Friday, November 21, 2014

Fox News: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Talks Obama's Illegal Executive Order; Illegal Alien Fake IDs

"He [Obama] wants all these criminals to get a pass and get back on the street". 


Looking Back: Fed Created in 1913, JP Morgan Buys 25 Newspapers in 1917, Replaced Editors

John Pierpont Morgan
When certain men can print their own money, and charge interest on that money while bringing the U.S. Federal Government along with them on this miscarriage of justice that we call the Federal Reserve, this is criminal genius if ever there was such a thing.

When certain men can also control the media, propagandizing America for their own financial gain (and surely to hush the news over their Federal Reserve treachery) this is equally impressive, equally evil and equally treasonous to the highest order. 
Controlling the money and controlling the media are no less relevant today and no less wicked then it was near the turn of the twentieth century. 

With staggering amounts of money and power lying in the hands of only a few, can there be any doubt that political leaders and organizations claiming to do good are doing the bidding of these who seek to enslave us all? 

To deny that the bloodlines of men like, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, along with Paul Warburg and other such banksters are not still controlling and plotting against the masses, as they sit high atop their elitist pyramid, is great naivet√©.  

Call it the New World Order, call it "world governance", call it the coming one world government or call it the antichrist system, but it is now upon us and though it has not reached its zenith or come into complete maturity, it certainly is no longer in its infancy. 

You won't likely hear about it for some strange reason in the mainstream media, unless of course it is ridiculing those who are aware of its far reaching tentacles as "conspiracy theorists".



U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947

Congressman Calloway announced that the
J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and
inserted their own editors, in order to control the media.

The CHAIRMAN: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Texas, a member of the [defense appropriations] committee.
Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a statement that I have of how the newspapers of this country have been handled by the munitions manufacturers.
The CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Texas asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record by inserting a certain statement. Is there any objection?
Mr. MANN: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, may I ask whether it is the gentleman's purpose to insert a long list of extracts from newspapers?
Mr. CALLAWAY: No; it will be a little, short statement not over 2 ½ inches in length in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, under unanimous consent, I insert into the Record at this point a statement showing the newspaper combination, which explains their activity in the war matter, just discussed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORE]:
“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.
“These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.
“This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States Army and Navy, and the possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.
“This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of the stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915. They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the National Congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the Army and Navy under false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is that it is 'patriotism.' They are playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people.”


J.P. Morgan & John D. Rockefeller… The Original Banksters

By John A. Heffern Jr

J.P. Morgan and Company, like many big businesses today, was not satisfied with its already huge profits and success. J.P. Morgan took what he could and soon realized through mergers and acquisitions of new companies, he could corner and manipulate the free market. We haven't seen a conglomerate of this scale in our time since Microsoft was broken down by the Department of Justice in 1998.

In business, in the late 1800's, the level of wealth one could obtain reached never before seen heights. Two of the most famous names in the business world in the early 1900's were J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller. These names were synonymous with success. Each respectively sat atop a very well-structured and tightly controlled empire he had worked tirelessly to create.

Rockefeller and Morgan clashed on many fronts in the business world. They were powerful on their own, but combined, untouchable. They agreed on this key idea regarding monetary reform: the imporance of an increased "elasticity" of the money supply. They agreed they would both benefit if they worked together to push for and collaborated on this reform movement.

They could make exorbitant amounts of money from the creation of a centralized system that was able to expand money and credit as much as they wished. Decorated economist Murray Rothbard explains in his book, A History of Money and Banking in the United States, that Morgan and his fellow bankster John D. Rockefeller realized, "the only way to establish a cartelized economy, an economy that would ensure their continued economic dominance and high profits, would be to use the powers of the government to establish and maintain cartels by coercion. In other words, to transform the economy from roughly laissez-faire to centralized and coordinated statism."

Under the guise of an entity to promote fairness and competition in business, Morgan and Rockefeller created an organization to ensure the dominance of their monopoly. It has gone through many stages and been called many things, but at the end of the day, what they created was the Federal Reserve.

In a business sense, for Morgan and Rockefeller, it was undoubtedly a genius plan. To the public, it appeared as though this new watch dog organization could ensure the free market thrives. Behind the scenes, the newly formed group would be able to control price cutting by rival companies and competitive business practices. This was an opportunity to stint the growth of competitors and tighten their stranglehold on the markets in America.

None of this happened overnight. A decade's worth of work would be necessary before the fruits of their labor began to morph into what we know today as the Federal Reserve. Countless elections and schmoozing of government officials occurred. However, the government officials were not the only crowd the banksters needed to win over. The glue that held this movement together was the intellectuals. The nation's intellectuals were and still are the "professional opinion-molders in society." It just so happened the nation's top minds were eagerly awaiting a new challenge.

Rockefeller and Morgan both knew they needed to avoid going up against the one entity left that had the power to dismantle their empire… the U.S. government. By figuring out a way to empower the government with a new agency, they were able to streamline the movement and get the support they needed at every level.

The above originally appeared at The Project to Restore America.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Hillary Clinton: 'I Support The President's Decision'

In case anyone was concerned that perhaps she actually cared about the Constitution, we have our answer. 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a statement supporting President Obama’s decision to grant executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants in America. “I support the President’s decision to begin fixing our broken immigration system and focus finite resources on deporting felons rather than families,” she said in a carefully worded statement released after Obama’s speech on Thursday evening.
Clinton asserted that she was “hopeful” that the Senate Gang of Eight bill would have passed the House, but that congress had failed in its duty.
“Their abdication of responsibility paved the way for this executive action, which follows established precedent from Presidents of both parties going back many decades,” she said.
Clinton reminded members of Congress that they had to “finish the job” by supporting bipartisan immigration reform.
“Our disagreements on this important issue may grow heated at times, but I am confident that people of good will and good faith can yet find common ground,” she said.

