Some more Communist wackiness from the left. Here, Gateway Pundit documents a continuing theme over at BigGovernment about our tax dollars hard at work brainwashing young minds:
Your Missouri tax dollars at work… $400 million in tax dollars going to the state universities to promote filthy communist propaganda. College professors and union leaders were caught on tape teaching students on how the American flag is racist. He also tells them how the US can be defeated in Iraq, Afghanistan and here at home. Dan Riehl at Big Government reported:
While claiming the American flag represents racism and discussing today’s Progressive Movement’s efforts to defeat America both at home and abroad, including on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan to help their international “comrades,” Communist Tony Pecinovsky pulls the mask off today’s Progressive Movement in two new exclusive Big Government videos of a University of Missouri course offering, already much in the news.
Tony Pecinovsky, a Communist Party USA representative who is serving as the Communications Workers of America Secretary and Treasurer in St. Louis, spoke to students at the University of Missouri in St. Louis. In the video, he speaks about how the Communist Party looks to support candidates saying (5:30 mark in the video):
While discussing “the idea that the American flag is racist,” in the video below, Pecinovsky mentions a 2005 international youth festival in Venezuela sponsored by the World Federation of Democratic Youth(WFDY).
(Video was blocked at YouTube, follow link in graphic for all of them)
If you are wondering why some folks are starting to question whether a college education is worth the cost, the video below goes a long way towards explaining it. Recently, the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) and the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) sponsored two college courses: Introduction to Labor Studies and Labor Politics and Society, to be taught simultaneously through a video conference between to two campuses.
The Professors are Judy Ancel, Director of Labor Studies at UMKC and Don Giljum, business manager for the International Union of Operating Engineers at Ameren UE in St. Louis. (Bonus: he is a member of the Communist Party.)
In the class, the Professors not only advocate the occasional need for violence and industrial sabotage, they outline specific tactics that can be used. As one of our colleagues pointed out, its the matter-of-factness of it all that is so disturbing.
And yes, the schools, and the professors’ salaries, are funded by taxpayers.
Check back for more explosive, exclusive video later today.
Earlier today, Big Government brought you video footage of a disturbing college course from University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) and University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC). In the course, Professors Judy Ancel and David Giljam instruct students on how fear, intimidation and, even, industrial sabotage are important and, often, necessary tools for union activists.
In this new video, the professors make clear that they aren’t just speaking in theoretical terms. Union official David Giljum recounts several anecdotes where he, or other union officials, used threats to strengthen their negotiating positions (or simply get two-weeks paid time off work). Professor Ancel recounts favorably a tactic used by a friend of hers in a union protest in Peru. (Her story will be particularly interesting to any cat lovers out there.)
Stay tuned for a lot more on this story as it develops. LaborUnionReport has more information here.
This is imported from my Google Video account, as, they are going to close their site down totally soon. I suggest buying the DVD (Amazon), it is much-much clearer. Documentary filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney investigates political censorship at colleges and universities in the United States.
This is one of those stories that make you wag your head and it is found over at Big Government. But before we get to that, listen to Dennis Prager commenting on this trip at the time:
Here is part of the larger post:
On October 12, Scott Swett at the American Thinker reported that Senator Barabara Boxer (D-CA) along with Representatives Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) secured diplomatic courtesy letters that allowed anti-American Code Pink activists to travel to Fallujah, Iraq. The radicals traveled to Fallujah in late 2004 to donate $600,000 worth of humanitarian aid to the people who had just killed 51 Americans and wounded 560 more earlier that month. Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah was the heaviest US urban combat since the Vietnam War.
Later in this post over at Big Government, we read this:
Code Pink’s leaders had just returned from Fallujah, Iraq, where 51 Americans had been killed and 560 wounded in the US Marines’ heaviest urban combat since the Vietnam War. Code Pink delivered $600,000 in cash and supplies to the very insurgents the Marines had been fighting against – quite literally giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies in a time of war. As noted in Islam Online, a diplomatic courtesy letter from Barbara Boxer helped make the trip possible.
The alternative title for this flashback upload was “Chris Matthews Out Socializes Bernie Sanders”. The original file is worth heading to as the comments are pretty funny/insightful.
In Chris Matthews special, The Rise of the Right, he shows a photo of Obama drawing on a chalk board while mentioning he was a Constitutional professor. Touting Marxist ideals like Chris Matthews does, is, what is at issue here. Here’s a picture of Barack Obama in Chicago teaching the principles of SAUL ALINSKY(GATEWAY PUNDIT).
The heading at the top reads “POWER ANALYSIS”. The sub-heading reads “RELATIONSHIPS BUILT ON SELF INTEREST”. The symbol on the arrow between “CORP” and “MAYOR” is the “$” sign.
