GBR - Michelle Obama and America

Princeton, 1984.
Michelle Obama attends and promotes a “Black Solidarity” event for guest lecturer Manning Marable, who was, according to Cornel West, probably “the best known black Marxist in the country.” The event is the work of the Third World Center (TWC), a campus group whose board membership is exclusively reserved for minorities.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - For the Love of Marx

There are more Marxists teaching in Sociology Departments in America than living in the former Soviet Union. These sociologists hold themselves out as scientists despite the fact that they fail consistently in their efforts to predict the future. In fact, most of them lack the competence to accurately predict the past. Among the least competent and most intellectually dishonest is Gary L. Faulkner, Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina.

Faulkner recently claimed that Marx predicted the events we are seeing in the Occupy Wall Street movement. He also claimed that events from the 20th Century bolster the credibility of Marx as both an economist and political prophet. He further castigates Republicans for their refusal to embrace Marxism. Faulkner states, “There is something really ironic about Republican’s hatred of Marxism. Years ago Marx predicted capitalism would collapse. The reason - workers would rebel.”

And they did. They rebelled in China, Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. Their rebellion produced Marxist governments. And the governments killed millions. The numbers of murders are striking:

Marxist China 65 million

Marxist USSR 20 million

Marxist North Korea 2 million

Marxist Cambodia 2 million

Marxist Afghanistan 1.5 million

Marxist Vietnam 1 million

Marx predicated all of this, right? Wrong. But we could have seen it coming. Marx was a violent man who unleashed racist and anti-Semitic assaults on anyone who dared to oppose the use of violence as a means of creating change.

Ferdinand Lassalle was one labor leader Marx hated for his desire to come up with practical solutions rather than violent confrontation. Lassalle’s opposition to violence caused Marx to dub him a “Jewish n****r” and a “greasy Jew.” Marx also said of Lassalle “the shape of his head and the growth of his hair indicate(s) he is a descendent of the Negroes who joined in Moses flight from Egypt unless his mother or grandmother on the father’s side was crossed with a n****r.”

There is little question that Marx would have carried out violence on a large scale. But his poor physical condition prevented him from doing so – instead leaving the work to followers such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. His heavy smoking and drinking zapped his energy. His refusal to bathe – a trait also shared by Mao - resulted in boils all over his body. They brought on nervous collapse and fits of rage – both of which would have prevented him from working and earning his own living had he decided to do so.

Marx had a passionate hatred of capitalism because he was simply unable to handle money and to organize his own financial affairs. His inability to stay out of debt explains why his theory of capital is so deeply rooted in anti-Semitism. It also explains why he stole many of his most deeply anti-Semitic passages from Martin Luther.

Because he refused to work, even his own family remained unsympathetic to his requests for handouts, which he began making in college and kept making throughout the duration of his life. His own mother was credited with saying that she wished Karl would start accumulating capital instead of just writing about it.

Although he wrote about the need for revolution, Marx had a strange hatred for those who came from the revolutionary class. His son-in-law Paul Lafargue was from Cuba and had some black blood. He tried to keep his daughter from marrying him and later resented him for refusing to honor his wishes. Consequently, Marx referred to him as “Negrillo” and “the Gorilla.”

In short, Marx considered both work and the worker to be beneath him. He lived nearly his entire adult life off of handouts from Engels, the co-author of The Communist Manifesto. While he was living off of Engels’ capital, Marx kept a peasant woman around the house and refused to pay her for her services. Later, he fathered an illegitimate child by her and refused to provide financial support or even to acknowledge that he was the father. In other words, he exploited her labor and then abandoned her after she went into labor. Marx was not a great man worthy of admiration.

Nor was Marx a great prophet. He understood that there would always be men incapable of taking care of themselves. He understood that they would resort to violence whenever they did not get what they wanted. He also understood that there would always be academics who admired gross incompetence and the propensity towards violence.

Marx did not need a crystal ball to arrive at these truths. All he needed was a mirror.

Source: Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (New York, 1988).