Fundamental Transformation Continues: Obama Grants Amnesty to Millions of Illegals

This is Community Organizing at it's finest.
Barack Hussein Obama, has taken his gloves off and declared war on the American Constitution, the laws of this nation and ultimately, war on Americans themselves.
In what should be his final two years in office, unless he decides to sign and executive order stay in power for four more years, he has single-handedly orchestrated one of the most devious and lawless plots imaginable to destroy this Republic; ensuring that millions of brand new Democrats will be voting in 2016 and tipping all elections to the Democrats favor.
He of course knows exactly what he is doing and the illegality of his actions, because he has said that repeatedly. Tape don't lie....

The ramifications of this illegal act by an illegal President if not stopped, may actually seal the fate of America's fundamental transformation.   
Some may believe or argue that there is just no way this subversion of the Constitution will stand when (and it must be) challenged in the Supreme Court.  That is what most conservatives believed about Obamacare before the Justices declared the Affordable Healthcare Act the law of the land. That is what people believed before Abortion became the law of the land.
Republican's have come out in advance of Obama's address to the nation tonight with all kinds of promises and threats.  I am sorry to say, I am not buying any of it, but I am prepared to watch the show.  
If the Republican's weren't primarily a bunch of sell-outs, they would have at least attempted to impeach Obama long ago. If you are thinking, "that's only because they weren't in power then", then explain to me why they have acted like a bunch of sissy men by not publicly standing up and demanding an explanation for the verifiably false birth certificate Obama instructed to be put on the White House website for instance. You don't need to be the majority party in power to do that. 
Perhaps we must be reminded of this act and that the plans to destroy America that have been in place for decades.

And this... Former KGB Official Explains Plan Unfolding in America



WASHINGTON – In a prime-time speech to the nation Thursday evening, President Obama declared that he will unilaterally halt deportations of millions of illegal aliens despite strong objections of many in Congress and widespread opposition from the American public.
“The real amnesty [is] leaving this broken system the way it is,” Obama said. “Mass amnesty would be unfair. Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character. What I’m describing is accountability – a common-sense, middle-ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.”
Obama also challenged Congress on the legality of his actions.
“The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half-century. And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”
Obama added, “I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary.”
“Most Americans” support his reforms, Obama said, adding, “I know that some worry immigration will change the very fabric of who we are, or take our jobs, or stick it to middle-class families at a time when they already feel like they’ve gotten the raw end of the deal for over a decade. I hear these concerns. But that’s not what these steps would do. Our history and the facts show that immigrants are a net plus for our economy and our society. And I believe it’s important that all of us have this debate without impugning each other’s character.”
This debate is about who America is as a country, he said.
“Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law? Or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility and give their kids a better future?
“Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents’ arms? Or are we a nation that values families and works to keep them together?
“Are we a nation that educates the world’s best and brightest in our universities, only to send them home to create businesses in countries that compete against us? Or are we a nation that encourages them to stay and create jobs, businesses and industries right here in America?”
Obama said illegal immigrants “did not come here in search of a free ride or an easy life. They came to work, and study, and serve in our military, and above all, contribute to America’s success.”
Read a full transcript of Obama’s speech on immigration here.
He did not call his announcement an executive order. That may be a move to placate critics who call an executive order granting amnesty unconstitutional, but it would still be a unilateral action bypassing Congress.
The Obama administration says it is focusing on “deporting felons, not families.” Entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor, but doing it a second time is a felony.
Obama’s action will provide what the president calls temporary relief from the threat of deportation and provide authorization to legally work in the United States for three years.
According to a White House memo:
“Individuals will have the opportunity to request temporary relief from deportation and work authorization for three years at a time if they come forward and register, submit biometric data, pass background checks, pay fees, and show that their child was born before the date of this announcement.”
More details of Obama’s directive:

  • It will protect as many as 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation and grant them work permits.

  • More than four million illegal immigrants who have been in the country for five years will be eligible, including parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

  • 300,000 immigrants who arrived in the country before the age of 16 will be eligible. That is an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, executive order issued by Obama two years ago.

  • Amnesty applicants will go through criminal and national security background checks.

  • They will be required to pay a fee and taxes (although most low-income earners receive tax credits.)

  • “More resources” will  be promised to strengthen border security and to deport recently arrived illegal immigrants.