The flow chart indicating the flow of money and power out of productive businesses (“CORP”) and into the political class (“MAYOR”)
Saul Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on self-interest between corporations, banks and utilities. Barack Obama taught students in Chicago the Alinsky Principles.
Actually the photo used by MSNBC shows Obama teaching Alinsky principles not the US Constitution. PrestoPundit discussed this photo of Barack Obama in Chicago teaching the principles of Saul Alinsky back in February 2008. Notice the flow chart indicating the flow of money and power out of productive businesses (“CORP”) and into the political class (“MAYOR”)…
The heading at the top reads “POWER ANALYSIS”. The sub-heading reads “RELATIONSHIPS BUILD ON SELF INTEREST”. The symbol on the arrow between “CORP” and “MAYOR” is the “$” sign. Saul Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on self-interest between corporations, banks and utilities. Barack Obama was teaching students in Chicago the Alinsky Principles.
Obama first learned Alinsky’s rules in the 1980s, when Alinskyite radicals with the Chicago-based Alinsky group Gamaliel Foundation recruited, hired, trained and paid him as a community organizer in South Side Chicago. (Gamaliel’s website expressly states it grew out of the Alinsky movement.)
In 1988, Obama even wrote a chapter for the book “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois,” in which he lamented organizers’ “lack of power” in implementing change.
Gamaliel board member John McKnight, a hard-core student of Alinsky, penned a letter for Obama to help him get into Harvard Law School.
Obama took a break from his Harvard studies to travel to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, a station of the cross for acolytes.
In turn, he trained other community organizers in Alinsky agitation tactics.
Obama also taught Alinsky’s “Power Analysis” methods at the University of Chicago.
During the presidential campaign, Obama hired one of his Gamaliel mentors, Mike Kruglik, to train young campaign workers in Alinsky tactics at “Camp Obama,” a school set up at Obama headquarters in Chicago. The tactics helped Obama capture the youth vote like no other president before him.
Power would no longer be an issue, as Obama infiltrated the highest echelon of the political establishment — the White House — fulfilling Alinsky’s vision of a new “vanguard” of coat-and-tie radicals who “work inside the system” to change the system.
After the election, his other Gamaliel mentor, Jerry Kellman (who hired him and whose identity Obama disguised in his memoir), helped the Obama administration establish Organizing for America, which mobilizes young supporters to agitate for Obama’s legislative agenda using “Rules for Radicals.”
Obama’s favorite rule is No. 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” You see that in his attacks on “fat cat bankers,” “greedy health insurers” and “millionaires and billionaires.” He also readily applies Alinsky’s fifth rule of “ridiculing” the opposition.
Mark Levin: Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Parts 1 n 2
Mark Levin compares and contrast the principle teachings of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and the Mantra and strategy of Obama’s campaign and LIFE!
This video is recently uploaded to my RUMBLE to save it from disappearing,
as, the original was uploaded in 2008
Some say we throw terms around too much, like: socialistic, Marxist, fascist, and the like. I tend to agree with some commentators that we need to find one term and stick with it. Like statist. the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics defines statism as:
STATISM
In development studies, statism means the direction and control of economic and social affairs by the state. The practices included: investment in public enterprises; centralized economic planning; the regulation of employment; and other price-distorting interventions in the market.
The American Heritage Dictionary simply states it as:
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
So you could call Obama a statist to sum up all the differing factors of his statements, his acquaintances, and his goals via political-philosophy in growing government. The case against Obama and that he is at the minimum a statist is air tight. So the idea of people who get upset with us conservatives about using terms like socialist, Marxist, and the like, should know the facts before making such (in their mind’s eye) counter attacks. I will only deal with a few of the facts that today’s Left is more radical than anything one could find on the mainstream political opposite. For instance, is there an equivalent to the Socialist Democrats of America organization (The Progressive Caucus):
As of June 2006, the following Members of Congress belonged to the Progressive Caucus: Neil Abercrombie; Tammy Baldwin; Xavier Becerra; Madeleine Z. Bordallo; Corrine Brown; Sherrod Brown; Michael Capuano; Julia Carson; Donna Christensen; William “Lacy” Clay; Emanuel Cleaver; John Conyers; Elijah Cummings; Danny Davis; Peter DeFazio; Rosa DeLauro; Lane Evans; Sam Farr; Chaka Fattah; Bob Filner; Barney Frank; Raul Grijalva; Luis Gutierrez; Maurice Hinchey; Jesse Jackson, Jr.; Sheila Jackson-Lee; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Marcy Kaptur; Carolyn Kilpatrick; Dennis Kucinich; Tom Lantos; Barbara Lee; John Lewis; Ed Markey; Jim McDermott; James P. McGovern; Cynthia McKinney; George Miller; Gwen Moore; Jerrold Nadler; Eleanor Holmes Norton; John Olver; Major Owens; Ed Pastor; Donald Payne; Nancy Pelosi; Charles Rangel; Bobby Rush; Bernie Sanders; Jan Schakowsky; Jose Serrano; Louise Slaughter; Hilda Solis; Pete Stark; Bennie Thompson; John Tierney; Tom Udall; Nydia Velazquez; Maxine Waters; Diane Watson; Mel Watt; Henry Waxman; and Lynn Woolsey.