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - I'm Telling Your Commie

Dear JW:

Thanks for writing to me. I also want to take a moment to thank you for sending an email to one of my Marxist bosses urging my censure for a recent column that I wrote. Among other things, you, a self-described liberal, allege that my column was racist. I think there are a few things you should have learned about racism, liberalism, and Marxism before you wrote your email. So today I’m taking time from my regular schedule to educate you. I do so because I’m a teacher. It’s what I get paid to do. Today’s lesson on racism, Marxism and morality comes in three parts. I’ll keep it as direct and relevant as possible. I hope you enjoy it.

Most liberals are racists in the classical sense.

You told one of my bosses that I am a racist because I wrote a parable featuring a black character who was a rapist. Alleging that blacks occasionally commit crimes like rape is not racism. Racism is actually a belief in the intellectual inferiority of other races. In this country, it is often a belief held by a white individual and directed at blacks as a group. What you fail to understand is that most of my liberal supervisors and liberal colleagues are racists in the classical sense. I’m not using the term “most” as in 51%. I would estimate the number to be around 90 or 95%. Let me explain.

The overwhelming majority of my colleagues support using race-based affirmative action here at this university. The form of affirmative action they support ads points directly to the SAT scores and GPAs of black students. The reason they support such an ad-on-point system for blacks (but not Asians) is pretty simple: they consider blacks (but not Asians) to be intellectually inferior and thus incapable of competing on an even playing field. They may say that SATs are “culturally biased.” But they make no similar claim that GPAs are “culturally biased.” It is just a liberal code phrase that means “too hard for black people.”

I disagree with my colleagues and supervisors. I believe that black/white performance differences would go away within a few years of eliminating affirmative action. I guess, I’m one of the few non-racists working here at the university.

Most liberals support institutional racism.

Liberals believe there are other forms of racism besides individual racism. Like individuals, they think institutions can be racist, too. For example, they think the criminal justice system advances “institutional racism.” Their reasoning is that the justice system incarcerates blacks disproportionately. According to them, that is racist even in the absence of individual intent. Unfortunately, they lose the moral high-ground by supporting abortion, which kills 51% of blacks while they are still in the womb.

It really doesn’t make much sense to me when you tell my liberal colleagues I’m a racist. I oppose the one procedure that is responsible for killing over half the black population. They vigorously support it. I think that’s why they are so eager to entertain accusations of racism.

To put things in perspective, there have been more blacks killed in abortion clinics than Jews killed in concentration camps. Maybe that’s why liberals use the term Nazi so often. It helps assuage the guilt as the body count climbs above and beyond human comprehension.

Regardless of the topic, Marxists have no real moral authority.

While most of the people I work with are liberal, the specific person to whom you complained is an avowed Marxist. While I might respect Marxists as individuals, I certainly do not respect their views on any given subject. The administrator to whom you complained advocates a Marxist revolution here in America. That’s all I really need to know in order to conclude that her moral advice is essentially meaningless.

Imagine if the aforementioned Marxist were to say “You really shouldn’t be doing that” (in reference to writing my often abrasive column). The obvious rejoinder would be “You really shouldn’t be doing that” (in reference to her advocacy of a Marxist revolution in America). For perspective, stop and look at the following list of 20th Century regimes that committed at least a million murders in the name of utopian Marxism:

• China 65 million
• USSR 20 million
• North Korea 2 million
• Cambodia 2 million
• Afghanistan 1.5 million
• Vietnam 1 million

(Author’s Note: the Marxist feminists are technically in second place with 53 million murders since Roe v. Wade).

If you advance a political philosophy that has killed that many people then you simply have no moral authority whatsoever. I would not even trust a Marxist to give me directions to the grocery store. Why on earth would I hand over my First Amendment rights to someone with such a murderous worldview?

In closing, the First Amendment protects the right to advocate the extermination of millions of black people in name of feminism. It also protects the right to advocate the slaughter of tens of millions in the name of Marxism. Surely it protects my right to pen an abrasive satire some liberals were not Swift enough to understand.

Mike Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Austin Hill - Mormonism or Marxism: Which Would You Prefer at the White House?

