Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
guests can now post ×
welcome guests . feel free to test the waters. ×

A Challenge To Cant Decide

Recommended Posts

So, Protectionist, you ready to name a President that you think had more hardcore socialists and communists in his inner circle than Obama? And then start naming their names?



Good thing you're not a full Socialist or you'd demand 100% at the top. Right? :rolleyes:




Hey LGU … is this you?




And whatever happened to "partial socialist" Protectionist ... who I could swear once told me he was the only REAL conservative on this forum? :D


And I'm telling you again right now. At least I'm the only one that I've seen, and that I know of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I promised TR and CD a third socialist cabinet member on another thread (to try and entice them to man up and face the truth on this thread). So here he is …


Leon Panetta, Obama's former Director of the CIA and now Obama's Secretary of Defense.


What are the indications he's a socialist?




Panettagate: A Real Scandal Involving National Security


June 14, 2011


… snip …


The evidence shows that Panetta had a close and personal relationship with a member of the Communist Party by the name of Hugh DeLacy, whose record included meeting with communist espionage agents. By any objective standard of journalism, this should be big news.


… snip …


Yet, we find no evidence that the Panetta-DeLacy relationship was ever examined by the FBI or the Senate when Panetta was being considered and confirmed for the post of CIA Director. The major media have been even more derelict, content to cover the Panetta hearings for Secretary of Defense in a cursory manner and then turn their attention back to something that is easier and more fun to cover and which is sure to attract interest—Weiner.


… snip …


But suffice it to say that the relationship with DeLacy is something that stands out. In a sense, Panetta did not hide it. Back in 1983 he inserted a tribute into the Congressional Record, recognizing DeLacy and his wife Dorothy, another communist, for their commitment to “social justice” and resisting “the dark forces of McCarthyism.” The latter strongly indicates that Panetta was aware of their involvement in the communist cause and that not only did it not matter to him, it was evidence of their courage and bravery.


… snip …


The DeLacys were not merely Panetta’s constituents—they were close personal friends. Hugh DeLacy was also a longtime correspondent, with whom Panetta regularly discussed defense and foreign policy issues.


Loudon knows this because he took the time to examine the Hugh DeLacy papers at the University of Washington. They include a series of “Dear Hugh” and “Dear Leon” exchanges in which then-Rep. Panetta promised DeLacy several apparently sensitive documents. Not only did Panetta insert a tribute into the Congressional Record, he spoke at DeLacy’s memorial service after his death in 1986. One wonders if the FBI was ever made aware of this.


… snip …


Veteran journalist Wes Vernon has seen our evidence, as it has been released over the last several days, and has marveled at the cover-up so far. In a column titled, “Media blackout: CIA director accused of links to Communist spy contact—scandal ignored,” he notes that “…DeLacy was not only a prominent member of the Communist Party USA, but also a personal contact of identified Soviet spies Solomon Adler and Frank Coe and accused spy John Stewart Service, and one has to wonder: What was there about DeLacy’s background and record that attracted the friendship of the man who is now CIA Director and has been nominated to assume an even higher national security post—Secretary of Defense?





Some of the names on the list above indicate the circles that both DeLacy and Panetta were moving in at the time.


- Presenter Mardi Wormhoudt was a member of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee … snip … . Wormhoudt, a supporter of Nicaragua’s Marxist-Leninist Sandinista regime, was a delegate on the Let Nicaragua Live Tour for the Coalition for Nicaragua in 1986. She was also a member of a 1987 Sister City Delegation to Alushta in the Soviet Union.


- Jack Berman was a life long leftist activist, a veteran of the Communist Party led Independent Progressive Party and an affiliate of the New American Movement.  … snip …


- John McTernan was a Los Angeles lawyer and a several decades veteran of the Communist Party USA.  McTernan  later joined the New American Movement and eventually the Democratic Socialists of America. … snip …


- Mike Rotkin had been a member of Students for a Democratic Society. He later went on to become a leader of the New American Movement. … snip …



For more than 10 years, Mr. Panetta maintained a close friendship and regular correspondence with Hugh DeLacy, a long time Communist Party member and unrepentant Marxist-Leninist to his dying day. Panetta regularly supplied DeLacy with government reports and opinions on defense and foreign policy matters. A year before Panetta was elected to Congress and the correspondence began, his friend was in China as a guest of the communists meeting with several former and at least one reported active spy.

Mr. Panetta has apparently volunteered none of this information during any of his Senate confirmation hearings. Not one Senator has asked any questions about any of Panetta’s extensive history with communists and far left activists.

Does the American public deserve to know these disturbing facts about Leon Panetta’s background?[/b] What are the implications for US and Western security if Leon Panetta has been in any way compromised by his past associates?

Hmmmmmmm … it looks like Panetta has some deep, personal associations with hardcore socialists/communists. :D


And, of course, you all must know that Panetta was involved in the Clinton-era Chinagate scandal. He was Clinton's Chief of Staff during much of it, so he had to have known what was going on … and helped bury the bodies. In fact, according to the sworn testimony of Nolanda Hill, he defied court orders and obstructed a lawsuit aimed at gathering information related to Chinagate and CampaignFinancegate (which also involved Communist China). And the judge in the case (Lambert) agreed with that assessment.


After leaving Clinton's WhiteHouse, he became the chief lobbyist in efforts to hand over the former Long Beach naval base to ... you guessed it … the Communist Chinese. And he has still more connections to hardcore socialists and communists. Panetta partnered for a while with Gloria Steinem, a Marxist and longtime member of DSA, after divorcing his first wife. Steinem was listed as a member of the New Party (what a coincidence). His current wife, Sylvia, worked with the IPS. When he ran for Congress in 1976, two known socialists … John Laird and Don Lane … were in the inner circle of his campaign. Laird was a member of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which later became the DSA. Laird says that of the political efforts "of which he is most proud was as an early volunteer in Leon Panetta's first congressional campaign" (http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/11/05/ca/state/vote/laird_j/bio.html ). I bet Panetta was tickled to have him on his team as well. Don Lane was a member of DSA. Everywhere you turn, there seem to be socialists/communists in Panetta's life.


Now before his appointment as CIA Director, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative which partnered with Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS) to push for US ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.   CGS promotes world government.  The parent organization, the World Federalist Movement, promotes what's called *Responsibility to Protect*, the doctrine Obama used to justify attacking Libya. That doctrine was outlined in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations“, written by socialist/communist George Soros.  And the Law of the Sea treaty is clearly an agenda contrary to long term American interests.


Panetta has also been involved with the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), which was/is "a pro Soviet, anti-war group during the Cold War" that was designated by the State Department as a “Soviet Front” (http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/312429/ ). WILPF did such things as defend the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/2354-leon-panetta-and-the-institute-for-policy-studies ). He attended conferences by them and even entered a tribute to it's founder, Lucy Haessler, in the Congressional Record, knowing that Haessler had traveled to the USSR as a member of WILPF. And he hailed Haessler for her activism against the deployment of US missiles to counter the Soviet threat. Here's more about Haessler's socialist/communist activities: http://www.usasurvival.org/ck06.15.2011.html . And Panetta was ok with all that. I can only imagine a hardcore socialist or communist would be ok with all that.


The above WND article also notes that Panetta has ties to the Institute for Policy Studies, IPS, which I've previously noted is filled with socialists and communists and had strong ties to Soviet communists. In fact, as noted in the WND article above, time and time again Panetta has sided against US efforts to contain communism worldwide. It's a definite pattern. Now doesn't that make it a little scary that Obama made him Secretary of Defense?