Remember, the Socialist Democrats have a history of totalitarianism. That is not the point however, does the “right” have something as radical as that where mainstream politicians are active parts or members of? Obama, for instance, ran under the New Party, which can roughly be said to be a Communist political party (CONSERVAPEDIA):
In 1995 Obama accepted the nomination, signed a contract,[285] and ran as a candidate of the openly Marxist New Party.[286][287] The New Party was an electoral alliance that worked alongside ACORN, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America (SPUSA and DSAUSA) and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA (CPUSA).[288] The New Party was funded by literally hundreds of leftist front-groups operating as special interest 527 organizations.[289]
HOTAIRpointed to the many radical positions within this New Party a while ago as well:
In any case, the New Party was clearly far to the left of mainstream Democrats, and according to Sifry, the party explicitly thought of itself as made up of committed “progressives,” rather than conventional “liberals.” That is entirely consistent with a famous 1995 profile of Obama by Hank De Zutter, which portrays him as closely tied to ACORN, and holding a world-view well “beyond” his mother’s conventional liberalism.
To get a sense of where the New Party stood politically, consider some of its early supporters: Barbara Dudley of Greenpeace, Steve Cobble political director of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coaltion, and prominent academics like Frances Fox Piven coauthor of the “Cloward-Piven strategy” and a leader of the drive for the “motor-voter” legislation Obama later defended in court on behalf of ACORN, economist Juliet Schor, black historian, Manning Marable, historian Howard Zinn, linguist Noam Chomsky, Todd Gitlin, and writers like Gloria Steinem, and Barbara Ehrenreich…. In any case, the New Party clearly stands substantially to the left of the mainstream Democratic party.
Obama has even mentioned he has read and been influenced by Marxists. For example, in this Accuracy in Media article, this fact is pointed out:
In his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a “hard-core academic Marxist,” which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.
However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”
The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.
BERTHA LEWISis a name in infamy, thanks to a “pimp and ho” undercover job. But her and Obama’s ties are well-known as illustrated in the above video. However, many do not search out the ties some of these people have. Not only that, but often times one need only go to the “horses mouth” to find this radicalism:
This is one reason that Arizona has canceled radical ethnic classes that go under the guise as multiculturalism but in fact want to create racist separatism in its place. One candidate for office rightly calls some of these people terrorists. Navy veteran, patriot and fierce Obama critic, Les Philip, is running for Republican candidate for Congress, Alabama. He makes the point that the person whom Obama started his political career in the home of is really a terrorist:
As one can see from the following video, Obama was closer to Ayers that at first imagined, not to mention that this was a great political ad that failed to reach the hearts of enough people:
ZOMBLOG got his hands on a photo of Barack Obama reviewing a Bill Ayers book:
From this we can surmise that Obama was aware of Ayers. Further more, Ayers mentions Obama on page 82 of that book reviewed by Obama (FLOPPING ACES):
Ayers omits any discussion of his famous 1970 statement, “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.” He also omits any discussion of his wife Bernardine Dohrn’s famous reaction to the Manson killings, as conveyed by journalist Peter Collier: “Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!” (In a 1993 Chicago Magazine profile, Dohrn claimed, implausibly, that she’d been trying to convey that “Americans love to read about violence.”)(REASON)
So we know that some of Obama’s closest political ties are radical socialist, communists, or Marxists. But let’s not try to differentiate between all the minutia between them, let’s just call them statists. Statists want a government similar to the below:
Obama, then, and the left, would speak in terms similar — or at least more at home in — a camp of statist terms and understanding. Let’s see how these few examples fair after this quote:
“From Each According To His Ability, To Each According To His Need (Or Needs)”
Karl Marx, In His 1875 Critique Of The Gotha Program
Some more Communist wackiness from the left. Here, Gateway Pundit documents a continuing theme over at BigGovernment about our tax dollars hard at work brainwashing young minds:
(Video was blocked at YouTube, follow link in graphic for all of them)