  • Immigration court proceedings will be “streamlined.”
Criticism of the president’s plan was swift and scathing.
Senator-elect Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla.: “The President is trying to illegally legalize illegal individuals. This declaration crosses the line into legal gymnastics.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas: “Tonight President Obama issued an oral royal decree that will be followed by a written regal decree, as any good monarch would do. This unlawful, blatant executive action would legalize more than 5 million people here illegally. This president is single-handedly creating a constitutional crisis and hurting the citizens he took an oath to protect and defend.”
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah: “In a desperate attempt to remain relevant, the President has decided to defy the American people, ignore the election results, and usurp the legislative process. This act demonstrates he respects neither election outcomes, nor the rule of law. It will make the humanitarian crisis at the border worse, and could potentially create a constitutional crisis within our republic.Congress must respond to restore the proper checks and balances to our constitutional order, and it must do so quickly and forcefully.”
Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer: “It is very clear that he is making an announcement to all those people waiting around the world to get into the U.S. legally that they are chumps. If he felt so strongly about announcing this, why did he wait until after the election? Because he knew had he announced it earlier, and, after all, it’s supposed to be so urgent, he would have damaged the Democrat’s chances in the election.”
Rep Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.: “Attempts to undermine the law via executive fiat, regardless of motivation, are dangerous. The President himself recognized his inability to do what he just did – 22 separate times. This action is not only detrimental to any chance in the new Congress for a sustainable, long-term solution on immigration, but also to the bedrock of our system of government— respect for the rule of law.”
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.: “President Obama is not above the law and has no right to issue Executive Amnesty. His actions blatantly ignore the Separations of Powers and the principles our country was founded on. The President has said 22 times previously that he does not have the power to legislate on immigration. I will not sit idly by and let the President bypass Congress and our Constitution.”
Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.: “President Obama’s decision to utterly bypass Congress and grant amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants—against the will of the American people—is lawless, unconstitutional, and frankly, un-American. The separation of powers was carefully written into our Constitution by our Founders to ensure that no one individual would have the power to override the will of the American people. The President’s unprecedented abuse of executive orders is an affront to the voice of the people.”
Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas: “Presidential power long ago broke out of its constitutional shackles, but Barack Obama has taken it even further, to dangerous extremes. He has taken the disastrous hubris of Obamacare and applied it to our national security policy.”
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa: “We have to shut off the funding that he would use to implement or enforce this unconstitutional executive amnesty edict. I am hopeful that our leadership will come together with the rest of us that have also taken an oath to uphold the constitution; we’ve got to keep our word and our oath, whether the president keeps his or not. Stay tuned, Congress will act. We must act.”
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.: “We need immigration reform. But the right way to do it is to first bring illegal immigration under control by securing the borders and enforcing the laws, then modernizing our legal immigration system. After we do these things, we will eventually have to deal with those here illegally in a reasonable but responsible way. The President’s actions now make all of this harder and are unfair to people in our immigration system who are doing things the right way.”
Earlier in the day, on the Senate floor, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, invoked the oratory of the Roman senator Cicero to issue a searing assessment of the prospect of amnesty, saying: “When, President Obama, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now.”
The next question will be: What is the GOP prepared to do to stop amnesty?
Some conservatives see a government shutdown as the only option, but GOP leaders fear the public would blame Republicans.
Congress could send the president a series of short-term spending measures, called continuing resolutions, or CRs, before a Dec. 11 deadline. The CRs could fund everything but the tools Obama would need to implement amnesty, perhaps including such things as the printing of millions of new Social Security cards.
If Obama refused to sign such bills, the government would then be unfunded after Dec. 11 until either the president or Congress changed course.
Some conservatives such as Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Steve King, R-Iowa, are pushing hard to block amnesty with the threat of a shutdown if the president refused to sign such CRs, while other conservative lawmakers want to analyze Obama’s proposal before deciding what actions to take.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah told WND he believes Republican leaders might be amenable to using CRs to defund an amnesty order, but he didn’t appear to convey an urgency to react to whatever Obama might do.
He implied waiting could work to Republicans’ advantage.
“If nothing else, the uncertainty created by all of it might, I suspect, give rise to a very short-term CR, one that would take us around the bend into next year,” Lee told WND. “At that point, we could pass something else with Republican votes in the new Republican Senate.”
When asked if GOP leaders would back efforts to use CRs to stop amnesty, risking a shutdown, Senator-elect James Lankford, R-Okla., told WND: “I don’t know yet. We’re about to find out.”
“The president, in whatever he proposes, doesn’t have full public support. If he had full public support, we would have already passed something, because people would have risen up and said this is what we want. But that’s not where people are,” said Lankford.
Lawmakers have told WND their phone lines melted with calls from outraged citizens when the Senate pushed an amnesty plan in 2007.
Amnesty is still unpopular.  According to an election-day exit poll, 74 percent of voters did not want Obama to issue an executive order granting amnesty. It was opposed by even a majority of Democrats at 51 percent, with 92 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of independents preferring the president work with Congress on immigration rather than acting alone.
What do YOU think? Sound off on Obama granting de facto amnesty to illegals
Even a growing number of Democratic lawmakers are wary of voter backlash over amnesty.
Lee told WND: “I think a lot of my Democratic colleagues are tired of being asked again and again to protect the president, often at great political expense to themselves and their fellow Democrats.
“I think they saw the results of this election and realize enough is enough.”
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., told CNN: “I just wish he (Obama) wouldn’t do it. I really don’t. I just think we ought to work through this process and, with the new elections and the results of the elections, we ought to try in January to see if we can find a pathway to get something accomplished.”
And leftist commentator Ed Schultz tweeted, “(Obama) should back off on immigration reform, give the Republicans a deadline and use the (State of the Union address) to call ‘em out,” Schultz said. “[GOP] won’t deliver,” adding, “If (Obama) delivers a deadline, he gets the attention of the country and puts the leadership responsibility on the (Republicans.)”
Obama has repeatedly justified his decision to act alone by blaming the House for not passing the Senate’s immigration bill, which conservatives saw as too weak on amnesty.
However, Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, told MSNBC the White House actually intervened to stop an immigration bill in the House when it appeared something acceptable to the majority had been negotiated, because the administration feared the bill would emphasize border security more than amnesty.
“His chief of staff, the president’s chief of staff at the time, decided to call House Democrats and tell them that they needed to stop negotiating with House Republicans because they wanted the only vehicle for immigration reform, they want it to be the Senate bill,” said Labrador.
Republicans, as well as many Democrats and constitutional scholars, doubt such a sweeping amnesty order is legal. Prosecutors sometimes employ prosecutorial discretion to decline to take legal actions against individuals on a case-by-case basis. But many legal scholars and lawmakers argue such a sweeping overturning of federal law by executive order would be unconstitutional.
Obama himself has said in the past he did not have the legal or constitutional authority to grant amnesty to millions. At one point he told reporters he was not an “emperor” but a president.
He even argued against amnesty as bad policy in his 2006 book “The Audacity of Hope,” writing: “[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border — a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before.
“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” wrote the then-future president. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole – especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan – it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
Obama wrote that seeing Mexican flags at immigration rallies caused him to feel a “patriotic resentment.”

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Sen. Cruz: Lawless Obama; America Witnessing Constitutional Crisis

There has been a constitutional crisis for the last 6 years when an undocumented Progressive named Barry Soetoro swore an oath to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution. It was in that moment he mocked America, and the mockery continues to this very hour. Republicans are late (I should say absent) to the party themselves in protecting the Constitution. Still, it is good to here Teddy Cruz call it what it is. This is a major crisis and a coup for the Progressives if this is not somehow stopped.  And let's make no mistake, this is about insuring a Liberal President in 2016 and beyond by giving millions of illegals the right to vote, and 95% will vote Communist Democrat. -W.E.