And what has he accomplished as Secretary of Defense. Well gays are happy … the military is even celebrating their *special* day. But last time he visited Afghanistan, US soldiers were forced to disarm before entering his esteemed presence. And under his watch, Obama is giving away the keys to the Putin, who for all intense and purposes is still a hardcore communist. He put limits on all sorts of new weapon systems and is supportive of Obama's efforts to eliminate missile defense programs and radically reduce our nuclear arsenal. No doubt he too will be extremely "flexible" if Obama gets a second term.


Which is why I name him #17 on my Challenge list. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This news article …




The Obama family was in Chicago for the weekend, at least in part to attend the wedding of Laura Jarrett, the daughter of trusted adviser Valerie Jarrett.

says it's time to add Valerie Jarrett to my Challenge list.


Valerie Jarrett is Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs. She is one of the President and First Lady's closest and longest held friends (nearly two decades). Jarrett met Obama in the early 1990s when she was recruiting Michelle Obama for a job in Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's administration.


In various 2008 interviews with the Chicago Tribune, President Obama said “Valerie is one of my oldest friends” and that “Over time I think our relationship evolved to the point where she’s like a sibling to me… I trust her completely. She’s family.” He has said, he “absolutely” runs every decision by her. According to the Washington Post, she was for many years both Michelle's and Barack's "tutor."  Virtually every mainstream media outlet has done a puff-piece on Valerie Jarrett, and ALL agree that neither makes a move without first consulting her.


For example …




“We haven’t seen anything like this in modern presidential history,” said Klein. “One person who is the best friend of the First Lady and the soulmate of the President, who is the last person to leave the Oval Office after a meeting, goes upstairs to the family quarters, has dinner with the President. Goes on vacation with them. Has his ear. Is de facto president of the United States.”


… snip …


“She’s a very, very liberal person,” he continued. “And she, for instance, urged him to put that mandate on church-related organizations that were required to give free health care for contraceptives. This was against the advice of Joe Biden, the vice president, against the advice of Bill Daley. Bill Daley brought Cardinal Dolan into the Oval Office to try to get the President to reverse himself. And when Valerie Jarrett heard that, she went to the President, blew her stack and Bill Daley was shortly ushered out.”

“More powerful than the chief of staff,” said Doocy. “Isn’t that something?”

Or consider her decision to make Communist Van Jones the Green Jobs Czar.




The counsel's office places part of the blame on the Office for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, which is overseen by Obama Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President Valerie Jarrett. Jones's "czar" job was created by the OIAPE, and Jarrett interviewed Jones for the position. In speeches before far-left groups over the past five months, Jarrett touted Jones's hiring, in part, because the groups, many of which count 9/11 truthers and radical environmentalists and anti-capitalists as members, were familiar with Jones's brand of anti-Americanism and economic radicalism.

She stated in an interview in 2009



that the White House staff were "so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House."


And even when his communist background/views became known and a public issue, Jarrett STILL defended him as Obama threw him under the bus. Odd that Obama would do that, given that Jarrett says in the above interview that "We've been watching him, uh, really, he's not that old, but for as long as he's been active out in Oakland and all the ways he has … the creative ideas he has." Seems to me that she and Obama must have known he was and still is a Communist when they picked him as Green Jobs Czar.


Why would she do that unless she's a believer? And where would that belief spring from? Well here might be a clue ...


Her step-father, Vernon Jarrett was an associate of Frank Marshall Davis, the communist who Obama called a "mentor" during his teenage years. Small world, isn't it?


According to http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=109222 , "Vernon Jarrett and Davis worked together in 1940 in a Communist Party-dominated organization, the Citizen's Committee to Aid Packing House Workers. The group's own correspondence, previously uncovered by the New Zeal blog, describes its communist influence. Many of its leaders were tied to the Communist Party.




I have since found conclusive evidence that Davis and Jarrett not only knew each other, but worked together in another Communist Party dominated organisation-The Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers.


The letter above (see the link) is dated April 12, 1948. Note that CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) was at the time a communist controlled labor federation.


To the left (see the link) is a partial list of Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers officials.


Note the names Oscar C. Brown (Treasurer) and Louise T. Patterson (Assistant Treasurer), F.M. Davis and Vernon Jarrett.


To confirm the connection, below is a close-up of the committee’s publicity committee. Note that it is chaired by Vernon Jarrett and includes Frank Marshall Davis.


That the Citizen’s Committee was communist influenced is beyond doubt.


Louise T Patterson was the wife of Illinois Communist Party vice-chairman and attorney William Patterson and a prominent Party member in her own right. Louise Patterson was still a leader of the Illinois Communist Party well into the 1970s.

Here's part of the investigation into communist influence in the Packing House Workers Union: http://www.archive.org/stream/communistactivit195202unit/communistactivit195202unit_djvu.txt


Vernon and Davis also frequented the South Side Community Art Center, which was dominated by communists.


In addition, Davis and Vernon Jarrett worked in the late 1940s on the communist influenced, black-run Chicago Defender newspaper. Speaking of which ...




Vernon Jarrett: a partisan journalistic giant




Readers like me can be extremely selective of the journalists we read habitually… We are selective about the journalists to whom we become insatiably addicted, and once hooked we develop a constructive love affair without the romance…


Such was my experience with Vernon Jarrett, an African American journalist in Chicago who died at the age of 86 on May 23. I became a Vernon Jarrett addict, and I am proud of it!


Vernon Jarrett’s career as a journalist in Chicago began and ended at the Chicago Defender, the (BAC - communist influenced) African American daily paper. In between, he was the first Black journalist at the Chicago Tribune, and I first began to read his articles during his tenure at the Chicago Sun-Times 

Jarrett’s claim to fame is that he was a partisan of the cause of African Americans in the broad democratic tradition of Paul Robeson (BAC - a communist)[/b] and W.E.B. DuBois (BAC - a communist). … snip … He championed Harold Washington (BAC - a communist) like a great warrior, and this March, from his hospital bed, wrote an article appealing to Black Chicago to turn out to vote for Barack Obama in the Illinois primaries.

Dee Myles is a Chicago activist and chair of the Education Commission of the Communist Party USA. (Notice how *educators* who are avowed communists keep popping up in Obama's inner circle?) And Paul Robeson, mentioned above, was the man who encouraged Frank Marshall Davis to move to Hawaii. Small world, isn't it? And Vernon Jarrett had many other communist friends. For example, on April 9, 1998, at Chicago’s South Shore Cultural Center, Jarrett hosted a Paul Robeson Citywide Centennial Celebration event, with his old comrade and Party sympathiser Margaret Burroughs and former Communist Party members Studs Terkel and friend Oscar C. Brown.


Vernon Jarrett was a leader of the Chicago chapter of American Youth for Democracy – the youth wing of the Communist Party (http://www.trevorloudon.com/2011/06/valerie-jarretts-father-in-law-was-a-communist-worked-with-obama-mentor-frank-marshall-davis/ ). Frank Marshall Davis was a national sponsor of American Youth for Democracy. Both trained to influence young minds. So maybe Vernon is who planted the seed for Valerie's socialist/communist beliefs as well as Obama's?


Or perhaps it was her mom Barbara Bowman, who as an educator was also trained to influence young minds. For several years she ran the Chicago based Erikson Institute. In 1950 Erikson left the University of California rather than sign an anti-communist loyalty oath. An early Erikson board member was Tom Ayers, father of Bill Ayers. Both communists. The Erickson Institute Board of Trustees also included Ayers' wife, Bernadine Dohrn, a communist. So I bet Barbara Bowman was/is a communist, too. It just stands to reason. ;)


Here's a photo of Barbara Bowman greeting Barack Obama ... mighty friendly:




Barbara Bowman was interviewed for Timuel Black’s “Bridges of Memory: Chicago’s First Wave of Black Migration-an Oral History”. Timuel Black was on the advisory board of the Communist organization, Committees for Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. You'll hear more about him later in this thread. :D


As an adult, Valerie Jarrett worked as Deputy Corporation Counsel for Finance and Development under Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, who himself had numerous socialist and communist *acquaintances*? She worked in the Washington's office until 1991, when she became Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley. And everyone can see by now that Chicago has been a hotbed of socialism and communism for a loooong time. She grew up right in the middle of that radicalism. And it rubbed off onto her.


