could be said at this point is that Ben Rhodes, Obama’s unctuous deputy national security advisor and foreign policy bro, hasn’t yet been offered a job by Biden, although you get the feeling that might be just because no one’s reminded Biden yet.

One can express some happiness, I suppose, that Biden hasn’t gone the other way and chosen Rep. Ilhan Omar for a potential secretary of state. However, there are other competent liberal careerists that could fill out a cabinet who weren’t part of the 44th president’s team. A potential Biden administration is being filled with talent curated and nurtured by former President Obama. And, rest assured, they’re going to be answering his phone calls if they come — or rather, when they come.

Just before Obama got a bit too candid about that de facto third-term, Colbert and the former president had another curious back-and-forth. At about the 5:40 mark in the video above, Colbert mentioned that Michelle Obama had requested he stop calling her the former first lady or “madam first lady.” It’s just “Michelle” from now on.

“Mr. President, is there anything you’d like to say to me?” Colbert asked, implying maybe it was time for “Mr. Obama” or “Barack.”

“Nope,” Obama responded.

There was an awkward pause. Colbert licked his pen.

“You know what, I take that back,” Obama said. “You don’t have to call me Mr. President. You can just call me president.”

Yes, I get it. It was a joke. So was the third-term quip. Obama the comedian probably should have read the room a bit better.


Radicals’ Are Racist Criminals

Driving America towards the abyss.

David Horowitz is founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the author of The Enemy Within – Order it HERE.

This article first appeared in the Daily Wire.

The crisis currently facing our nation is a crisis of faithfaith in the Constitution that has shaped our destiny, faith in the rule of law, and faith in the principle of equality before the law. The root cause of the lawlessness that is consuming our country is the monopoly of the executive power in Washington by a political party that has fallen under the control of the radical Left. This Left describes itself as “progressive,” but is focused on the goal of “re-imagining” American institutions and principles, in other words of dismantling the constitutional order that created the prosperity and freedoms that have shaped this country since its beginnings.

Having been born into this political Left and then rejected it, I have acquired an intimate perspective on its nature, and the threat it poses to the American future, which is grave. I was raised by Communists who always referred to themselves as “progressives,and were sworn enemies of America and its institutions, as was I. We saw ourselves as warriors for social justice, acting on the “right side” of history.

We could not have been more mistaken. The “moral arc” of history is not “bent towards justice,” as progressives like to say. If it were, the 20th Century would be the most enlightened instead of the scene of the greatest atrocities and oppressions on human record. Worse yet, for this progressive myth, these atrocities and oppressions were perpetrated by progressives in the name of “social justice.

The practical achievement of the revolutionaries was the dismantling of whole societies, and their reconstruction as national prisons, and slave labor camps. Supported by progressives everywhere, Communists bankrupted whole continents while killing more than 100 million people – in peacetime – in order to realize their radical schemes. Their atrocities and failures continued until the day they saw their progressive future collapse under its own weight. This failure was entirely predictable because as every similar attempt to “re-imagine society” and change it by force has shown, it is simply beyond the power of human beings to create a “just” world. 

Forty years ago, a series of tragic events that I have described in my autobiography, “Radical Son,” stopped me in my tracks, and caused me to re-evaluate what I had believed until then. These second thoughts turned me against the cause to which I had been devoted since my youth, and which I now saw as a threat to everything human beings hold dear. Most of my generation of radicals, however, chose to continue on their destructive course. Over the next decades I watched the radical movement I was born into infiltrate and then take control of the Democratic Party and the nation’s cultural institutions, until one of its own, Barack Obama, became President of the United States. 

From the moment I joined the conservative Right forty years ago, I was impressed – and also alarmed – by the disparity in political rhetoric used by the two sides fighting this fateful conflict. My radical comrades and I always viewed these battles as episodes in a war conducted by other means – even as our opponents did not. Our rhetoric proclaimed our goals to be “peace,” “equality” and “social justice.” But this was always a deception. We used terms that demonized our opponents as “racists,” and “oppressors” because we believed our goals could only be achieved by vanquishing our opponents and destroying America’s constitutional order.