Is a Romney nomination inevitable?

No.

But former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is looking very strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, where presidential primary voting begins this week. Likewise, a current Rasmussen poll shows Romney with a six percentage point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical election matchup.

So things are looking very good for Mitt Romney, as he seeks the Republican nomination for the presidency. And this means that Americans will likely have to answer an important question in 2012: which would you prefer at the White House -Mormon theology, or Marxist liberation theology?

I wish I didn’t have to ask this question. But as Romney gets closer to the presidency, the criticisms of his church affiliation and theological convictions will get louder. And if you’re troubled by Mitt’s Mormonism, you should be even more concerned about the religious affiliations of our current President.

As for Mr. Romney, he has thus far run a good campaign and has managed to mostly stay out of theological debates. But in the last presidential election cycle the “Mormon thing” proved to be unavoidable, and as primary voting begins in religiously conservative regions of the country, his Mormonism will become a big deal again.

Given this certainty, here’s some advice for Governor Romney: don’t repeat your mistake of 2008 of trying to convince “them” that you are one of “them.” The more you stand in front of conservative Evangelical and Catholic audiences and ascribe terms like “born again” and “Christian” to yourself, the more they’ll be saying “oh no you are not!”

Leave the theological battles over “who is really a Christian” to other people, Mr. Romney, and talk to us instead about the values and policy ideas that America so desperately needs.

When questions arise about your church, tell us, Mr. Romney, why your Mormonism matters: your church informs your understanding of why our society must uphold the dignity of every human individual; it teaches you about the profound importance of human liberty (I love your church’s “Choose The Right” motto – try telling us why it is so important that each of us have the freedom to “choose”); and it affirms to the world that marriage is good for society. Try to convey that, while our theological differences are real, our values are more universal and uniting.

On this point, you might borrow from former President George W Bush. In a little-known March 2001 speech, Bush spoke at the opening of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. Bush, of course, is a Methodist-turned-Evangelical, yet he was still warmly received at the ceremony by the Catholic hierarchy.

And Bush didn’t try to pretend that he was Catholic, either. “I may not be a parishioner…” he stated as he began his remarks, “but I’m a sojourner with you…” He then brilliantly went on to say that we are “one” with our values, and that the Pope was a great teacher of those values. To those who would prefer to bash Romney’s church rather than seriously considering who should be our next President, I would ask this: have you scrutinized President Obama’s theological affiliations the way you’ve scrutinized Mormonism?

For the record, Barack Obama hasn’t been known for regular church attendance since moving-in to the White House (this puts him in good company with many of our previous Presidents). Yet his decades-long affiliation with the radical Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a central outlet of liberation theology, is quite well documented.

This is to say that President Obama has been steeped in a theological worldview that essentially takes the economic and “class struggle” teachings of Karl Marx, and superimposes Bible verses over it. It preaches that successful people are oppressors who need to be conquered, and that the “oppressed” should live off of other people’s largesse. These sorts of ideas -which are inherently economic in their nature -are prevalent in governments throughout the third world, Latin America, and parts of Europe. And they are blessed and affirmed in churches that espouse liberation theology – which is all a part of our President’s religious background.

Are there theological differences between Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and the Evangelicalism and Catholicism that a majority of Americans embrace? Yes, there absolutely is.

But it is also true that the Mormon Church movement is an American-born religious movement, and teaches that freedom is something that is sacred and to be safe-guarded.

President Obama’s liberation theology, on the other hand, is at war with Western values. It teaches that freedom is inherently problematic (it inevitably leads to a society of oppressors and victims), and only through the power of government control can the evils of a free society be corrected.

I’d be delighted to see Mormonism replace the Marxism that presently inhabits the White House. But will Americans be willing to honestly examine them both?

Austin Hill

---

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Star Parker - Land of the Envious and Home of the Victim

President Obama laid out his vision of America in Osawatomie, Kansas.

We are no longer, in our president’s take on things, land of the free and home of the brave.

America now is land of the envious and home of the victim.

