Giuliani Tells the Truth About Obama—why now?

By Al Benson Jr.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently ignited a media firestorm when he made the comment that he didn’t think Barack Obama really loved America. From the reaction of the “news” media as well as all the other useful idiots out there you’d have thought he had accused the Pope of blasphemy when all he did was to state a simple truth. Even one of the anchor persons on Fox News took him to task, which shows you how far to the left Fox News is now willing to go to prove its “relevance.”

And I think most Americans that give Giuliani’s statement any serious thought will be forced to conclude that he is right. The president does not love America. He really hates both America and its people, especially the middle class that he claims to embrace. What Obama really loves is his socialist vision for America and the thought of what he really wants to fundamentally transform this country into. That’s where his real affection lies. He seeks to transform us into a society where the community organizers and their buddies in big government will run the show and we will have no say at all.

Thomas Sowell, in a column that appeared on http://spectator.org on February 24th noted that: “Barack Obama’s campaign promise to ‘fundamentally change the United States of America’ hardly suggests love. Nor did his international speaking tour in 2009, telling foreign audiences that America was to blame for problems on the world stage…Some people who are denouncing former mayor Rudolh Giuliani seem to be saying that it is just not right to accuse a President of the United States of being unpatriotic. But when Barack Obama was a Senator, that is precisely what he said about President George W. Bush. Where was the outrage then?” Good question, but with today’s media double standard, don’t hold your breath waiting for an intelligent answer.

Another article on http://www.nypost.com for February 21st observed: “Rudy Giuliani doubled down on his claims that President Obama doesn’t ‘love America’ in an interview with the Post Friday—claiming the commander-in-chief has been influenced by communists since his birth.” And Giuliani continued: “From the time he was 9 years old, he was influenced by Frank Marshall Davis, who was a communist” and Giuliani noted that Obama’s own grandfather had introduced him to Davis.

A writer for http://www.junkscience.com says it all much more bluntly, but no less accurately, when he writes: “Frank Marshall Davis was a college graduate, card carrying, writing, organizing, advocate member of the commie party, a self-admitted bisexual, pornographer and pedophile. Nice guy to mentor a future POTUS, right…I knew about Frank years ago from reading many books and essays. I have a background file and books that measure a foot or more. I learned early and well during the run up to the 2008 election from David Freddoso, Jerome Corsi, Jack Cashill, Stanley Kurtz, Paul Kengor, David Horowitz, and many essayists…Did you know that he succeeded a commie in the Illinois Legislature, Alice Palmer?—commies in the black community are common, particularly in the urban militant race grievance cultures of places like Philly, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit. Name any major city that doesn’t have it’s share of aggrieved angry racialist commies who want to bring down the man. Obama was steeped in commie culture.” Blunt, but true, in spite of Fox News! I’ve read some of the stuff this writer refers to and he’s right on the money. Stanley Kurtz’s book Radical-In-Chief provides excellent in-depth coverage of Obama’s deep ties to what can only be described as the network of the socialist underground in this country. It’s all out there and it’s all functioning to change the country into something we will not even recognize, and yet most people are totally unaware of its existence.

Writer Cliff Kincaid, in an article on http://www.NewsWithViews.com stated on February 23rd that “Giuliani’s public identification of Davis and discussion of his role in grooming a young Barack Obama marks the first time, in my memory, that a top Republican has ever mentioned the Davis-Obama relationship. It was done in the context of Fox News’ Megyn Kelly of questioning how Giuliani could dare ask whether Obama loves America.” Why shouldn’t he ask? Are such questions somehow “forbidden?” You can bet when “net neutrality” kicks in they will be, but they should be asked before that unhappy event occurs.

Thing is, lots of folks knew before Obama was elected that he has socialist connections. Kincaid noted that Republican operative Karl Rove had been running around telling Republicans not to accuse Obama of being a socialist. Why not? Which means that Rove already was aware of Obama’s background and didn’t want it spread around before the election. I have contended that, at the leadership levels, both Republicans and Democrats were fully aware of Obama’s Marxist proclivities and neither had any problems with them—except they wanted to make sure the man on the street wasn’t aware of them? In other words, they covered his leftism when they should have exposed it. No surprise there.