Yes, Jarrett's life was apparently filled with communists. And it shows. She says (

) the point of government is to "give people a livelihood". That sounds like a socialist/communist to me.


The score is now 18 to NOTHING. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LF's Obama defenders challenged me to name even one socialist in Obama's cabinet. So far I've named three and they've all run from this thread … like chickens from a fox. Let's see if there are any more socialists in Obama's cabinet.


How about Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius? Afterall, Obamacare which she's in charge of is arguably the single most socialist program that Obama has enacted so far. And she took no convincing to support it. None whatsoever. In fact, she admitted in 2007 that she was "all for a single payer system" (i.e., full government control) and said that is her eventual goal. Here, listen to her yourself:



And her efforts to make US healthcare a single payer system are being realized through her draconian (and illegal) actions. Like imposing price controls on private insurance premiums as she did in December of 2010. Congress specifically did not include formal legal authority to explicitly block premium increases in Obamacare.  This was despite the fact that the President asked for it. 


Sebelius, like all hardcore socialists, decided to create law by regulatory fiat. And then after some insurers warned about rising costs, she warned that "there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases." Then she told them to shut up or be locked out of those companies that will participate in government healthcare. That's a very heavy handed socialist attitude.


Single payer is socialism.


I don't know any non-socialists who support it.


Ergo, Sebelius is a hardcore socialist.


And like all socialists, Sebelius is also all for higher taxes. She scored a D in the Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors for 2006.


Plus, like socialists everywhere, she's a global warming enthusiast. She's so extreme in that regard that under her Kansas became the first state to deny the construction of a coal-fired plant based solely on its carbon dioxide emmisions.


Like all socialists, she's in favor of giving state tuition and drivers licenses to illegal aliens. A No Borders type Democrat. A socialist at heart.


And like all socialists, she likes to pontificate about "social justice". Just this last April, she spoke at Al Sharpton's National Action Network Conference (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sebelius-thanks-obamacare-law-student-can-devote-her-career-social-justice ), which was attended by some of the leading social justice advocates in the black community. She boasted that 410,000 African Americans who were uninsured are now insured under their parent's health plan, thanks to Obamacare (never mind whether the government actually has the Constitutional authority to force companies to cover children on their parent's plan until age 26). Sebelius boasted about the 25 year old daughter of a Miami couple who was pursuing a law degree. She said "[Ashley] wants to devote her career to working on social justice issues, which is why she's going to law school.  And she can go ahead and pursue that dream now because she no longer has to worry about getting health coverage." Isn't that just wonderful? :rolleyes:


She said "What Ashley told me is that she was afraid she'd have to go to work for a big firm." That "she didn't want to … snip … choose a job to get some health coverage in the future, but now she can not only stay on her parents' plan as she goes through law school but also make sure that she has affordable coverage when she comes out of law school she can pursue the job of her dreams and really serve her community." Sorry, but Sebelius sounds like every other two-bit socialist out there. Her philosophy is let's redistribute income (i.e., force taxpayers and those who have health insurance to cover the costs of insuring other people's children) so that adults like Ashley can pursue their dreams of … of course … a socialist oriented career.. :rolleyes:


With all the above, it's clear that Sebelius falls right in line with the beliefs and behavior one would expect of the new breed of socialist in the White House.


So I name her #19 on my Challenge list. AND THE FOURTH CABINET MEMBER! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what an authoritarian socialist does, folks:




If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius asserted that she would keep it alive in other ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my, with Obama claiming Executive Privilege to cover up his criminality, you folks might have missed this …




A former classmate of President Barack Obama’s father claims that as a student, the Presidential sire viewed the Soviet Union as a “liberating force.”


The recollections of Naranhkiri Tith are published in Barack Obama: The Story, a new biography by Washington Post reporter David Maraniss released today.


Tith, the son of a former Cambodian Prime Minister, was a close friend of Barack Obama Sr. in the early 1960s, when as classmates the two carried on what Maraniss describes as “a debating road show on communism.”


Tith tells Maraniss, “I never was a rightist person, but I definitely did not believe in any kind of too-strong propaganda, so that saved me from the communist movement.” Maraniss goes on:


On the other hand, BARE-ick, as he called Obama, seemed taken by the anticolonialist stance of the Soviet Bloc and ‘saw it as a liberating force.’

Tith tells Maraniss he does not “think [Obama Sr.] ever belonged to the Communist Party, but he definitely had a hopeful view of communism….And we shouldn’t forget that he was a minority Luo in Kenya, so he felt a double fight, also with the Kikuyu. It was double jeopardy for him. In any case he felt oppressed twice over.”

Yes, it looks like it's time to add Obama's father, Barack H. Obama, to my Challenge list as name #20.


Afterall, Obama wrote a book titled "Dreams FROM my Father".


Obviously, his father had quite an impact on him.


And his father was a hardcore socialist/communist.


The proof? In 1965, he published a paper titled "Problems Facing Our Socialism" in the East Africa Journal. It criticized a paper put out by Tom Mboya in Kenya's Ministry of Economic Planning and Development titled "African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya". Apparently, Mboya's socialism wasn't hardcore enough. Obama Sr, in his paper, advocated 100% taxation of the rich, communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land.


He wrote "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." He wrote that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."


He didn't just want socialism … he wanted communism.


And for some reason Obama forgot to mention this paper in his book about his father. Yet another instance of him trying to hide his background and core beliefs.


Obama said he got his dreams FROM his father. And his father was clearly a hardcore socialist/communist. Here are the two of them together during Obama's impressionable youth:




Obama Sr was also very anti-colonialist. (Communists always claim they are but in this case he might actually have been since he was a locally grown one.) Thus, it would appear that Obama got his anti-colonial ideology from his father as well.


And what better way to fullfil his father's "dream" than to make the US no stronger than any other country or even weaker than other countries? And what better way to do that than weaken our economy by making it socialist … or even communist. Because history shows over and over that path leads to economic ruin. Right?


By the way, guess where Obama's mom, Stanly Ann Dunham met Obama Sr? In a Russian language class. Interesting, isn't it? And her dissertation was a Marxist interpretation of peasant workers in Indonesia. But I'll get to discussing Obama's mom later. Promise.


For now, it looks like the score is 20 to NOTHING. Cant Decide and Totally Rad have really fallen behind. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another top Obama official to add to my Challenge list: Lisa P. Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator.


She has given scores of talks touting the code word "environmental justice" (just like Van Jones), which is closely related to the "social justice" movement. It seeks to even the playing field through governmental “redistribution of wealth” policies. It’s a tenet of socialism, which marginalizes individualism and self-reliance, while promoting collectivism.


Here are just a few examples of her many speeches: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/dff15a5d01abdfb1852573590040b7f7/313ec9a2bc80d677852575fa007b3c42!OpenDocument , http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/07/obamas-epa-chief-lisa-jackson-on-making-the-environment-a-prior/ , http://environmentaljusticeblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/lisa-jackson-speaks-at-ej-conference-in.html , and http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2010/01/12/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/ .


Here, you can listen to her talking about "environmental justice" yourself:



Lisa Jackson is a socialist, who is instituting job killing, economy destroying rules and regulations in the guise of promoting *environmentalism* that are designed to redistribute wealth. Plain and simple.


And she's not alone in Obama's adminstration in doing that. Van Jones was another. And so is Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, who penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper titled "Climate Change Justice" in which he maintained US wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008958 ). He wrote "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". This is the socialist mentality of the Obama administration and make no mistake, Lisa Jackson is a lynchpin in realizing that agenda … as even Obama's regulatory czar essentially admitted. (You'll hear more about Sunstein later in this thread :)).