CAIR, Others Join with Communist Groups to ‘Organize’ in Ferguson and Beyond

Communist Agitators, not from Ferguson

Also highly interesting and for more insight on at least the Communist groups that are out at Ferguson, is this link.  It is said, some of the same groups, and I don't doubt it for a minute, are some of the same that showed up at Travon Martin's hullabaloo.  These are paid agitators. Paid by who is the question, and the first name that comes to my mind, and I have no evidence at this point, but certainly he helped finance the #WallStreet charades,  so it would not surprise me if Georgey boy Soros has thrown some money at this exercise in the pandemonium and chaos known as communism. -W.E.


By Renee Nal.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has thrown their hat into the ring along with various communists and their sympathizers such as Michael McPhearson, and radical Islamic groups who seek to further their own agenda by inciting violence in Ferguson, Missouri and across the country, should a grand jury fail to indict Officer Darren Wilson.
As reported at Fox News,
Using social media, conference calling and traditional outreach methods, leaders of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are portraying Brown and Detroit mosque leader Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah as African-American victims of police targeting, according to the Washington-based Center for Security Policy (CSP). In a conference call organized by CAIR-linked “Muslims for Ferguson, a CAIR official called Abdullah a “Shaheed,” or martyr, and said both he and Brown were victims of a national security apparatus that had “completely gone wild” and engaged in “demonizing and criminalizing Muslims.”
CAIR, who was listed as a terror organization by United States Ally UAE over the weekend, is one of many Islamic groups and terrorist sympathizers involved in organizing protests in the wake of the death of Michael Brown. After the shooting, outsiders descended upon Ferguson, causing destruction to local businesses.
One of the terrorist sympathizers is Bassem Masri, who astonishingly has been enlisted by the so-called Department of Justice to assist with “police reform.” Bassem Masri has also publicly pledged his support for Hamas, the terror organization responsible for numerous rocket attacks against Israel, as reported in a must-read article by J.E. Dyer at Liberty Unyielding.
Bassem Masri, aside from pledging his allegiance to Hamas, has been captured on video provoking police officers by referring to one of them as a “pig” and further declaring that he is praying for his death. On Wednesday, Masri tweeted:

While the Department of Justice enlists radicals, the FBI was quoted by ABC News as saying that violence is “likely” by “some extremist protesters…” A Tumbler has been posted highlighting protest details across America, the majority of which are planned take place on the day of, or the day after the announcement, meaning the grand jury decision of whether or not to indict Officer Darren Wilson.
Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit posted a disturbing map of businesses in Saint Louis that were identified as “targets.” He gathered the information from As summarized by J.E. Dyer, whose articles are extremely well-researched,
On their list are, among other spots, corporate headquarters, government offices, museums, shopping plazas, Lambert International Airport, the Ritz-Carlton, and the Gateway Arch.
Dyer opines that government buildings in the area may be targeted in lieu of the other suggested businesses, if there are not enough protesters to cover all suggested locations. This may explain why there is currently a heavy presence of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “Federal Protective Service” vehicles in the area, as reported at Broadside News. A local CBS Affiliate also opined on the heavy presence of DHS in the area, but “St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson denies that there are federal agents in the area.”
Watch a report of a Navy Veteran who lost his job and allegedly threatened with “incarceration” and called a “terrorist” after he posted two photos and a short video on Facebook which featured “several dozen Homeland Security vehicles in the parking garage” of his employer, the Drury Plaza Hotel in Chesterfield, a town located about a half hour from Ferguson, Missouri:

Back in August, several Islamic, progressive, and communist groups, such as the Tauheed Youth Development Life, the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), the Organization for Black Struggle (OBS) [who, despite no mention of Islam on their website, runs the Muslims for Ferguson Facebook page], the Moorish Science Temple, the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression, the Nation of Islam – Mosque 28, and the Universal African Peoples Organization (UAPO) passed out flyers during a protest, as evidenced by Antonio French, who became well-known for tweeting in real-time on events in Ferguson.

It should be noted that in anticipation of violence, gun sales in the Ferguson area have spiked by 50 percent, as residents fear for their lives. The irony is that those who advocate gun control (communists) are creating the conditions that make people want to purchase guns for the safety of their families.
CNN, for example, quoted hair salon owner Constance Garnett as saying,
“We don’t have the constant flow of customers that we normally have coming through here because everybody is afraid.”
“…Everybody is afraid…” This is justice?

Sunday, November 16, 2014

The Real Barack Obama And The Transformation of America


President Barack Hussein Obama has publicly claimed he is a “Christian.”  He originally made this statement during his campaign for president of the United States, and continues to make it as president, although rarely.  But is he really a Christian? 
It is well known that a politician has little chance of winning an election in the United States if he is anti-Christian or espouses anti-Christian policies.  Polls show about 80% of Americans claim to belong to the religion of Christianity, although it is not known if this percentage represents practicing Christians.  But, it is certain no politician will win high election in America if he or she publicly disparages Christianity.
As we know, modern politics is full of deceit and manipulation.  Why has Barack Obama claimed he is a Christian during his political campaigns?  Is this a truthful statement?  Is he bending the truth for power, or is there a more sinister reason?  In the paragraphs that follow, I will demonstrate that the majority of Barack Obama’s actions, both publicly and covertly – are hostile to Christianity.  Whether you espouse Christianity as your faith or not, it is important to know why it is so critical if he is lying, and how this may directly tie into his personal connection to radical Islam.  If the most powerful man in the world practices deception in the most basic bedrock of his character, it does not bode well for his truthfulness in matters of national importance.
In this article I will analyze, not just the statements Barack Obama has made, but his political and presidential actions.  Sadly, it appears most journalists will not touch this subject.  This is a reality of the erosion of freedom of the press in America, which used to be founded on courageous and free speech.  Journalists today, especially in the conglomerate news media, are restricted from reporting freely on certain issues, like this one.  But, that is the subject of another article.  As a former federal agent, who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, I feel duty bound to expose this information.  As the saying goes, “It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it.”
The burning question many in the national media avoid is this:  Is Barack Obama a sincere Christian, a deceptive politician – or actually a covert Muslim?  The answer to this question will reveal the political, financial and cultural path, on which Obama is leading America.  It will remove the curtain from the wealthy political, financial and social institutions that surround him – and have placed him in power.
What you are about to read may shock you.

Who is Barack Obama?