Kincaid continued: “Even more of the story was put together by Paul Kengor in his authoritative book on Davis, The Communist. It appears that Davis was an influence over Obama for about nine full years, until Obama was 18 and went off to college and, by his own admission, would attend socialist conferences and pick Marxist professors as his friends…When former Obama advisor David Axelrod talks about Obama being free from major scandals, he is ignoring the biggest scandal of all—how Obama concealed his Marxist upbringing and relationship with Davis. Axelrod, of course, was part of the cover-up.”

Now I’m glad that Giuliani has said what he said and that he “shocked” a decadent “news” media that really knew all about most of this and kept it from the American people. But my question is—why now? The Republican establishment knew all this stuff before the 2008 election and chose to say nothing that would aid their candidate in the presidential election and you can bet that if they all knew this, then Giuliani knew it back then, too. So why is he telling us now? What’s the reason for this “sudden revelation?” The people that pointed all of this out over six years ago were all painted as nuts and “conspiracy theorists” and the public was told to ignore them. Yet now, a member of the Republican Establishment (and Giuliani IS a member of it) is publicly admitting what many of us said back before the 2008 “election.” So, why now? Has Obama’s Marxism gotten so blatant that even part of the Establishment can’t stomach it? I almost find that hard to believe. The Establishment, of which the leadership of both parties belongs to, has no problem with anything, no matter how vile, that will further their One World agenda. For them, like Marx, the end truly justifies the means.

So stay tuned folks, if something is forthcoming before the Net is “neutralized” then we might find out. If not, it will continue to be business as usual in Sodom on the Potomac.

Bill and Barack—Two Marxist Peas From the Same Pod

By Al Benson Jr.

Back in 2008 when Barack Obama co-opted the office of President with the help of the ruling establishment, both Republican and Democrat, there was a slight fuss over his association with (former) Marxist terrorist William Ayers, unrepentant former leader of the Weather Underground, an organization even Wikipedia was forced to label as “a radical left organization.”

This allegation was, supposedly, investigated by both CNN and The New York Times as well as others. They all concluded that the allegations were without foundation and that the two barely knew one another, barely recognized each other on the street. With that conclusion I have to question just where all those “investigative” reporters spend their time investigating—was it in the local corner bar or was it back in their editorial offices where they were told what not to write?

Wikipedia noted: “Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn hosted a gathering at their home in 1995, where Alice Palmer introduced Obama as her chosen successor in the Illinois State Senate. Obama and Ayres’ nine years of service on the board of directiors of the Woods Fund of Chicago overlapped for three years from 1999 to 2002.” Yep, barely knew one another! In a Breitbart article on the Internet for June 4, 2012, it was stated that: “Obama’s connection with Bill Ayers, like his connection to Jeremiah Wright, briefly became a campaign issue in 2008. The Obama campaign was quick to distance the candidate from the 60’s domestic terrorist, even as blogs continued to dig up evidence connecting the two men.” The issue became enough of an impediment to Obama’s campaign that author Scott Shane had to do a story on it which was entitled Obama and 60’s Bomber: a look into crossed paths. Suffice it to say, Scott Shane “missed” or overlooked significant connections between these two who barely knew one another, and these connections might have raised the red flag for some voters—which is probably why they were overlooked. The “news” media did what it usually does—hid the real news and concentrated on the fluff.