The EPA under Jackson even released a 55 page guide to help its employees “advance environmental justice” for low-income and minority communities: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/considering-ej-in-rulemaking-guide-07-2010.pdf . The document says "achieving environmental justice is an Agency priority and should be factored into every decision." Every decision. Don't try to tell us she's not a socialist.


She also talks about "social justice" on occasion. Here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a883dc3da7094f97852572a00065d7d8/491137c79eeb3de58525761e0053b56a!OpenDocument , for example, she states that "We need to also make clear that environmentalism goes hand-in-hand with traditional civil rights and social justice issues in our community." She's a socialist and Obama appointed her to one of the most powerful positions in his administration … an agency that has significantly hurt America's economy and shown little regard for private property or rights.


Jackson most certainly drank the socialist's Carbon Tax, Global Warming and Wind/Solar Energy Koolaid. In fact, she admitted she hadn't even read the Waxman-Markey carbon tax bill before her agency released a report claiming the impact of cap and trade would be "modest"? Asked how the EPA could produce a report on a bill they hadn’t even read yet, Jackson said: “We had to make assumptions” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/23/cap-and-trade-costs-not-detailed-in-house-climate-/ ). Just remember folks, who stands to benefit if a Carbon Tax is enacted … socialists … as I showed in this post from another thread: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6252094&postcount=24 .


Like Sebelius, she shows no regard for the law. For example, she circumvented Congress and ordered her agency to regulate greenhouse gases even though Congress hadn't reached a decision on doing that. She's just a typical socialist, governing by fiat rather than laws.


And like ALL socialists, she's a liar. With a straight face she said that EPA mandates on CO2 emissions would "save consumers money"? The Wall Street Journal says that once the restrictions kick in, the cost to a family of four will be about $6,800 per year. And that's by no means her only lie.


Also, like most socialists … she has a very low regard for *the people*. Here she is (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/11/coal-economic-epa-lisa-jackson ) answering a question in an interview just days ago:


Q. If you were writing a headline for your work on the climate issue at EPA, up to now, or for whenever your work is done at EPA, what would you want it to be?


A. "In accordance with the law, we moved forward with sensible, cost effective steps at the federal level on climate, using the Clean Air Act." And I would have a second sentence — see, I can't write headlines! But it would be something like, "The progress at state and local levels, combined with the federal level, does not obviate the need" — you can't use obviate, it's above fifth-grade level! — "does not obviate the need for federal legislation to address this incredibly important challenge for this and future generations."

So her view is that "the people" can't understand anything above a "fifth-grade level". Socialists are ALWAYS elitists when you come right down to it. Obama is clearly one … and so is Lisa Jackson.


Let's see … 21 to NOTHING.


And the leftists have fled.


But I'm only getting started. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you Chicken Liberals haven't heard, John Bryson just stepped down as Secretary of Commerce and Rebecca Blank, Bryson's deputy, became Acting Commerce Secretary.


So naturally, my question is whether either of them are hardcore socialists or communists?


For that matter, did the previous Secretary of Commerce under Obama (John Locke) have socialist or communist leanings?


I'll start with former Secretary of Commerce Gary F. Locke. He was appointed in March of 2009.


Now one would think the Secretary of Commerce should have lots of private-sector experience … so that he/she understands *commerce*. But that wasn't the case with Locke.


He is a career politician … just the sort of bureaucrat to head up an agency staffed by people who like to tell others how to live (and isn't that what socialism/communism is all about?).


Surely Obama was aware that Locke was linked to a major scandal involving the Clinton Department of Commerce called Chinagate?


Surely Obama knew that Locke had ties to John Huang and others who were implicated in that scandal. Here:


http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/24/the-chinagatebuddhist-temple-cash-skeletons-in-gary-lockes-closet/ "The Chinagate/Buddhist temple cash skeletons in Gary Locke’s closet".


John Huang was identified by the CIA, FBI and Congress as a "Chinese agent" during that scandal. And he was a major fundraiser for Locke. Makes you wonder about Locke, doesn't it?


And Locke sure was in China a lot under Obama.


Saying things like this:




Locke said "the US is comprehensively reviewing the export control systems and will remove unnecessary restrictions".

Now do you remember, folks, that Chinagate had to do with China making illegal campaign contributions to Democrat coffers (one of them being Locke's)?


They did it in exchange for an easing of US export controls for what had formerly been highly restricted (in some cases, secret) technologies.


And as a result of that, China acquired much of the computer, missile, satellite, nuclear and manufactoring technology it is now using to make weapons and our balance of payments situation worse.


Yet here's Locke talking about doing the same things.


The Communists liked Clinton. And they liked Locke. The reason's obvious to anyone with two neurons to rub together. ;)


And what did Locke actually accomplish as Obama's Secretary of Commerce?


Is our economic situation with respect to China improved?


No, our trade deficit with them is as big as ever.


Bigger than it was under Bush.


Locke was certainly onboard with some of the more extreme aspects of the Obama's socialist agenda … at least where China was concerned.


For example, he thought we “need to pay” for China’s carbon emissions … spread the wealth to them, so to speak.


Here he is, speaking to the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai:


It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that.

For another, he allowed about 80% of the green technology stimulus money (over $20 billion) to be spent outside the US? That's a good way to weaken America, isn't it? And much of it went to Communist China. The Communists appreciated that, I'm sure.


And you know what Locke is doing now? Obama appointed him the US ambassador to China … of course.


Now Locke may not be a communist or even a socialist. I can't say for sure so I won't add him to my Challenge list. Aren't you relieved?


But what about John Bryson, Locke's replacement? Was he a socialist/communist?


Well, like Locke, he's a big promoter of "green energy" … which as we've seen with Obama supporters like Van Jones is really about socialism and redistributing wealth. In fact, Bryson




served as an adviser on energy and climate issues to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon at a time when the U.N. was pushing anti-growth climate change treaties based on fraudulent and doctored data. Bryson told a U.N. energy conference in 2009 that a global wealth-redistribution program was needed to keep poor people in developing countries from using their own forest resources. He spoke of the need for the "development of law enforcement regimes, development of strong governance practices" in developing nations rather than the need of a free market and democracy to encourage growth.

So he definitely sounds like a hardcore socialist to me.


Darrell Issa described Locke as a "green evangelist". Why? Because was a environmental lawyer and co-founded an environmental activist group, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which is one of the most anti-energy, anti-growth progressive (read socialist) groups around. They are so far to the left that they were against the Keystone XL pipeline based on the bogus claim it would raise gasoline prices. Another clue to their leftist leanings is their being a member and funder of the Apollo Alliance, which I've already noted (http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/125708-a-challenge-to-cant-decide/page__view__findpost__p__2622090 ) is run by a bunch of hardcore socialists and communists (including Jeff Jones, Joel Rogers and Van Jones). NRDC also receives funding from the Tides Foundation, another big promoter of socialist causes (note that socialist George Soros has given millions and millions of dollars to the Tides Foundation). NRDC pushes the global warming agenda and endorsed a document called the Earth Charter which blames capitalism for the world's environmental, social and economic problems. And Bryson helped found it.


As http://news.investors.com/article/574144/201106021903/a-disaster-at-commerce.htm put it,


Bryson supports renewable energy mandates, a carbon tax hiding behind cap-and-trade legislation, a global redistribution of wealth, fighting climate change and restricting domestic development of our vast fossil fuel resources

all of which are completely in line with the agenda of the other hardcore socialists.


So it looks to me like Bryson is sold on the environmental justice end of the socialist agenda. Plus, here's a Commerce Department announcement regarding Bryson's activities:




Secretary Bryson reminded everyone that the legacy of Dr. King is tethered to his core principles of character and service, so the best way to honor his legacy is through service and volunteering in our communities. Dr. King devoted his life to advancing equality, social justice, and economic opportunity for all. 

which suggests Bryson might be a social justice advocate as well.