Let’s begin with this question:  Who is Barack Obama?  Is he merely a typical politician, at heart a political activist or a “liberal” ideologue?  Some members of major news outlets, entertainment figures and political activists have painted him as a kind of political messiah.  He is the first recipient of the Nobel Peace prize, without having accomplished anything warranting the award, other than writing a book – containing content that is dubious at best.  Even in Hollywood, during a public performance actor Jamie Fox portrayed Obama as a kind of world savior.  In his speech, Fox said this to a group of adoring Obama fans:
“It’s like church over here. It’s like church in here. First of all, give an honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama.”
During an interview with Chris Matthews on Hardball, Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas said this:
“I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”
Barack Obama’s friend, religious ideologue and supporter, Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam said this:
Barack Obama to me, is herald of the Messiah.  Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you to something new, something better.”
Barack Obama, the savior and sort of God?  When talking about a world leader – this is chilling.  And even more chilling is Obama’s silence on these remarks, when any other politician would distance himself from these bizarre statements.  In most world religions, this is called blasphemy, i.e., portraying a man as God, even indirectly.  Setting aside all the whacky conspiracy theories, this is at the least mildly frightening.  Of course, the news media passed it by and many Americans are not aware the statements were made.
Since being elected as President, Obama’s actions have been both alarming and extremely destructive to the Constitutional fabric of America, and the traditional underpinnings of our founding documents.  His foreign policy, although favoring Islamic regimes, has been anything but peaceful.  In fact, under the reign of Obama, the US has engaged in serious foreign policy missteps, allowed weapons to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, armed Syrian jihadists and sponsored a guerilla war against the government of Syria, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrians, the torture of Christians and burning of churches.  He has expanded the massive NSA surveillance program, spying on US citizens and used the powerful federal agency, the IRS, to silence opposition to his policies.  This makes Richard Nixon look like a Sunday school teacher.  History will show Obama’s presidency is the most tyrannical in modern times.
The corruption in the Obama administration has been mind boggling, from running guns to drug cartels in “Fast and Furious,” to targeting journalists investigating the actions of his administration and the deception and cover up of the deaths of an ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya.  Obama’s reluctance to condemn the actions of radical Islam, both within and without the United states, his refusal to acknowledge the connection of Islam to acts of terrorism, including the murder, rape and torture of Christians in the Middle East, and his actual participation in what appears to be a kind of cultural covert action aimed at undermining traditional America, paints a shocking picture of a man who is more Muslim than the Christian he claims to be, more Marxist in his ideology than the Constitutional scholar the news media has made him out to be and as corrupt in his use of federal agencies as any Chicago-style mafia boss.
The damage done to America’s Constitutional, political and cultural fabric may be irreparable.  Welcome to “transformation.”  The cabal of international financiers, globally focused one-world Marxist political groups and Obama’s shadowy involvement with Islamic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran threaten US sovereignty at its core.
Are these extreme statements?  Is this just another “conspiracy theory,” a popular label used to shut down any examination of suspicious activity by government?  Or are they true?  I ask you to read on and examine the analytical facts documented in this article; then reach your own conclusion.
My goal here is to list the voluminous amounts of evidence revealing Barack Obama’s actions, before and during his presidency, in as short and easily digestible form as possible.  We are all busy, just trying to survive in today’s economy and complex system of living, so I want to provide you with information you can use, without the massive amount of research necessary to dig it out and sparing you from reading an entire volume of  information; enabling you to filter through the deceptive twist put on the facts by willing members of the news media and Obama’s political and “national security” advisors.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Marxism & Community Oriented Policing


Few people today understand what communism really is and just where the political battle lines are actually drawn.  But if you crack open a dictionary and look up the term “Dialectical Materialism.”  You should find something like this:
A philosophy founded by Karl Marx… which forms the basis of Communist doctrine:  it combines the materialistic idea of matter over mind with the Hegelian dialectic in which opposing forces are constantly being reunited at a higher level.”  -- Lexicon Webster Dictionary

But that definition might beg the question, “What is the Hegelian dialectic?”  For modern man, the answer to that question is epic.  The Hegelian dialectic has profoundly impacted the world in which you live.

What is communism?

The Dialectic: Fomenting the Revolution

The concept of the dialectic has been around for a long time.  It is simply that of opposite positions:  Thesis (position) vs. Antithesis (opposite position).  In traditional logic, if my thesis was true, then all other positions were by definition untrue.  For example, if my thesis is 2 + 2 = 4, then all other answers (antithesis) are false.  Georg W.F. Hegel, the nineteenth century German philosopher, turned that concept upside down by equalizing Thesis and Antithesis.  All things are now relative.  There is no such thing as absolute truth to be found anywhere.  Instead, “truth” is found in Synthesis, a compromise of Thesis and Antithesis.  This is the heart and soul of the consensus process.

This is diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian world-view prevalent in the Western world for the better part of two millennia that held that God existed, that He existed outside of the material creation and that man had a moral obligation to Him and His laws.  God was transcendent and thus truth was absolute and transcendent, outside of our ability to manipulate it. 

This all changed with Hegel and modern man was born.  Man could now challenge any authority and position, even God.  Since there is no such thing as absolute truth, “my truth” is just as good as “your truth”, so don’t tell me what to think or how to behave.  As Nietzsche, the “God is Dead” philosopher, would later say, “There is absolutely no absolute.”  Now 2 + 2 can equal 5, or 17, or whatever you feel is right. 

(Hint:  This is why our schools are failing.  All teachers are certified on Benjamin Bloom’s work.  He said “…we recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and all places”).

At about the same time that Hegel was passing from the scene, Karl Marx caught the revolutionary fever.  He drew heavily from Hegel (the dialectic) and Feuerbach (materialism). He picked up where the other philosophers left the discussion, but with a twist.  He scornfully stated, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways.  The point, however, is to change it.” 

To CHANGE the WORLD was to become the warp and woof of Marxism.  In the Marxian interpretation of reality, God had been abandoned.  Alone in his universe, man was to fill the vacuum left by religion with materialism.  Religion was the enemy of all progress.  As he wrote in 1843, “Religion is the opium of the people.” 