The Breitbart article continued: “However, Shane overlooks the more obvious…connection. Various boards on which Obama sat in the late 90s granted nearly $2 million dollars to Bill Ayers’ Small School’s Workshop…In addition to donations to Ayers’ Small Schools Workshop, the same foundations donated $761,100 to a related group run by Ayres’ brother, John Ayers. In fact, in 2001, Obama would join the ‘leadership council’ of a successor to the CAC called the Chicago Public Education Fund. Also on the leadership council of the group was Bill Ayers’ brother John. You have to wonder how Shane Scott missed all this. When confronted with the issue, Obama was forced to say that he repudiated Ayres’ terrorist actions of 40 years ago. Well, he was running for office, what else would you expect him to say? He couldn’t admit he didn’t have any problem with them. That would have been the kiss of death for his campaign even with the establishment help he got. However, it’s worth noting that he only repudiated Ayers’ “detestable acts” of four decades earlier. He never said anything about Ayers’ mindset in the here and now. That subject was left untouched. Had Ayers been repentant for his terrorist acts you might overlook some things, but he wasn’t and isn’t to this day. In a piece by The New York Times published on September 11, 2001, Ayres was quoted as saying: “I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough…Just two months ago (2012) Ayers was in Union Square telling anyone who would listen ‘I get up every morning thinking today…I’m going to end capitalism’.” This from a man Obama claimed to have barely known, a man who Obama said was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”

In an article in The American Spectator by Alfred S. Regnery in Septemer, 2011 it was observed: “The Obama campaign at once launched a crusade to distance Obama from Ayres. It went so far as to actually defend the man who had implicated himself in terror bombings in his own 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days. …In fact, Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were radical Marxist revolutionaries in the Viet Nam War era. ..Both were eventually indicted in federal court, and Dohrn by the State of Illinois. Rather than face trial they jumped bail and disappeared into the underground in 1970. After they resurfaced 11 years later, both were admitted into the halls of academia. Ayers became a Distinguished Professor of Education and a Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Incredibly, Dohrn befame a law professor at Northwestern.” Do you think that kind of thing would have happened for most ordinary folks who might have been terrorists? From unrepentant terrorists to professors. That tells you something about our higher education system today.

And then http://www.theobamafile.com which is always a good source for the nitty gritty, goes even further. The relationship between Bill and Barack, and their wives, is pretty well fleshed out. The Obama File stated: “It is a fact that in 1989, Bernadine Dohrn and Michelle Obama were associates at the Chicago law firm of Sidney & Austin, when Obama joined the firm as a summer intern. Barack also was essentially an employee of Bill Ayers for eight years, starting in 1995, the year the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created to raise funds to help reform the Chicago public schools. One of the architects of the Challenge was none other than Professor Bill Ayers. Ayers co-wrote the initial grant proposal and proudly lists himself on his own website as the co-founder of the Challenge. And who did William Ayers, co-creator of the Challenge, help select as the new director of the board for this program? Why, Barack Obama, of course. Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.” What a coincidence! And Obama stayed on the board for eight years until the Challenge finally ended in 2003. Ayers was definitely involved with the Challenge in this same time period, “raising and spending at least $110 million in an effort to bolster a ‘radical’ reform program in the Chicago Public Schools from 1994 to 2001.”

This Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an interesting animal and, knowing how the socialist mentality works, you can just bet that it was never formed to do what it had supposedly been formed to do. Stanley Kurtz, in his book, which we have mentioned previously, Radical-In-Chief has dealt with this organization and his observations are worth noting. Kurtz noted: “By ordinary standards, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an expensive failure. Together Obama, as head of CAC’s money-dispensing board, and Ayers, as head of its policy-making ‘collaborative’ spent well over $100 million, with no discernable improvement in the test scores of low-performing schools.” But then, you have to ask—was improving test scores what they really spent all this dinero on? Turns out the answer is no. But if you follow this stuff, you knew that already. Instead of directly funding public schools, Kurtz observed that “CAC required schools to affiliate with ‘external partners,’ which actually got the money. Proposals from prospective external partners committed to teaching traditional math and science skills were rejected. Community organizers like ACORN and Obama’s own Developing Communities Project got the money instead. Programs established by these groups focused more on political consciousness, Afro-centricity, and bilingualism than traditional education. Ayers’ ‘small schools’ projects were perfect examples of the type. One of Ayers’ creations was a ‘peace school,’ where students celebrated United Nations-themed events instead of traditional American holidays. As part of his rhetorical makeover, Ayers has soft-peddled his overt anti-Americanism…In his education work, Ayers inculcates loyalty to ‘the world’ as a substitute for overt anti-Americanism.” So you can see, even by this brief excerpt the kind of One World drivel they have been feeding into the public school system.