So I have no qualm adding his name as #22 on my Cant Decide Challenge list. And he's the FIFTH member of Obama's Cabinet to be named so far.


Totally Rad and Cant Decide wanted you to think I couldn't even name one. Now where are they? They've flown the





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that we know Bryson had/has socialist leanings, what about Rebecca Blank, who is taking over for Bryson? Is she a socialist too?


Well it doesn't look good for her. Because her resume suggests she's far more interested in wealth redistribution than wealth creation (which is what a Commerce Secretary should really focus on). Plus, she's another Obama sycophant with NO private sector experience. Her background is that of a ivory tower (i.e., university) "poverty expert" … that's a natural for a socialist, don't you think?


She was co-director of the National Poverty Center, which likes to exaggerate the state of poverty in the US and which is filled with socialist-minded people looking for ways to redistribute wealth. And she's a board member of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which is currently headed by a DSA member named Larry Mishel.


According to http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/516-economic-policy-institute , EPI was founded by "Jeff Faux, who has sponsored and spoken at DSA events. Before the EPI, he was co-director of the National Center for Economic Alternatives (NCEA). His co-director was Gar Alperovitz who has written books such as America Beyond Capitalism and Strategy and Program: Two Essays Toward a New American Socialism, where he openly advocated using socialist ideas to make the United States a "fairer" nation. Faux and Alperovitz advocated a national committee to review and guide the re-development of selected major industries in the United States. As the link notes "One professor at Columbia University, writing in The New York Times, called their ideas 'a poorly disguised version of national planning.'" "Over time, they envisioned the replacement of large U.S. corporations with new institutions directly accountable to the public." They sound like hardcore socialists … and Rebecca Blank is willingly associated with them.


In fact, many of EPI's members are linked to DSA or IPS (which I've previously shown to be a nest of socialists and communists). And EPI members were part of JournoList before the public attention JournoList received caused it to be shut down. For those who don't know, JournoList was an e-mail group of left leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, political analysts and academics who were caught coordinating what news to report (and how to shape it) in order to favor Obama and the Democratic Party. Scores of it's members were DSA members or DSA affiliates. And some, like Jared Bernstein (who was Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Biden), were EPI employees prior to joining the Obama administration.


I think the above facts alone point to Rebecca Blank's economic philosophy.


No non-socialist would ever want to be associated with such people or their organizations.


But there's more to suggest her socialist bent. Afterall, she is an *expert* on poverty and she seems to think (see her latest book "It Takes A Nation: A New Strategy For Fighting Poverty) that the solution to the Nation's poverty is to spend more money on anti-Poverty programs (like Food Stamps). I guess she thinks the 20 TRILLION dollars that we threw down that hole the last 50 years wasn't enough. But then socialists never do. :rolleyes:


And by the way, it was Rebecca Blank who pushed through the revision of the poverty measure such that we will now ALWAYS have poverty because the new poverty measure … her poverty measure … isn't about how poor you are, but about inequality (http://www.brookings.edu/events/2010/05/06-poverty-rate#ref-id=20100506_poverty_rate_blank and http://article.nationalreview.com/427180/obamas-new-poverty-measurement/robert-rector ). So at heart she may be more than a socialist … she may be a communist because she wants every outcome to be equal. :)


Therefore, I name Rebecca Blank my 23rd Challenge list name and Obama's SIXTH Cabinet member (even if she's only *Acting*). :D



Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there is yet another member of Obama's Cabinet that I haven't mentioned so far …


Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education. He's my 24th name.


Obviously, he must be inner circle.


What makes me think he's a socialist/communist?


For startes, Arne Duncan ran the same Chicago school district that Obama/Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) sought to reform (by giving lots of money to the likes of Mike Klonsky, a communist, remember?).


Duncan helped promote CAC and still holds to their "social justice" promoting philosophy.


And how did Chicago's schools fair under Arne Duncan's leadership from June 2001 through December 2008?


Well, in 2007, only 10% of black fourth graders in Chicago reached the proficiency level in reading and for black eighth graders, only 9% reached reading proficiency. In math, only 8% of black students reached proficiency in fourth grade and just 6% reached proficiency in eighth grade.  And this is despite spending $13-$14,000 per student which was among the highest of any major city. In 2001, when he took over the position, just 27.2% of students in Chicago's public schools met or exceeded 11th Grade state standards. In 2008, when he left the position of head of the Chicago public schools, only 27.2% met or exceeded 11th Grade state standards. In other words, there was no improvement under his watch. NONE.


Yet Obama chose him to be his Secretary of Education because he was a supposed success as head of Chicago's schools. Why?


Obviously, improvement in the nation's schools wasn't/isn't Obama's objective.


Because Obama knows that improvement wasn't the purpose of Arne's reforms.


The purpose was indoctrination in the socialist/communist agendas of "social justice" and "environmental justice" and "fairness".


And Arne Duncan is an expert at that.


After his nomination as Secretary of Education, Duncan said "I really view education as the civil rights fight of our generation. ... snip ... This is a fight to me that's about a lot more than education. It's really a fight for social justice."


One of Duncan's key efforts to enact "social justice" involves a push for IB (International Baccalaureate) schools (http://royalheir.blogspot.com/2010/08/un-moves-into-public-schools.html ).


IB schools are what Arne means when he talks about Charter schools. In 1998, prior to Duncan, Chicago had one IB school. Under Duncan, that number grew to 15. And how'd they do?


In 2009, only ONE of Arne's IB schools met the NCLB benchmarks (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/downloads/CPS.pdf ) in reading. And it didn't meet the science benchmark.


In fact, half of the IB schools came in BELOW the 27.2% figure mentioned above.


Yet in March 2005, Arne Duncan was quoted saying “We're proud to be leading the nation in incorporating this program.”


The reason Duncan doesn't care how poorly those schools performed is that their purpose was/is INDOCTRINATION.


Here's what an article in educationnews.org had to say about that recently:




IBO insists that its beliefs and values form the core of the IB curriculum. IBO calls its curriculum "the best possible curriculum to be enjoyed by all who participate." What is this curriculum? The same paragraph in which IBO claims to have the "best possible curriculum" also clarifies that the essence of the IB curriculum is teaching students "those human values which are recognized as universal; these are embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, [as stated in Article 26] adopted and proclaimed by the General assembly of the United Nations in 1948"


… snip …


IB believes that it teaches the universal beliefs and values which are superior to the limited beliefs and values of the United States. … snip … IBO is committed to teaching the beliefs and values contained in numerous UN treaties and accords the United States does not support


… snip …


The IB curriculum in A.C. Flora High School in South Carolina illustrates how the IB values are incorporated into math and language classes. A.C. Flora describes its IB curriculum as follows:


At A. C. Flora the French classes have continuously integrated global concerns, such as pollution, endangered species, health issues (obesity, aging, AIDS, cloning), space research, human rights, and the death penalty…


… snip …


Math Studies curriculum explores problems concerning the weather, environmental protection, conservation, and energy. . . The statistics unit will examine a variety of problems from a global perspective, such as the disparity of wealth distribution between first and third world countries.


… snip ...


In Latin, [at A. C. Flora] an ancient language, students will examine the ancient world as a sounding board to measure and compare the global issues in a modern world. Students will discuss the impact on the Roman world, as well as their own, of such topics as women's rights, slavery, and national imperialism.


… snip …


When students are studying "wealth distribution" and "national imperialism," they are not learning much math and Latin. The United States is treated as an "imperialist" country by IB, of course, and is compared to Japan during World War II. The main concern about IB, however, is this: When the beliefs and values of IB are even taught in math, French and Latin classes, as well as in every other class, it becomes abundantly clear that IB is more about indoctrination than about education. Indeed, at numerous points IBO says that its purpose is teaching the beliefs and values that create students who are "world citizens."