The Constitution valorized political compromise and was built on the defense of individual rights – most prominently the right to own propertyAmerica’s founders regarded property ownership as the basis of individual freedom. As radicals, we regarded property as the root cause of the evils that oppressed us. Consequently, the principles we operated under were not the same as those we gave lip service to in order to win public support.

The Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky explained our attitude in a famous pamphlet called “Their Morals and Ours.” “Their” morals, he denigrated as bourgeois morals. They were morals based on class values that served the oppressors. One can hear the same sophistry today in the Left’s attacks on meritocracy and standards as “racist,” and in their demands for equal outcomes regardless of whether they are earned or not. 

While “their morals” served a ruling class, “our morals” served the people, and therefore social justice. Because we believed these propositions, “our morals” were by default Machiavellian: The end justifies the means. 

Trotsky’s pamphlet was, in fact, a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that there was anything amoral or immoral in this cynical outlook. He did so by denying the existence of moral principles, claiming instead that all morality was self-interested and designed to serve a class interest. “Whoever does not care to return to Moses, Christ or Mohammed,” i.e., to accept universal moral standards, Trotsky argued, “must acknowledge that morality is a product of social development; that there is nothing invariable about it; that it serves social interests; that these interests are contradictory; that morality more than any other form of ideology has a class character.”

But this is just an admission that “our” morals were indeed accurately summarized as, “the end justifies the means.” The future we imagined we were creating was so noble that achieving it justified any means to get there, which included the lies that hid our destructive purposes, and the atrocities they led to.

The full import of this belief was brought home to me in the spring of 1975 when our so-called “anti-war movement” forced America out of Indo-China, allowing the North Vietnamese and Cambodian Communists to win. For more than a decade, we had claimed to care about the people of Indo-China, championed their rights to self-determination and condemned the war as a case of American imperialism and American racism oppressing Asian victims.

By the time America withdrew from the conflict and abandoned its Indo-Chinese allies, I already knew that Communism was a monstrous evil. But I remained a supporter of the “anti-war” cause, and of the rights of the Indo-Chinese to self-determination. To defend the commitments I had made, I deluded myself into believing that self-determination meant the Vietnamese and Cambodians should be able to choose even this evil if they wanted. This was so much sophistry because I knew that the Communists would not give them an inch of space in which to breathe free. The end that justified my position was that I believed America was the world’s arch imperialist power and its defeat was an absolute good.

What I was not prepared for was the moral depths to which the movement I had been part of had sunk. These depths were revealed in the events that followed the Communist victory. When America left Cambodia and Vietnam, the Communists proceeded to slaughter between two and three million peasants who were “politically incorrect” and did not welcome their Communist “solutions.” It was the largest genocide since Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. In Cambodia they killed everyone who wore glasses on the grounds that as readers they would transmit the oppressive ideas of the past and obstruct the Communist future. But there was no resistance to these atrocities from the “anti-war” Left.

As the genocidal slaughter proceeded, prominent Leftists like Noam Chomsky provided cover for the Communists’ crimes by denying that the atrocities were taking place. More disturbingly, there was not a single demonstration to protest the slaughter by the activists who claimed to be “anti-war” and to care about the Cambodians and Vietnamese. This silence unmasked the true agendas of the movement I had been part of.

My comrades’ abandonment of the peoples they claimed to defend showed in a definitive manner that the anti-war movement was never “anti-war.” It was anti-American. It wanted America to lose and the Communists to win. Progressives had lied about the nature of their movement and its agendas in order to accomplish their real goal, which was the “fundamental transformation” of America and the creation of a socialist state. I had known this to be the case for many years, but had accepted the lies because they served what I imagined was a noble end. But when the lies led to the embrace of genocide, my eyes were opened to the realization that the movement I had been part of my whole life was evil.

On my way out of the Left, I spent several years re-thinking what I had believed, and trying to understand the nature of the cause that I had served. Perhaps, my most profound and certainly most disturbing conclusion was that revolutionaries were by nature – and of necessity – criminals, who would routinely lie and break laws to achieve their ends. Every radical who believed in a “revolution” or a “re-imagining” of society from the ground up, every progressive who believed in a “fundamental transformation of America” as Barack Obama described his own agenda on the eve of his 2008 election, was a criminal waiting to strike.

