Old Gadfly: Since the Orlando
shooting incident, do we now see Obama using a bully pulpit or simply riding a
high horse? He accuses Trump of violating
American values by wanting to ban Muslim immigration to America and that using
the term, “radical Islam,” serves no purpose.
Obama seems to have created a meme
that Trump is anti-Muslim and anti-immigration by extension—you know, one of
those leftist labels called xenophobia.
With a complicit media, he expects others will imitate the meme.
IM: My understanding is that Trump is
against illegal immigration (he’s married to a legal immigrant
after all) and especially concerned about not being able to vet a swarm of
Muslim refugees into America from an Islamic region that is far from peaceful. This is a completely different mental frame
than “anti-Muslim.” I would say that
Trump strikes me as an individual who believes that a just society is based on
a system of laws and that America welcomes immigrants of all backgrounds
through a legal process.
AM: Obama’s message is crystal clear. He believes his angry oration via a bully
pulpit, where he, the self-righteous preacher with good public approval ratings
(thanks to a horrific media slant and spineless
Republicans who seem to have lost a grip on reality), rebukes the
presumptive Republican presidential candidate for sinfully warning the public
that there was a radical Islamist connection to the shooting. Obama counts on an incredibly naïve public to
swallow what he says on face value. As
we discussed in the
last conversation, he has a colluding and fully complicit media to amplify
the message. Just this morning, I
marveled at how George Stephanopoulos, on ABC
Good Morning America, facilitated clips of Obama, Clinton, and Trump,
shaping the message in favor of Obama and Clinton. This is the same man who served as a senior
advisor in the Clinton Administration, and then later donated $75,000 to the
Clinton Foundation. I’ll say more about
connections later.
IM: Sadly, at
last year’s national prayer breakfast he sat on a high horse while accusing
others of sitting on a high horse because an increasing number of Americans
(and Europeans) are concerned about the increasing death toll stemming from
radical Islam. He lectured us about Christian
violence in the name of Christ but refused to suggest there might be violence
in the name of Muhammad.
Old Gadfly: I remember he mentioned the Crusades.
IM: He counts on fuzzy history. Our progressive public education has done a
great job in creating a mental frame that blames Christians for the Crusades. A deeper look shows that the Crusades spawned
in defense of Muslim aggression. And
when he sanctimoniously mentioned Jim Crow laws, he failed to mention that
these were Democrat policies that are similar to much of the progressive inspired
regulatory regime and rulings that pick winners and losers as we speak.
AM: In the current Foreign Policy Magazine, Moscow-born Julia
Ioffee wrote an article with this title:
“If Islam Is a Religion of Violence, So Is Christianity.” Leftists are already pushing similar themes
(see Dr. Paul Kengor’s excellent analysis here). Let’s just stick to the current issue and I’ll
ask, during high horse Obama’s reign, how many Christian-associated casualties
have we recorded? Aside from the
thousands of casualties, to include many on American soil, and the millions of
refugees stemming from radical-Islam, politically correct imitators like Ioffee
want us to play make believe; just as George Lakoff advises all progressives, “if
the facts don’t fit the frame, then they are irrelevant” (Read Lakoff’s
Thinking Points, a Handbook for Progressives, here). I think Mitt Romney may have received the Lakoff
training based on his “trickle
down racism” assertion the other day.
And, I’m sure Barry
Goldwater would assure Trump to stay the course despite Mitt’s father, George Romney, going
to great lengths to undermine Goldwater after his nomination by suggesting he
was unfit to be president (jumping on the bandwagon of leftist efforts along
these lines). The major issue here was
that Goldwater believed the issue of civil rights exceeded federal authority
and belonged within the realm of the states.
George Romney, showing progressive colors, wanted the federal government
to take on extraconstitutional authority.
IM: Back to Ioffee, politically
correct imitators like Ioffee, who also wrote the GQ hit piece on Melania Trump, do not
like their frame being challenged.
Old Gadfly: Obama seems angry that the
presumptive Republican nominee is personally challenging him on this topic.
IM: God forbid anyone should challenge
Obama because any such sacrilegious act would clearly be racist. Ironic, isn’t it? I remember a Democrat presidential nominee
saying very derogatory things about his predecessor. In fact, I recall that he did this to rally
his political base, to get them angry and hungry for his special antidote of “hope
and change.”
Old Gadfly: So, what do you think he had in
mind for change?
AM: You mean more specifically than
his vision to “fundamentally change America” ?
Wayne Allyn Root, a Columbia University classmate of Obama’s told us
what the change was in 2010. Here is an
excerpt from an article
he penned:
Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go
to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is
Barack Obama's presidency.
Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government forsurvival ... and can be counted
on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility
to pay for it.
Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for
Old Gadfly: I remember reading about this strategy
in the 60s, going into Johnson’s Great Society agenda. Later in graduate school, I read Frances Fox Piven
and Richard Cloward’s book,
Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. Notice the action described: regulating; not elevating or empowering, or
some other uplifting strategy. The
authors described the importance of “stabilizing” the masses as a function of
the welfare state. This is very
consistent with the growing administrative state that we now have, where a
powerful central government continues to expand a regulatory regime that is becoming
more and more coercive, controlling the centers of wealth production and significantly
chipping away at individual liberty.