… snip …


IBO not only teaches its own worldview, it simultaneously undermines the beliefs and values of the United States (also called the "American creed"). … snip … The American creed includes national sovereignty; universal truth; the equality of all persons; God-given, inalienable rights of life, liberty and property; limited government; free enterprise; natural law; rule by the people; constitutional government and other related values and principles.


It is important to understand that the American creed says its principles are true not only for Americans, but are also true and right for all people. The principles are universal.


It is this universal nature of the American creed that is consistently undermined by IB. That is, IB teaches that our creed may be acceptable to some Americans, but it does not contain universal truths and values that are good for all Americans and certainly not good for other nations. The IB curriculum, for example, makes the following accusation against free enterprise:


"Both Democrats and the Republicans supported a more or less unrestrained capitalist system. They believed that it offered unique incentives to hard work and opportunities for all—even though there was plenty of evidence that it left many people very poor and a few grotesquely rich."


This IB description means that Americans may think of free enterprise as being good for all people and nations, but it is actually only good for some people and nations while it is bad for others. Free enterprise is not a universal value according to IB.

And then the article notes that whereas the American creed promotes the right to bear arms, protection against double jeopardy, separation of church and state, limited government, reserved powers and the recognition of Natural Law, the UN-IBO *creed* has just the opposite set of values. Given the above anti-American bias, and the fact that IB states that the goal of their courses (such as geography and environmentalism) are to promote "social justice" and "equity" through resource redistribution, ask yourself if Duncan isn't in fact promoting a hardcore socialist agenda?


In making that decision, it might also help to know where the IB program originated … the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO has been from its beginnings a socialist/communist backed and run organization.


First, it was founded by Archibald MacLeish. McCarthy said that MacLeish had belonged to more Communist front organizations than any man he had investigated. As evidence of that, MacLeish did such things as (http://conservapedia.com/Archibald_MacLeish ) submit articles to the Communist Party paper "New Masses" whose editor was Whittaker Chambers, a communist and soviet spy (http://conservapedia.com/Whittaker_Chambers ). He chaired the Second Congress of the League of American Writers which was a "communist front 'founded under Communist auspices in 1935,' according to a 1942 report by President Franklin Roosevelt's Attorney General Francis Biddle". He endorsed the "Progressive Librarians Council, founded by Soviet agents Philip and Mary Jane Keeney." He worked with Alger Hiss, a convicted Soviet spy, who helped found the UN along with MacLeish.


UNESCO's first Director was Julian Huxley, who was a member of the socialist/communist Fabian Society (note that Huxley only objected to the violent Marxist/Stalinist variety of Communism). He was criticized for appointing many communists to key positions at UNESCO. His response (in his book, "UNESCO: Its Purpose and Philosophy": http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000681/068197eo.pdf ) was to say the UN's purpose was "help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy", that UNESCO's philosophy must be "an evolutionary scientific world humanism", and that "some sort of world government will be required". This much sounds like the rhetoric that we were hearing from Communists of that era too.


In 1956 the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that "by far the worst danger spot, from the standpoint of disloyalty and subversive activity among Americans employed by international organizations, is UNESCO. In 1972 British intelligence branded UNESCO a Soviet intelligence body. In 1983 France expelled 47 Soviet diplomats on charges of espionage. Twelve of them worked for UNESCO. Three of the 12 were in the secretariat, close to the secretary-general himself, who still kept them on the payroll after that. And by 1983, the IB program was well underway. IB was designed by communists to promote a communist agenda. Reagan, wisely and to his credit, withdrew the US from UNESCO. George Bush, foolishly, had the US rejoin the organization although nothing had really changed. And now we are paying the price for that foolishness.


It was a woman named Marie-Thérèse Maurette who created the framework of what would become the IB program in a 1947 UN handbook titled "Is There A Way of Teaching for Peace?". That document advised doing 4 key things: downplay nationality, teach "peace" (which as defined by the UN requires social equity), teach "sustainable development" (by putting resources out of reach and redistributing the rest) and teach local-to-global activism. Now doesn't that sound a lot like the agenda preached by the Obama administration, folks? Even George Walker, IB's former Director General, admitted (http://www.ibo.org/dg/emeritus/speeches/documents/chiefexam_oct04.pdf ) that "Maurette had strong left-wing political views". All four of those things are being used by socialists to undermine America, the free market and capitalism. Maurette was a socialist. Some say a Fabian socialist.


Still another example that points to IB's philosophy is Monique Seefried. In 2003, while President of the IB Board of Governors, she gave a speech entitled, “IBO, a World of Givers" in which she declared: “At the core of an IB education, starting with our youngest students, is the aim to develop caring young people with a commitment to action and service……This is the most idealistic part of the education our students receive…It is also essential in developing in them the drive to become an agent of social change in our ever evolving societies, where there is still so much to do to reach an ideal of social justice”. As already pointed out, the ideal of social justice is just another way of saying the ideal of communism.


Here's another example of how Arne Duncan has shown his socialist leanings. Under his watch, http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/03/22/u-s-department-of-education-partners-with-george-soros-and-avowed-socialists/ , the Department of Education has partnered with George Soros' Open Society Institute and a group named Creative Commons in what they call a "Why Open Education Matters" competition. George Soros, as already noted, is a socialist/communist. Creative Commons was founded by Lawrence Lessig, another socialist/communist who wants to make all digital *code* "free". Lessig has also known Obama directly (since their days of teaching law at the University of Chicago) and was an advisor to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign (you may hear more about him later). Lessig has worked closely with a Marxist name Robert McChesney who has called for the dismantling of the US capitalist system (in a column he wrote "In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles”). McChesney founded Free Press, a Soros-funded publication that has had communists such as Van Jones on it's board of directors and which lobbies for government control of the news media. Need I say more?


No, but I will.


Duncan recently spoke to Al Sharpton's National Action Network (which is all about social justice) and was asked what he thought about schools teaching students how to protest and about bringing students to political protests. His response



was "Thank you – that’s a great question. I think whether it’s, you know, children in elementary school, middle school, or high school, or college, getting our students engaged in the civic life of our country is hugely important. So getting young people engaged – protest being a part of it – but creating clubs, participating in service, giving back – not just being recipients of service but being the givers of service … The more our young people are actively engaged, I think the more we’re going to have a strong and vibrant democracy. And so, I think, having young people at the earliest ages doing things that are somehow non-traditional, I’m a big supporter of. "


Have you folks ever notice how socialists and communists time and time again use the youth to promote their movements … be it China, the USSR, Cuba or, for that matter, Nazi Germany ... through *protest*? Forget about teaching children academics. It's community activism that matters to socialists. It's called indoctrination folks … the sort of indoctrination ONLY found in socialist and communist societies. And here's an example of Chicago's schools teaching students how to protest during a week in March coincidently called "Social Justice Week": http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2012/04/24/indoctrination_101_chicago_school_teaching_students_how_to_protest_part_1 . And this was Arne's Duncan's old school district. Think he didn't have anything to do with it? If so you are truly gullible.


Another sign of Duncan's radicalism is that he participated in a three day Education Reform Meeting in which Bill Ayers participated (http://www.wnd.com/2009/10/113087/ ). Michael Giovannetti, executive director of the Renaissance Group to which they spoke. said "no issue came up with regard to Ayers speaking” and praised Ayers as “one of most outstanding professionals in education.” Giovannetti said “he is a model of what every teacher should be.” And Duncan must agree.


I think it's clear from all the above that Arne Duncan is at heart a socialist/communist.


So I give him the 24th slot on my Cant Decide Obama Likes Socialists And Communists Challenge.