America’s Constitution includes methods to amend it, and therefore to reform the American social order when and where changes are needed. In making such changes there are procedures to ensure that these changes represent the will of the American people, and are done lawfully. But revolutionaries do not respect a constitutional order created by rich, white men, many of whom were slaveowners. Radicals believe instead that “social justice” requires them to dismantle the social order, and “due process” along with it. Radicals are not “reformers.” In the name of social justice, they refuse to be bound by the laws and procedures that an unjust and oppressive “ruling class” has created. The end justifies the means.

Before President Obama – a constitutional law professor – decided to break America’s immigration laws and grant 800,000 illegals resident status, he admitted to his fellow Americans on 22 public occasions that he had no constitutional authority to do so – none. Creating such an amnesty by executive order was illegal and unconstitutional. And he knew it. But he did it anyway because to him and his party, violating the fundamental law of the land was justified because the system that had created the law was oppressive and unjust – racist. In committing this crime against the nation he led, Obama was guided by a radical ideology that justified the illegal means as a victory for “social justice.”

As a former radical I understood how high the stakes had become with Obama’s election. Since the Right was defending America’s freedoms while the Left was paying lip-service to patriotic pieties but intending nothing less than the destruction of constitutional order, I also understood that the rhetorical disparity between the two factions posed a grave threat to America’s future.

In fighting this cold war, progressives regularly demonize Republicans as racists, white supremacists, insurrectionists, Nazis and traitors. Republicans respond to these reckless attacks by calling Democrats “liberals” and similarly tepid descriptions. For example, they describe Democrats as “soft on crime.” Democrats are not soft on crime. They are pro-crime: Democrat prosecutors have systematically refused to prosecute violent criminals; Democrat mayors and governors have released tens of thousands of violent criminals from America’s prisons, and abolished cash bail so that criminals are back on the streets immediately after their crimes and arrests; Democrat mayors did nothing to prevent the mass violence orchestrated by Black Lives Matter in 220 cities in the summer of 2020, provided bail for arrested felons, de-funded police forces, and instructed law enforcement to stand down in Democrat-run cities, which allowed “protesters” to loot and burn, and criminal mobs to loot and destroy downtown shopping centers.

Democrats regard the criminal riots that took place in the summer of 2020, as social justice. The riots cost $2 billion in property damage, killed scores of people and eventually thousands as their “De-Fund the Police” campaign triggered a record crime wave in America’s major cities. Democrats regard criminal lawlessness and mayhem as understandable responses to what they perceive as “social injustice” courts and the law be damned. To them, mass lootings are “reparations,” and individual robberies and thefts a socialist redistribution of wealth.

If you are in a battle of words – which is the nature of political warfare – and you are calling your enemies “liberals,” portraying them as not really understanding the gravity of what they are doing, while they are calling you “white supremacists” and “Nazis,” you are losing the war.

Why are Republicans so self-destructively polite? Why do they fail to see, or to identify their opponents as the criminals they are – or, at least, when they are? 

Ever since Donald Trump won the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2016, Democrats have conducted a verbal war against white America. This war has been so effective that Gallup polls show that 61% of Democrats think Republicans are white racists. At the same time the Biden administration has made “Equity” a centerpiece of its policies and programs. “Equity” is a weasel word to cover a socialist agenda. The White House defines “Equity” as privileging select racial groups with government largesse on the basis of skin colora policy that is racist, inequitable, unconstitutional, and illegal.

Even when it is the government doing the redistribution and not street mobs, “social justice” – the policy of equalizing outcomes among politically select groups, regardless of merit – is another name for theft. Redistributing income on the basis of race is not equity, it is racism. Joe Biden is the first overt racist to occupy the White House since Woodrow Wilson – who not coincidently was also a progressive Democrat. Yet Republicans avert their eyes from this anti-American travesty. Why don’t Republicans call Democrats out for their racism?

Over the years I gave a lot of thought to these questions, and eventually I came up with an answer that should have been obvious in the first place. The disparity in rhetorical voltage between the two political parties stems from a fundamental disparity in outlooks, and more importantly in attitudes towards the future. The Left’s obvious goal is a “fundamental transformation” of American society. Such a transformation, as I have already observed, requires a dismantling of the existing social order. To justify this destruction, the Left creates narratives that provide it with ways to condemn and delegitimize the present and its defenders, and justify its criminal agendas.