No longer bound to a relationship with his Creator, the social relationship of “man to man” became the principle of Marx’s theory.  It followed that these social relationships, which necessarily involve conflict, cause the changes in human progress.  As the opening words of the Communist Manifesto announce: 

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” 

Note the dialectic reasoning:  the clash of opposites produces synthesis and change.  Man, freed from religious restraints will carry the revolution (change via conflict) forward until all are equal in a man made utopia on earth.  To that end, the Manifesto concludes, “Working men of all countries, unite!” 

To summarize Marxism: 

  • It is Dialectical Materialism, or, in simpler terms: a God-expunged human reasoning process.
  • REVOLUTION is its goal, to “change the world”, Marx said.
  • The CHANGE is to be from a Theistic World View (Old World Order) to a Humanistic World View (New World Order).  The term New World Order was a popular euphemism for world communism for years.  Conspiracy kooks did not invent it.  When it started to take on negative connotations, it was dropped for the nicer sounding label, Global Governance.
  • Change is to occur through CONFLICT, (Crisis/Problems/Issues).
The Cold War.  Where is the battlefield?

Change Happens:  The Re-culturing of America

Even as the worldwide communist revolution got underway in earnest around the globe, a rift was forming within Marxist intellectual circles.  Around the turn of the century there was a growing trend within this movement that a better way to change the world is not abruptly and violently at the point of a bayonet, (traditional Marxist revolution), but rather it should be done slowly and incrementally by transforming individuals and their cultural institutions.  Then you can control a country as effectively as if you conquered it militarily.  In fact, this method is preferred because one does not have to rebuild bombed out cities and dig all those mass graves! 

The home for this new wave of dialectical Marxist thinking became the emerging “science” of socio-psychology.  It may come as a surprise to many to discover that virtually all of the pillars of modern psychology were humanistic utopians who believed that

  • there is no God,
  • mankind can and should be manipulated (for its own good, of course), and
  • all social problems can be solved by the proper reprogramming of man’s mind. 

This would lead to an era of peace and prosperity based on diversity, tolerance and unity.  Most of their work dealt with the details of human behavior, but their over-arching view was that of transforming society (echo the revolution).  Hence, they came to be known as “Transformational Marxists”. 

One such group was the Fabian Socialist (determined to stamp out Christianity), who took their name from the Roman general, Fabius.  Fabius, it will be remembered, was confronted with Hannibal’s invasion of Italy.  Hannibal with his elephants held the advantage of superior forces, but was far from home and supplies.  Instead of confronting his foe head on, a battle he would have certainly lost, Fabius utilized hit-and-run tactics.  Harassing his enemy and wearing him down incrementally piece-by-piece over time until Hannibal capitulated, Fabius won the war. 

The Fabian Socialists adopted this strategy in their goal of world socialism.  In a similar vein, the transformational Marxists advocated a “slow march through the institutions,” as famous Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci would say. Gramsci’s theories cannot be overstated in this regard, as this strategy has become synonymous with his name. 

The Gramsci Strategy is the “War of Position”, (i.e. the battle ground is for the mind and culture) vs. the “War of Maneuver”, (i.e. traditional battlefield warfare with guns and bombs).  Gramsci engendered the anger of his communist counterparts in Moscow when he basically told them they were doing it all wrong.  Gramsci died in prison under Mussolini’s regime, but his strategy has become the strategy for changing society.[1]

Meanwhile, in Germany, a group of some 21 Marxist socio-psychologists gathered in Frankfurt and formed the Institute of Marxist Research.  Perhaps that was a little too obvious for their opponents and they renamed it the Institute for Social Research.  When Hitler rose to power, most of these men fled to America and continued their work here.  Kurt Lewin, J.L. Moreno, Theodor Adorno, Erik Fromm, Max Horkhiemer and others found positions in American universities and had their work funded by pro-Marxist foundations.

Kurt Lewin is of special interest for this discussion because it was he who went to M.I.T. and conducted the research involving group dynamics that laid the foundation for Total Quality Management.  At the risk of oversimplifying how the process of group dynamics works, it could be summarized as a method of belief and behavior modification, using dialectic-reasoning skills (remember, all truth is relative), in a group setting.  It utilizes the inherent fear an individual person has of being alienated from the group.  By use of a change agent, or “facilitator”[2], individuals are herded toward “consensus” by compromising their position for the sake of “social harmony.”   According to Lewin,

 “A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects:  UNFREEZING the present level, MOVING to the new level, and FREEZING group life on the new level.” [3] 
This is precisely the technique with which the communists brainwashed American POWs, the only difference being they could accelerate the “unfreezing” phase with physical torture.[4]  In group dynamics the pain is not physical, it’s emotional.  Do not underestimate the force of emotional pain.  POWs frequently described their long periods in isolation as worse than some of the most brutal physical torture.  Isolation from the group is a powerful behavior modification weapon.  Transformational Marxists such as Kurt Lewin refined their weapon for the new battlefield:  Using group dynamics to invade the culture to affect the paradigm shift.  The weapon looks like this:

  • A Diverse Group   (“Diversity” needed for conflict)
  • Dialoging to Consensus   (Dialectic process)
  • Over a Social Issue  (Problem/Crisis/Issues)
  • In a Facilitated Meeting  (Controlled environment using facilitator /change agent)
  • To a Predetermined Outcome   (Paradigm shift)
The Marxist Trojan Horse: Total Quality Management (TQM)
 TQM is an organizational transformation strategy that uses: 

  • Group Dynamics
  • Facilitator/Change Agents (“Strategic Planning” occurs in councils)
  • “Problem Solving”
  • Systems Management (ISO 9000)
Decoding the term “Total Quality Management” is impossible without an understanding of the Marxist foundation upon which it was built.  I use the word “decoding” because so many of the dialectic concepts are masked by nice sounding double-talk.

TOTAL = Holistic, Gestalt, Global

QUALITY[5] = People. (Also slang, short for TQM systems in general, e.g. “We have a Quality organization”).