And he's the SEVENTH member of Obama's Cabinet to get that *honor*.


Remember when Cant Decide and Totally Rad were taunting me to provide the name of just one member of Obama's Cabinet who is a socialist?


Well here I've provided them SEVEN and those two are nowhere to be found.








Almost faster than a bucket of Kentucky Fried at an Obama dinner:





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the Supreme Court ruling on immigration in which Elena Kagan was the vote that gave Obama a partial victory, I think it's time to name her as #24 on my Obama's Inner Circle Hardcore Socialists and Communists Challenge list.


I can't imagine how anyone could claim she's not inner circle. Surely even CD and TR would admit that Obama had something to do with making her one of the Supremes.


Surely they would admit that Kagan has been instrumental in promoting many of the socialist aspects of Obama's agenda … like Obamacare (I'll discuss her role in that in a moment) and now immigration.


She was even the attorney who defended Obama in all the suits filed against him with the Supreme Court demanding that he prove his citizenship. Here are some examples from the Supreme Court website of that:










And it's equally easy to prove she's a hardcore socialist/communist.


First, look at her Princeton thesis, "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933". In it, she lamented the fact that free enterprise overcame socialism and concluded (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/elena_kagan_radical.asp ) that “In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness.” "Socialism's greatness"? Only a socialist would say that.

She wondered, “Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?" She asks these question because she wants to know how to make a radical party attain that status (and must be delighted that Obama and The New Party finally managed to do it).


She wrote "The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope." She thought the demise of the Socialist Party's power was "a sad" one? She's preaching that all radicals unite? Only a hardcore socialist would talk like that.


Finally, in the "Acknowledgments" section of her thesis, she specifically thanked her brother Marc, “whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas.”


Seriously, it's pretty clear what her own "political ideas" became back then.


But has she changed them since?


We know she sought out a job as a law clerk for Abner Mikva in Chicago. There is MUCH to suggest that he was a socialist or communist (you'll be hearing more about him since Mikva is a direct and vocal supporter of Obama, and first met Obama when he was in Harvard).


We also know that Kagan accepted jobs as Bill Clinton's White House counsel (so did Mikva, by the way), Deputy Assistant for Domestic Policy, and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy. I've already presented information indicating Clinton's socialist connections.


When she went back to academia, becoming a Dean at Harvard, two of her main accomplishments were hiring hardcore socialist Cass Sunstein (who is now Obama’s Regulatory Czar, so you'll be hearing more about him soon as well) and socialist Lawrence Lessig (already mentioned earlier).


In 1992, Kagan and Sunstein co-authored a flattering pamphlet on Justice Thurgood Marshall, perhaps because Marshall was big on "social justice". Marshall's view of the Constitution is embodied in this statement by him: "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up." And now Kagan, his former law clerk, is on the court. Think about that and what a socialist thinks is "right".


For example, in 2003, as Dean of Harvard, she refused to allow the American military to meet with prospective recruits on campus. She felt that was *right*. Never mind that eventually, the Supreme Court reversed, by a 9-0 decision, an appellate court’s ruling that supported her stand. I guess you could say that in 2003 she was still to the left of the most leftist Judge on the Supreme Court. That is pretty far left.


And now we come to Obamacare. Kagan appears to think it is "right" to leak the decision to Obama (why else have his minions been coming out and attacking the court in the last few days?). No past Justice thought that was *right*. But Kagan is a hardcore socialist and their history shows they think the ends justify the means. Tradition and rules mean nothing if you *believe* you are "right".


Kagan believes in the authority of the state to mandate health insurance, so she'll fight efforts to repeal Obamacare by any means available. She served as the administration’s chief legal adviser on challenges to federal law, especially Supreme Court challenges. If the court does strike down the law, then obviously her legal advice wasn't very expert or it was influenced by her own socialist filters.


She cheered enactment of Obamacare and had personally assigned her top deputy in the DOJ to defend the law (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/kagan-sits-judgment-obamacare-despite-cheering-its-passage-and-assigning-lawyer-defend ). Yet, once she was a SC Justice, she and the Obama administration claimed that she had been walled off from discussions of Obamacare and therefore would be eligible to hear the case. But emails and documents subsequently released show the she and administration LIED about that. Remember, folks, to socialists and communists the ends justify the means.


And just like in the Fast and Furious case, the administration has refused to release other emails to and from her that would show the full extent of the lie. Holder refused claiming they include "a DOJ attorney’s thoughts on a legal issue … regarding the expected [health care] litigation.” Now think about that for a moment. Saying these emails should be withheld because they include legal deliberations over the health care law directly contradicts the claim that Kagan was not involved with discussions on the topic. Because she was, she should have recused herself from the upcoming ruling by the Supreme Court. But socialists will never follow the rules themselves because the ends justify the means. Ask any of them. Or just look at what Obama is now doing with regard to the Arizona immigration case.


Kagan also advocates a larger role for the President in regulating the the private sector and individual lives. For example, she's so far to the left that the Supreme Court had to scold her in an 8-1 opinion in United States v. Stevens, a case that Kagan argued in front of the Supreme Court as solicitor general for Obama. The court said that her argument … which was that free speech should be limited based on the value it has on society … was “startling and dangerous.” Limiting free speech? Why that sounds like something a hardcore socialist or communist might say.


And by the way, the ironic thing about Kagan being nominated by Obama for the Supreme Court is that here's what Obama said after George Bush nominated Harriet Meirs to the Court:


since her experience does not include serving as a judge, we have yet to know her views on many of the critical constitutional issues facing our country today. In the coming weeks, we'll need as much information and forthright testimony from Ms. Miers as possible so that the U.S. Senate can make an educated and informed decision on her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Obama went on to object to her being, in his words, "a blank slate." Indeed, Miers' nomination was eventually derailed by two complaints: that she was a "crony" of the president and that nobody knew what views she really had on the vast majority of questions facing the Supreme Court. Obama voted against her on that basis.


But how was she any different than Kagan? In the nearly 20 years since becoming a law professor, Kagan published a total of three law review articles, along with a couple of short essays and two brief book reviews. She got tenure at Chicago in 1995 on the basis of a single article in The Supreme Court Review. Until she was nominated as solicitor general by Obama, she had never litigated a single case. On the vast majority of issues before the court, Kagan had no stated opinion. No one knew any more about where she stood on issues facing the court than they did Miers. And she was very definitely a "crony" of Obama. Yet she was ok with Democrats where Miers was not. It is called hypocrisy, folks. It's called the ends justify the means.


So Eleana Kagan is now #25 on my Challenge list.


Anyone want to challenge my including her?


{crickets?} :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Did I get the right answer, or hmmm, what do you think? Should we form a commttee? I can........t.....Breathe from ROFLMAOing.


I have two other challenges going and they are 0fer on both

What job skills did oblowme have in 07?

In CREATION thread I asked the libidiots, "where is any evidence of evolving species in the fossil record"?

Nothing. No free thinkers by the libidiots anywhere I can find. All cowards who hide stupidity with name calling they never grew out of cause they never got spanked or disciplined at all. Children with no direction loosed on society. Yet they wonder why bullies rule school. Etc..

Edited by Spirited1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since his name is going to keep coming up in this thread, it's time to add Cass Sunstein Administrator of the White House Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs (i.e., Obama's Regulatory Czar) to the Cant Decide Challenge list. 


And then tomorrow I'll add his wife's name, since she's also a socialist/communist (birds of a feather and so on ...). :)


Sunstein was a faculty member at the University of Chicago Law School, where he worked alongside Barack Obama for more than a decade. He's been very active in Obama's campaigns and obviously, in his current government position, he must be considered a member of the inner circle. He's an important member of it, too, because regulation allows President Obama to make many changes without going through the obstacle that Congress and the Constitution pose to his agenda. Socialists historically love bureaucrats who can be directed to *regulate* "change" rather than having to go through the *tedium* of approval by a free populace.