We are a land, as our president explains it, where the success of one American comes at the expense of another. Where the poor are poor because the rich are rich. And where the role of government is not to ensure “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” but to tax away wealth from those it deems to have too much and determine how to invest our nation’s resources.

The president chose to give this speech in Osawatomie because President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, spoke there in 1910 and made a plea for more government in American life. How clever.

But in 1910 the federal government was extracting less than five cents from every dollar produced by the American economy.

It was not until the 1930’s, except for the period of World War I, that this doubled to 10 cents of every dollar.

After World War II, this doubled again to 20 cents.

Now, after three years under President Obama’s vision, the federal government takes 25 cents of every dollar produced by the American economy. If we throw in the costs of state and local government, barely 50 cents of each dollar of our economic output remains in the private economy.

But President Obama thinks we’re languishing because we’re still too free.

The idea that “the market will take care of everything” may look good on a “bumper sticker” according to our president, but, in his words, the idea of free citizens and free markets “…doesn’t work” and “…never worked.”

Perhaps our president ought to wake from his dream, and our nightmare, and take a closer look at the country he is living in.

According to the Kauffman Foundation, which specializes in studying entrepreneurship, almost all net new jobs created in our country come from firms less than five years old.

Net new job growth in American comes from entrepreneurs. Not from government bureaucrats and not even from corporate monoliths.

This entrepreneurial activity takes place at considerable risk. According to one study from Case Western Reserve University, only 30 percent of new business start-ups are still operating after ten years.

Entrepreneurs start and build their businesses with personal savings, credit cards, funds from family and friends, and loans and investments from banks and venture capitalists.

But what entrepreneur will take these risks if there isn’t upside as well as downside? Who will do it if success is punished rather than rewarded? If power seeking politicians decide that certain successful entrepreneurs have become too wealthy?

Our president cannot seem to grasp that freedom and entrepreneurship is not about “doing your own thing” but is the essence of what he calls “we’re greater together than we are on our own.”

Businesses grow by competing to serve customers.

It is also not about, to the president’s confusion, “making up your own rules.” It works when we don’t make up our on rules and live by eternal truths which prohibit theft and protect private property. Our problems start when government stops doing its job to enforce those rules and starts making up its own.

Where President Obama was correct was to say that “This is the defining issue of our time.”

Whatever solutions Republicans propose to deal with issues like government spending, taxation, healthcare, and education must flow from a core vision of what America is about.

Whoever emerges as the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 must be ready to offer a dusted off and clear vision of America that will restore our understanding of and faith in the freedom that made and makes this country great.

Star Parker

---

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Barack Obama's Marxist Utopia

Marxists actually hate themselves and the fact that most if not all of them never achieve anything more in their lives but the destruction of what others have accomplished.

Barack Obama is a prime example in his attempt to 'Fundamentally Transform the United States'.

His attempts will only bring dystopia to the the most exceptional Nation that has ever existed on Planet Earth.

What We Believe - Gun Rights

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Mike Adams - Judging Mrs. White

It is a truism to say that Marxist thought has done much to undermine the quality of today’s college experience. But few people realize just how deeply Marxist thought has penetrated education in America. Its influence is not restricted to the realm of higher education. Nor is it restricted to the realm of economics. Marxism also affects our moral reasoning and it begins to do so in grammar school. The case of Mrs. White is illustrative.

Mrs. White was a first grade teacher in the 1960s. She taught in a small school in Alabama just a few years after the schools integrated along the lines of race. She was rather blunt in her teaching methods. But she was effective. In fact, no one ever questioned her efficacy in the classroom.

One day, Mrs. White was teaching a young black boy to read. He was pronouncing the word “this” as “dis” and the word “that” as “dat.” Mrs. White told him he needed to learn to speak English properly. She said that integration was a right accompanied by responsibilities. She went so far as to tell him that he wasn’t a “nigger” and shouldn’t speak like one. She told him he was an intelligent young man and needed to act like it.

Her methods were unorthodox but hardly controversial in that day. Years later, after the young black boy became a young black man with a college degree, he stayed in touch with Mrs. White. She was the best teacher he ever had. She taught him how to read – something neither of his parents learned to do.