AM: Which brings us to motivations for
“hope and change” and the connections I mentioned earlier. First, let’s start with Obama’s connections: besides his mentoring by communist Frank
Marshall, Obama’s key advisors, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod have their
own direct connections with communist mentors.
See, for example, the evidence provided
by Dr. Paul Kengor. In his recent book,
Takedown:
From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and
Marriage, Kengor explains (with powerful evidence) how important it was to
destroy the traditional institutions of family and marriage to allow communism
to flourish. This is the fundamental
change Obama had in store for America.
IM: Just like V. I. Lenin,
Obama knew that he needed to grow a Bolshevik-style grassroots to imitate his “vision”
for a transformed America. To achieve this, he instituted an initiative called “Organizing for America.” Here is the video he released
on January 15, 2009 announcing this grassroots initiative. Today, his organizing machine is now
named BarackObama.com. At this renamed site,
Obama imitators/followers can watch over 30,000 videos.
Old Gadfly: In
terms of “connections,” are there any concerns about Hillary Clinton?
AM: Aside from the
apparent corruption associated with the sleazy pay-to-play connections at the Clinton
Foundation, a more sinister set of connections--especially in light of what
happened in Orlando--begins with Huma Abedin, Hillary’s former aide at the
State Department with access to Top Secret information and now vice-chair for
her presidential campaign. A recent expose’
by Roger Stone is very troubling! According
to Stone, Huma Abedin, a Muslim (ironically married to former, penis-texting Jewish
Congressman Anthony Weiner), was the assistant editor for 12 years of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, an
academic journal published by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a family
business founded in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia with the patronage of Abdullah Omar
Naseef of the Muslim World League.
Naseef’s connections go beyond this.
Naseef was involved in creating Rabita Trust in 1988. Here is an important excerpt from Stone’s
article:
Just a
month after the 9/11 jihadist attack left thousands dead and brought down the
World Trade Center, President George W. Bush’s Executive Order designated the
Rabita Trust as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity and the Treasury
Department froze its assets on October 12, 2001.
Naseef
founded the Rabita Trust and remains involved with it to this day. A Treasury Department press release issued when
Rabita Trust’s assets were frozen indicated that Rabita Trust is headed by Wa’el
Hamza Jalaidan, one of the founders of al-Qaida with bin Laden. He was the logistics chief of bin Laden’s
organization and fought on bin Laden’s side in Afghanistan. Jalaidan himself was branded a Specially
Designated Global Terrorist Entity by the United States Treasury Department,
and his assets have been frozen, as well.
But the
connections between Abedin’s Saudi benefactor, the Muslim World League, and
al-Qaeda don’t end there. (To read
more, see here).
IM: The Washington Post assigned
20 journalists to scrutinize Trump.
When do you think they might consider doing the same for Hillary
Clinton?
Old Gadfly: Not likely. Fuzzy history is an asset for the left. I realized this last year when a USAF Academy
cadet admitted to me that he had no idea what communism is. We need a modern Max
Eastman to refresh people of real history.
Eastman was a socialist activist in his early
years and a close associate of John
Reed, a fellow intellectual, Greenwich Village Bohemian who tried to bring
socialism to America in the early 1900s.
You may have watched Warren Beatty’s movie, Reds. Beatty wrote the screenplay and played the
role of Reed in the movie. I saw it when
it was first released in the 80s and mostly treated it as fiction. Then I watched it again last month. After serving over 34 years defending America
against the threat of communism, I truly understood the message of this
biographical and historical movie this time.
In his book, The Road to Serfdom,
F.A. Hayek relied heavily upon Max Eastman observations. Here is Hayek’s opening paragraph in Chapter
11, “The End of Truth”:
The most effective way of making everybody
serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to
make everybody believe in those ends. To
make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that
everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come
to regard them as their own ends.
Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon
them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes
the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner
wants. If the feeling of oppression in
totalitarian countries is in general less acute than most people in liberal
countries imagine, this is because the totalitarian governments succeed to a
high degree in making people think as they want them to.
AM: Obama, the planner, must be
pleased because even Republicans are acting “spontaneously in the way the
planner wants.”
Old Gadfly: Yes. About 35 years after Hayek’s warning, in the 1983
edition of George Orwell’s 1984, the
venerable Walter Cronkite provided the Preface.
Here is an excerpt:
If not prophecy, what was 1984?
It was, as many have noticed, a warning:
a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where political
organization and technology can manufacture power in dimensions that would have
stunned the imaginations of earlier ages.
Orwell drew upon the technology (and perhaps
some of the science fiction) of the day in drawing his picture of 1984. But it was not a work of science fiction he
was writing. It was a novelistic essay
on power, how it is acquired and maintained, how those who seek it or seek to
keep it tend to sacrifice anything and everything in its name.
IM: Pretty powerful observation from a
respected journalist.
Old Gadfly: Are there any living American journalists
worthy of the title? They seem to have
lost their sense of duty and their soul.
And they have good company with imitating Democrats and spineless
Republicans who lack the courage to support Trump, who clearly understand what
Hayek and Cronkite warned us about.
Trump has a realistic understanding of history and is not on a high
horse—he’s out front leading Americans who refuse to relinquish their God-given
liberty.