MANAGEMENT = The facilitators, the agents of change.

With this background we arrive at our current application of the dialectic in our nation.  I would like to now focus on the role that your local law enforcement agency has in the “re-culturing of America.”  Your local beat cop has a special part to play, and he doesn’t even realize it.  Not only has TQM change agents restructured many of the police departments in America, they are now in a position to turn the police themselves into the facilitators of the community through a program called COPs, or Community Oriented Policing.  COPs is a federally funded program administered through the U.S. Department of Justice.  What is COPs?  The most succinct definition I found was in a DJ brochure:
Shift in philosophy about police duties vs. community responsibilities to a team concept of TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT of the community.  Reidentifying the police role as a FACILITATOR in the community.

Translation: Transformation from a constitutionally empowered local police force performing their duty to keep the peace to that of a change agent working within the community to affect a Marxist paradigm shift.  Pay close attention to what the influential German Marxist Georg Lukacs had to say about who the facilitators are in the community: 
“The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviet. They are the congresses [diverse groups], which facilitate the debate [dialoguing to consensus] of universal problems [social issues] in the context of the everyday.”[6]

  • Leaders of the community (law enforcement, government, business, education, health, civic, non-profit, medical, religious, etc.) collaborating to identify problems in the community, what the significant impact on people will be, and suggesting solutions to those problems.  (This is POP, or Problem Oriented Policing.  See footnote).[7]

  • Identifying common ground, where all factions of a community can work together for the COMMON GOOD of the community in a broader problem-solving approach.  Forming a partnership between police and the rest of the community where each is accountable to each other and the community as whole.  (Emphasis mine.  End of COPs definition).

Note the reference to the “common good”, the ever-present ideal in the communist state. Individual rights become subordinated to the so-called greater good. This raises serious concern over the role of the police officer in society as a “partner” with community groups and social service programs, which, due to the blurring of lines of responsibility, are unaccountable to the public [voters]. 

To further understand the philosophy of COPS, one does not have look further than the late socio-psychologist Dr. Robert Trojanowicz.  Formerly the director of the National Center for Community Policing at the University of Michigan, he is considered the father of Community Oriented Policing.  Consider the following selections from his writings:

 “Social control is most effective at the individual level.  THE PERSONAL CONSCIENCE IS THE KEY ELEMENT in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated.” [8]

 “The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior.” [9]

This is an astonishing admission of the fundamental dynamics of crime prevention and social disorder.  The most conservative thinkers alive today couldn’t have better articulated what makes for domestic tranquility in any society.  Our founding fathers were keenly aware of this fact.  James Madison cited the fact that our form of limited government is “wholly inadequate” without personal conscience as the internal social control.  So then, in an effort to solve America’s moral chaos, we are going to restore the personal conscience by encouraging accountability to a higher authority (ten commandments) and strengthening the family, right?  Don’t be silly, says Dr. Trojanowicz.

“Unfortunately, because of the reduction of influence exerted neighbors, the extended family and even the family, social control is now often more dependent on external control, than on internal self-control.”[10]

         Oh, darn, he says.  Since that “unfortunate” breakdown of conscience and the family structure, the social order is now dependent on “external control”.  Read that, “The State”.  Unfortunately indeed!   Dr. Trojanowicz ponders the dilemma of the current state of affairs in his paper Community Policing and the Challenge of Diversity:

“In addition to raising questions (dialectic reasoning questions all absolutes) about our national identity, increasing diversity also raises questions about how we define American “values’ and “morality.’  (Absolute values of right and wrong vs. relative values). Many strongly held traditional beliefs derive from Judeo-Christian traditions, blended with faith in the intrinsic virtues of family and the American Dream of the United States as a meritocracy where those who are willing to work hard will succeed.  Can this model encompass the experience of the growing number of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists among us? (What, Muslims Hindus and Buddhists aren’t willing to work hard?)  Does it reflect sufficient sensitivity to the concerns of people of color, women and gays?”[11]

Got that?  Traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs (with their absolute truths and morals) are out, diversity and relative values are in.  If we are not to restore the personal conscience and the family, what is his solution?  He continues:

 “The community of interest generated by crime, disorder and fear of crime becomes the goal to allow community policing officer an entre into the geographic community.” [12]

If you did not fall out of your chair with that line, you weren’t paying attention.  Social chaos is the GOAL for the transformational Marxist. The crisis of crime and disorder is the door for the police officer as facilitator/change agent to enter the community (the “client”, or the latest term, “customer”)[13] and to initiate the paradigm shift!  Even though these social architects plainly admit what is most vital in making for a crime free community, they have absolutely no intention of restoring “individual conscience” or going back to repairing the traditional family.  On the contrary, for the past sixty years these socio-psychologists have been introducing these very dialectic concepts into our school system with the intent on demolishing personal conscience.  Is there any doubt they have succeeded?  For them, there is no going back:

They (Americans) may not yet recognize that there is no ‘going back to basics’ in education.”  Training manual for Goals 2000.
"If ‘Equality of Opportunity’ is to be become a part of the American Dream, the traditional family must be weakened."  Socio-psychologist James Coleman.
In order to effect rapid change, one must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved.”  Socio-psychologist Warren Bennis in his book, The Temporary Society.  Bennis’ book “Leaders”, was recommended reading at one time when one was promoted to sergeant on the S.D.P.D., wherein he identifies the leaders in any organization as “agents of change”.