In 1968, just five years into her teaching career, Mrs. White went through a very public divorce. She had an affair with another man and subsequently decided to leave her husband and three children. When she left her family, she was forthcoming about the reasons. In an unusual move, she decided to give her husband full custody without any legal challenge.

The response to Mrs. White’s divorce was uniform. Parents called for her dismissal, which was effected at the end of the school year. She never taught again – although it was a moot point given the substantial wealth of her second husband.

Mrs. White had only one daughter, named Gina. When Gina graduated from college in 1983, she became a schoolteacher. Her choice of career surprised many given that her mother had walked out on her when she was a child. No one expected her to want to grow up to be like her mother - but she did so in many ways.

In 1990, Gina did something that surprised many, given the pain that divorce had brought upon her own life when she was just a little girl. Gina, like her mother, left her husband. And, like her mother, she did so after a long extramarital affair. A final similarity was that there was no effort to win custody of her two children. She wanted to break away and begin life anew with her second husband.

Unlike her mother, she suffered no adverse effects in the workplace. Her divorce never really came up at work except among good friends who offered their support. She continued to teach for a number of years until an unfortunate incident changed her life in the course of a day.

Ebonics was a topic of discussion in the realm of education in the 1990s. In fact, one day in front of class, she was asked her opinion of Ebonics by one of her black students. Her reply was blunt. She told him Ebonics was harmful. She said it taught young black people that they were “nothing more than niggers” when, in fact, they are just like everyone else. She concluded by saying “Therefore, they should talk like everyone else.”

Gina’s use of the word “nigger” in the classroom set off a firestorm that resulted in her termination. The termination occurred over the protests of the young black man who asked the question and who insisted he was not offended by her answer. In fact, he agreed with it.

Most people would say that America has become a more tolerant place since the 1960s – a land relatively free of condemnation. That view is more than simplistic. It is wrong. The nature of judgment, not the level of judgment, has changed drastically in the last half-century. The cases of Mrs. White and her daughter demonstrate that clearly.

Mrs. White was given a pass on her use of a racial epithet in class in the 1960s because it was not seen as injurious to any individual. It wasn’t being used as an insult. It was being used to tell a student what he was not. But she was dismissed after her divorce because her behavior was seen as injurious to several individuals. It hurt her husband and children and set a bad example for her students.

Unlike her mother, Gina taught in the era of postmodern education where judgments are made on the basis of group considerations. People who see the truth as defined by power struggles are inclined to see our institutions as oppressive. And that is why Gina was supported rather than fired after her divorce. She was making a statement, not just about herself, but about women everywhere. They are free to be happy rather than subjugate themselves in deference to patriarchal oppression.

But postmodernism would not tolerate her later transgression along the lines of race. She did not offend the black student in her class. She offended a race. And groups have consumed the rights once held by individuals.

In education today, there would be no speech codes without postmodernism. And there would be no postmodernism without the influence of Marx. It’s no mystery that speech codes are used to defend the Marxist ideas that gave them life. They play the role their parents assigned them. Author’s Note: Thanks to Dennis McCallum, editor of The Death of Truth, for inspiring this column.

Mike Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Glenn Beck - "This Is A Marxist Revolution That's Global In Nature!"

Former Fox News talk-show host Glenn Beck said the Occupy Wall Street protests that have grown in the past four weeks are part and parcel of a communist plan to collapse the U.S. economy.

Beck also said the Occupy demonstrations occurring in numerous cities around the world represent a coordinated effort by communists to collapse the capitalist economic system, not reform it.

"This is a Marxist revolution that is global in its nature,"

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Andrew Breitbart - The MSM's Absurd Accusations About Tea Party Activists

Alexis Garcia catches up with Andrew Breitbart at the Smart Girl Summit. Breitbart outlines how the media's narrative of the Tea Party is a weapon being wielded by Democrats, the White House, MSM pundits and even members of the GOP.

---

Related Post: Tea Party Extremists?
Related Post: The DC Debt Debacle & Cain's Energy Doctrine

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---