Today’s Left is driven by a Cultural Marxist ideology, which is itself a product of the transformation of America’s universities and schools into one-party training and recruitment centers for the political Left. A similar colonization of America’s philanthropic institutions and corporate cultures has taken place enabling this ideology to become a conventional wisdom nationally and the strategic outlook of the Democrat Party.

Cultural Marxism, also known as Critical Race Theory, and also encapsulated in the historical travesty called “The 1619 Project,has led to a narrative in which America is portrayed as a white supremacist, systemically racist nation since its inception. Cultural Marxists regard the Constitution as a white supremacist document written by slaveowners, and therefore not to be respected. Worse, according to The New York Times editors who sponsored the 1619 Project, its purpose is to demonstrate that, “nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery.” This disgraceful slander against an entire people is an American version of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which is still used in many parts of the world to justify a genocide of the Jews.

From this script, it is relatively effortless for progressive activists to lift a single negative incident or atrocity from the complex history of the American Republic and frame an indictment of America’s very existence. The script always leads to the same conclusion: America is a society whose institutions are “systemically racist” and must be first demolished, and then “re-imagined” according to the dictates of “social justice.”

Conservatives approach politics from a diametrically opposed perspective. Unlike progressives, conservatives are not wedded to abstract ideologies that imagine a perfect future and use it to delegitimize an imperfect present. Conservatives seek to conserve the values of a remarkable Constitution, whose principles in actual practice have made America the world’s most prosperous, most tolerant and most free nation, and have inspired her to be a beacon of freedom throughout the world.

One consequence of conservatives’ regard for the proven virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the social order it made possible is the very diffidence conservatives and Republicans exhibit in their political battles with progressives. A primary concern of the American founders was the threat of “factions” whose outlooks and agendas did not encompass the well-being of the whole society but merely their own divisive interests and claims. A main theme of America’s founding documents, therefore, is the importance of compromise. The founders regarded attacks on the spirit of compromise as threats to the social order itself. The demonization of opponents by the Democrat Party is therefore anathema – or should be – to anyone who believes in the wisdom of the constitutional order. In other words, conservatives’ instincts are to willfully tie their hands behind their backs in order to support the well-being of the civic whole.

The Electoral College, to take one important example, is an institution the constitutional framers envisaged as a means of forcing compromise between warring political factions. Election by the College, instead of the popular vote, compels contending parties to compete in states where they don’t have natural majorities, and therefore need to compromise their agendas to win victories in “battleground” states. But radicals who abhor compromise are determined to abolish the Electoral College, justifying its abolition by smearing it as “racist.”

Another target of their anti-compromising zeal are the filibuster and the United States Senate which they denigrate as “undemocratic.” Of course, the Senate is undemocratic but that’s what the founders intended it to be. By giving lower population states equal senatorial power with higher population states, the founders ensured that the more populous states would not overwhelm the less populous ones and establish a “tyranny of the majority.” America is not a democracy; it is a republic, and that’s what the founders created –– and that’s why individual freedoms have been protected, and Americans have prospered.

The federal system and decentralization of power, vital to the freedoms Americans enjoy, are also instruments of compromise, and also abhorred by progressives who have been busily proposing legislation to federalize elections and police forces, and put them in the hands of a single centralized faction. The Democrats’ campaign to pack the Supreme Court and destroy the independence of the judiciary is yet another attempt to dismantle the constitutional system and consolidate power in the hands of a single faction. Their assaults on the First Amendment are equally sinister attempts to establish a one-party state.

Conservatives and Republicans are reluctant to use terms like “criminal” and “racist” and “fascist” to describe Democrats whose policies are criminal, racist and fascist because to do so would threaten the constitutional principle of compromise, on which civil peace and civil freedoms depend. Well and good, but in the current crisis defenders of America need to find a way to develop a stronger rhetoric, along with a more realistic attitude towards the enemy they are facing, if America is to survive at all. As long as conservatives continue to respect and enforce “due process” – which the Democrats have abandoned there is no danger that they will follow in the destructive path the Democrats have chosen.