Mr. Sunstein's belief system is so far to the left as to almost be called "fringe" in some cases. For example, in a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein called for banning ALL hunting in the United States.  And he even wrote a 2004 book, Animals, in which he said animals should be able to sue, with humans as their representatives.


Over the years, Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. He's also against private gun ownership. In other words, he's not a big believer in the First or Second Amendments. But then socialists and communists rarely do champion a free press or the right of individuals to own guns. They are among the first rights to go when socialists take over.


As I already noted earlier, he penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper titled "Climate Change Justice" in which he said that US wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008958 ). He wrote "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". In other words, he's a sly and sneaky socialist.


He wrote "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.” But in reality, he and Obama are not talking about "willing" self-sacrifice. What Obama and his followers have been working on is to coercively take huge amounts of money from Americans taxpayers (i.e, not their constituency) and redistribute that to other nations, many of which are outright unfriendly and socialist/communist, via the UN. Ever hear of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433)? It's one of the few pieces of legislation that Obama introduced as a US Senator. If passed, it would have obligated the US to give 0.7% of GDP to the UN (talk about wealth redistribution!). And it required the US to work toward achievement the UN Millennium Development Goals (a laundry list of agendas spouted by socialists). And by the way, it's not dead. Bill Gates (one of the useful idiots) is still pushing for it's passage.


With regard to the current topic, Sunstein openly calls for bringing socialism to the US. In his 2004 book “The Second Bill of Rights,” he wrote,


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).

So first, he blames the absence of socialism in America on racism by whites. :rolleyes: Then he says


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.

Notice that he calls a job, health care and a social minimum "rights" … whereas liberty, free speech and freedom of religion are merely "important". He then laments,


In a variety of ways, subtle and less subtle, public and private actions have made it most difficult for socialism to have any traction in the United States.

As if a communist nation has actually attained any of those wonderful "rights" he named anywhere in the world at any time. :rolleyes:


In “The Second Bill of Rights” book, Sunstein also proposed a new “bill of rights” in which he advanced the notion that "rights" be granted for such items as (1) a useful and remunerative job, (2) earning enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation, (3) a decent home, (5) medical care, (6) protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment, and (7) a good education. Now doesn't he sound like every other socialist/communist throughout history? ;)


And Sunstein has been active in trying to change the Constitution to reflect those "rights". In April 2005, he opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled “The Constitution in 2020” (http://keywiki.org/index.php/Constitution_2020 ). A similar conference has been held each year since (http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2020Constitution.htm ), bankrolled by socialist George Soros. It seeks to create a “progressive” (read socialist) consensus on what the Constitution should be by the year 2020. And suggests a strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might implement those "changes".


Sunstein is a very serious socialist, folks … someone trying to effect socialism in the US via both open and devious means. Which is why I name Cass Sunstein #26 on my Challenge list. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you know who has Obama's back.




CPUSA Says Re-electing Obama is “Absolutely Essential”


… snip …


Since 1988, the CPUSA has not run its own candidates for president and vice-president, preferring instead to work through the Democratic Party.

Now what's that say about the Democratic Party since Clinton came along? Hmmmm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samantha Power, wife of Cass Sunstein, is #27 on my Challenge list.


She's certainly inner circle since Obama appointed her Director for Multicultural Affairs on the National Security Council. In fact, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, told the New York Times that “she is clearly the foremost voice for human rights within the White House” and "she has Obama’s ear." And by all accounts she does given that she's said to be the architect behind the Libya attack.


And besides being a virulent anti-semite, she's a socialist.


She has willingly associated herself with many a socialist/communist, including her VERY RADICAL husband.


She signed, for example, an April 2003 Statement on Cuba that was initiated and circulated by DSA member Leo Casey. In fact, many of the 120 or so people who signed the petition were known members of DSA, including Theresa Alt, Dave Anderson, Stanley Aronowitz, Bogdan Denitch, Bill Dixon, Nancy Fraser, Andrew Hammer, Richard Healey, Michael Hirsch, James Hughes, Maurice Isserman, Mark Levinson, Maxine Phillips, Michael Pugliese, Michele Rossi, Joseph Schwartz, Jason Schulman, Timothy Sears and Ian Williams.


To give you an idea of how far, far to the left she is, during the 2008 campaign, as Obama's foreign policy advisor, she boasted of Obama's desire to sit down with Syrian President al-Asad, a hardcore socialist ... and a brutal dictator. Then she called Hillary a "monster" because she wasn't radical enough, and ended up having to resign from Obama's campaign and go to work for George Soros' think tank, The International Crisis Group. But isn't it just like two-faced Obama to bring her back on board once he was elected, figuring Hillary supporters would have no memory of that incident and figuring the two socialists could work things out. And I guess they have.


And just look at those around her now? She's literally surrounded by like minded socialists. You know what they say … birds of a feather.


Powers founded the The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. It had a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 UN commission that created "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), a global military doctrine which is based on the idea that sovereignty can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.” It was used to justify the attack on Libya by UN and US forces (without the authorization of Congress, by the way … remember, with socialists the ends always justify the means).


The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCRP), which is the world's leading advocate of P2P, is funded by socialist George Soros' Open Society Institute. Power and a GCRP advisory-board member named Gareth Evans were joint keynote speakers at a number of events where they championed R2P together.  Evans is a hardcore Australian Fabian Socialist who has written numerous books and articles on both Fabianism and Socialism, including "Australians First Fabians: Middle-Class Radicals, Labour Activists and the Early Labour Movement", "Reshaping the Socialist Objective", "Socialism and the Australian Constitution" and "Democratic Socialism and Human Rights".


The truth is that George Soros promotes what has been termed "War Socialism" … which had it's roots in the Wilsonian era (a socialist) and has been practiced by liberals ever since then. War Socialism is liberals using war as an excuse to expand governmental power. It's happened over and over. And what Soros and Powers are now doing through their support of islamofascist groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood is perpetuating revolution against the US, Israel, Christianity and capitalism, who they see as the primary enemies to furthering their socialist agenda worldwide.


And now Powers has been named Obama's Atrocities Czar, heading the newly created Atrocities Prevention Board, from which she'll be the one to decide who to invade next. Notice that she hasn't moved on Syria … perhaps because it's already unfriendly with the US and has a socialist government. Notice that she hasn't done anything about the fact that the vast majority of Egyptian women face the loss of rights and even genital mutilation under The Socialist Popular Alliance Party that Obama has now helped come to power in Egypt. In fact, Powers reportedly told Obama to undercut Mubarak (who was friendly to the US and had improved conditions for women in Egypt) in order to please the socialist Muslim Brotherhood. Notice that she hasn't done anything about Iran which has committed all sorts of human rights abuses. But then Iran has been very helpful to her socialist friends amongst the Palestinians, The Muslim Brotherhood and in Hamas. And notice that Powers hasn't done anything about the atrocities being committed by North Korea's Communist dictatorship.


But Powers sure seems to dislike the US and Isreal. She authored a book "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," which implicated the United States in virtually every major genocide of the last century. And back in 2002, Power told a University of California at Berkeley interviewer that America should invade Israel to prevent Israeli "human rights abuses." That's how radical her views are, folks. Here, you can listen to her yourself:



Never mind that the arabs had been and are responsible for by far most of the human rights abuses in the region and even to their own people. Powers is an extreme and dangerous radical.


Socialist Tom Hayden recently wrote (http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/tom-hayden-samantha-power-goes-to-war.html ) that Power sees war as an “instrument for achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” And how could she not have radical socialist or even communist values given that she recently married one of the most extreme socialists/communists in Obama's entire administration?


The score is now 27 to NOTHING.


And I'm taking inventory at LF …





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...