Dr. Trojanowicz admits in no uncertain terms that is what his research is all about: 

 “It should also be noted that the continuing interest in finding a viable definition for the term community has not merely been an intellectual exercise.  The theme underlying much of the research is that once you can identify a community, you have discovered the primary unit of society ABOVE the level of the individual and the family that can be mobilized to take concerted action to bring about POSITIVE SOCIAL CHANGE.” [14]

Just in case you doubt the Marxist nature of their concepts of community transformation, Trojanowicz quotes Saul Alinsky, the extreme Marxist change agent of the ‘60’s who authored Rules for Radicals.  Alinsky proposed “we begin viewing community through the prism of issues (Issues=problems=crisis=conflict) which, in essence, constitutes the most urgent kind of community of interest.” [15]

 “What community policing does is put an officer in daily face-to-face contact with the community, so that he or she can have the input of the community in setting priorities.  Unlike police programs of the past where police administrators or so-called community leaders set the police agenda, the community policing movement encourages average citizens to become involved.”[16]

Formerly, the police administrators were accountable to the elected officials who were accountable to the voters (representative democracy).  This new paradigm that Trojanowicz describes is exactly what Marxist George Lukacs termed “participatory democracy” and is nothing more than the Soviet style council.  The United States Constitution was the law of the land (absolute authority) restraining government intrusion into the rights of the individual.  The framers designed it to insulate the private realm (the individual) from the public realm (government).  Allow me to repeat Lukacs:

"The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets.” 

By practicing the dialectic, we are removing the only barrier between a tyrannical government and the private citizen.  Your neighborhood cop is now that facilitator, the Soviet.  Why a police officer?

 “In the role of the community ombudsman/liaison (i.e. facilitator), the community policing officer also acts as the community’s link to other public agencies.  The police are the only governmental agency open 24 hours a day, which makes them the ideal public agent to begin regenerating community spirit.” [17]
The Soviet:
  • A Diverse Group
  • Dialoging to Consensus
  • Over a Social Issue
  • In a Facilitated Meeting
  • To a Predetermined Outcome
Conclusion:  Useful idiots?

When Lenin was consolidating the Bolshevik revolution, he wrote how he would implement the communist bureaucracy without hardcore Marxist believers.   While the elite rulers of his inner circle understood the structure he was building, Lenin said he would exploit the natural vanity and ambition of people to forward his agenda without them knowing what they were really doing.  Eager to gain his favor and to enhance their political careers, they would fall all over themselves trying to promote his agenda.  He called these types of people “Useful Idiots.” 

Before you brand every police officer you see as an undercover Marxist, understand that most of them comprehend little of what they are participating in.  In reality, most officers intuitively know that something is wrong in their organization, but they play the game rather than risk damaging their career.  Sadly, they constitute a vast army of “useful idiots.” 

I’m all for “promoting mutual trust” and “cooperation between the people and the police” and “empowering neighborhoods.”   These “positive social changes” are the selling points for Community Policing.  But in reality, those appealing ideals camouflage the vehicle of Marxist change.

Who asked the citizenry if they wanted their communities “transformed” and their government “reinvented?”  Who asked parents if they wanted their children to learn with their feelings instead of learning facts?  Who asked your local police officers if they wanted their beliefs and attitudes manipulated?

No one asked because if someone did, they would have been run out of town.  Instead, using dialectic-reasoning skills, they have schemed to seduce, deceive and manipulate every community in the land into a utopian vision of so-called “unity in diversity.” 

These social engineers have no intention of taking America back to individual conscience within the family structure in order to preserve domestic peace and tranquility.  That would mean a return to recognizing and submitting to the Higher Authority.  This “vision” has failed wherever it has been tried.  By participating in the dialectic, we have deified human reason; traded in God and truth for relative values and consensus; and abandoned individual liberty and inalienable rights for the common good and diversity. In the final analysis, we are destined for Totalitaria, and worse, the loss of our souls. 

The terms “communism”, “socialism”, “Marxism”, “New World Order” etc., may be worn out and abandoned.  The names change, because deception is one of the rules of the game.  Many erroneously believe that the cold war is over and that we actually won.  But the revolution is still very much alive and America is losing.  The culture war is raging in our schools, our workplaces, our media and our churches.  Antonio Gramsci would be very pleased if he could see just how effective his strategy has been.

[1] A certain governor from Arkansas attended the Gramsci Institute in Italy.

[2] In early works from the ‘40s and ‘50s such as Kenneth Benne’s Human Relations in Curriculum Change, Warren Bennis’s Planning of Change and Planned Change by Ron Lippett, they frequently refer to those helping bring about change as “change agents” or “agents of change”.  The “change agents” eventually were referred to simply as “Facilitators”, from the word Facile that means to guide and make easy. 

[3] Kurt Lewin, Human Relations in Curriculum Change, p. 34  (I recently attended training sponsored by the COPs program, “Facilitation Skills for Law Enforcement”, which was a crude re-hash of Kenneth Benne’s book on organizational change.  It prominently features Lewin’s material).

[4] Socio-psychologists Edgar Schien and Warren Bennis studied how the communists brainwashed POWs so they could apply their techniques “humanely” in American classrooms.

[5] Antonio Gramsci categorizes objects, things that can be reproduced, as quantity.  Quality” he says, “should be attributed to men, not to things…” Prison Notebooks p. 308.  If that sounds like convoluted reasoning, that’s because it is!

[6] Georg Lukacs, The Process of Democratization, p 46.  Soviet can mean an individual, someone who practices the dialectic, or a political system.  In Russia, the soviet system consists of a hierarchy of councils, from the local level all the way to the top echelon, the Supreme Soviet Council.  In this context, the soviet is the system, particularly the local council. 

[7] Problem Oriented Policing (POP) was supposedly “invented” by Dr. Herman Goldstein.  But the “problem solving techniques” embodied in POP were laid out by Lewin in the 1940’s and is simply a rip-off of one aspect of TQM.

[8] Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The National Center for Community Policing, University of Michigan, The Meaning of “Community” in Community Policing. P.2

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Dr. Trojanowicz, Community Policing and the Challenge of Diversity, p.2

[12] Trojanowicz, The meaning of “Community” in Community Policing, p3

[13] In Planned Change, by Ron Lippitt, the organization or individual that is targeted for change is the “client”, as if he were a “consumer” of the change agent’s services.  I think “victim” more accurately describes the recipient of such “service.”  The San Diego Police Department recently opened a new division entitled The Business Center.  The concept is right out of Lippitt’s work.  The police dept.’s “customers” are “consumers” of police services.

[14]Trojanowicz, The meaning of “Community” in Community Policing, p4, emphasis added

[15] Ibid, p9

[16] Ibid, p9
[17] Ibid, p10, emphasis added