The principal weapon progressives have developed to advance their destructive agendas is race. But in responding to their attacks, Republicans – and conservatives generally – have displayed an unsteady hand. For example, Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have referred to slavery as “America’s original sin,” in an effort to provide a compromising view. And they have often conceded that America had a regrettable racist past, and wrung their hands over it. Well and good, but to leave it at that does a grave injustice to the American reality. For there never was a moment in American history when there was not a white movement calling for the abolition of slavery and racism, and even willing to lay down their lives for it. 

To put this history in a more accurate perspective: America didn’t invent slavery, and accounted for less than one percent of the global slave trade. If slavery is anyone’s “original sin” it is Africa’s, where slavery existed for a thousand years before a white man ever set foot there. Virtually, every slave shipped to America was enslaved by black Africans and sold to Americans at auctions. America’s founding fathers – Washington, Jefferson, Madison – deplored the slave system but saw no way to abolish it immediately without a war with England and the South, which they would have lost. Eventually their heirs did fight a war to free the slaves that cost more American – mainly white lives – than all America’s subsequent wars combined. Every black descendant of slaves in America owes his or her freedom to white Americans like Thomas Jefferson, even though Jefferson was a reluctant slaveowner, or to Abraham Lincoln and the 360,000 Union soldiers who gave their lives to free the slaves.

Is there in all history a comparable example of one race making such a sacrifice to free another? I am unaware of one. No American, mindful of their history, should turn their backs on this record, or bury it in silence, or compromise its truth.

When America’s racial past is viewed as a whole, Americans have no need to be ashamed. People who demand reparations for a slavery they never experienced, should sue the Confederacy, which fought to preserve it. They should not sue the United States government which made such enormous sacrifices to do the right thing. And no American patriots should make apologies for an American past that was shaped by lovers of freedom who set a standard for ending slavery not only in America, but also in the Western Hemisphere, and finally on global scale. For more than 60 years following the Emancipation Proclamation, America joined white Christian powers like Britain and France who sent gunboats throughout their empires to end the global slave trade. They were opposed by brown and black potentates who defended the institution and refused to free their human chattel. Black and brown slaveowners still thrive in Africa today.

The fact that these facts have been buried by progressives who control America’s cultural institutions, and who have replaced them with slanders worthy of America’s enemies underscores the enormity of the threat we face. The Democrats are now a national lynch mob. They have spent the last seven years in one attempt after another to destroy a president, whose political signature is “America First,” by libeling him, his supporters and the country they love as “white supremacist” and “systemically racist,” when there is no sound basis for either charge. They have broken precedent, tradition, protocol, and the law, and violated the Constitution to hang Donald Trump and demonize his supporters as “domestic terrorists” and “insurrectionists”traitors – all in order to advance radical policies that have destroyed America’s borders, triggered record crime waves in American cities, and blown up the best economy in our lifetimes. 

To defend our country against these radical destroyers, Americans need to get a firm grip on the facts of their heritage and the realities of their present. In particular they need to understand that America never was a racist nation – even during the brief 20-year period when slavery was legal in the North, and the 76-year period when slavery was legal in the SouthNot the alleged “400 years of slavery” as its ignorant and malicious enemies like Al Sharpton maintain.

Slavery in America was an English implant and the extension of an African business. There were 500,000 free blacks in America on the eve of the Civil War. That is inexplicable if America was actually a “white supremacist” nation. The slavery issue only became an issue of racial oppression when Southern slaveowners chose to defend their system in a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, by arguing that blacks were not. What was distinctly American, however, was the declaration of equality, not the racist defense of slavery by soon to be defeated owners of slaves in the South.

Given the prejudices and bigotries that are endemic to human beings of all races, Americans can be proud of their racial past and its contribution to human freedom. The raw facts are these: Slavery was an inherited system, which Americans abolished in little over a generation. There never was a successful revolt by the slaves themselves. If whites had been as universally racist as Leftists maintain, blacks in America would still be slaves, and not the most prosperous, most privileged and free-est blacks in the world today, including all of black Africa and the West Indies.

Above all, conservative, patriotic Americans need to stop compromising the truth to appease their political enemies who want to destroy them and the country they love.