To sum up, from The Obama File: “The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away. Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s…Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’ and Dohrn’s home , Obama has dismissed Ayers as just ‘a guy who lives in my neighborhood’…For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.” If you didn’t know why before you do now. The two men did share an office and you can bet the farm that Obama knew quite well who he was associating with. The terrorist and the Marxist have a long record of collaboration with one another—well, actually they are both Marxists so this should surprise no one except those that have not bothered to do the homework. This is what ignorant voters, a compliant bought and paid for media, and our ruling establishment have made sure we are forced to live with. Is this a wonderful Kountry or what???

A Little Community Organizing in Charlottesville, Virginia

By Al Benson Jr.

There has been a big flap recently in Charlottesville, Virginia over Confederate statues being taken down. It goes without saying that this is yet one more exercise in Marxist Cultural Genocide in the South, yet many of our people do not seem to be aware of what is being done to them and their culture. This is not just a happenstance occurrence, it is part of a planned agenda to strip the South of its culture, history, and heritage and to replace all these with some sort of Marxist monstrosity parading as “history” that almost no native Virginian would ever recognize. And if they manage to pull it off your grandchildren will not know from whence they came.

Well-known Western fiction writer Louis L’Amour made a prescient statement in one of his books To The Far Blue Mountains. He said: “We must not lose touch with what we were, or what we had been, nor must we allow the well of our history to dry up, for a child without tradition is a child crippled before the world.” Mr. L’Amour, without realizing it, was accurately describing what the Marxist mentalities in our day (and before) are trying to do to our children—to make them cripples before the entire world—a people with no real knowledge of our history, where we came from or what we should be doing or why. This is the agenda of Marxist Cultural Genocide in the American Southland—the crippling of future generations—and if we don’t begin to wake up and realize who is doing this and why, they may well be able to pull it off while we futilely oppose them for the wrong reasons and on the wrong track.

These people are doing this for evil reasons and they need to be opposed and exposed.

The city of Charlottesville, Virginia has a City Council member, Kristin Szakos, who would dearly love to see statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson removed from Charlottesville. She has been on this kick for something like three years now. For electing this woman the voters of Charlottesville need a verbal “slap upside of the head” without doing some homework as to her background. Because her background is Pink, boys, deep Pink! Szakos questions the “relevance” of the statues. That word “relevance” can be used so many ways to twist a dialogue that shouldn’t even be happening in the first place. The “relevance” of the statues is that they are part of this history and heritage of Charlottesville. She wants to have a “conversation” about that. Why? Some of the local historians don’t agree with her. In fact the president of one of the local historical societies, Steven Meeks, said taking down the statues would be like rewriting history. What do you think it’s all about? Exactly that—rewriting the history of Charlottesville and the entire region. Marxists always want the history rewritten so it will say what they want it to say instead of what it really says.

So let’s look at Ms. Szakos and see where she’s coming from. Turns out she’s married to Joe Szakos, who is, of all things, a community organizer, just like our beloved president was before his political boat came in. Wikipedia says of Mr Szakos: “In a 2005 paper Szakos emphasized the need for a collective recruitment plan for community organizers. He has completed two books on community organizing with his wife Kristin Layng Szakos. One book (We Make Change, 2007) is based on more than 75 interviews with community organizers across the country about what they do and why they do it.” This offering was printed by Vanderbilt University Press in 2007. Vanderbilt should be ashamed to print books that promote community organizing, but they probably aren’t. They probably agree with it as do most schools nowadays. Whether it’s in Charlottesville or Memphis or Selma, community organizers do mean to change your history and make you ashamed of that history in the process. It’s part of their agenda and we had better wake up and realize that.

There was an article about Ms. Szakos published online by The Hook—Charlotteville’s weekly newspaper back in August of 2013 under the People to watch section. It said of her: “While professionally she’s been a reporter/writer/translator, community organizing has always been close to the vice mayor’s heart—she’s written two books about it and her husband runs Virginia Organizing. Early on, she led the local campaign of another community organizer, Barack Obama, and her website photo of the president is not the standard grip and grin, but one in which it looks like he actually knows her…She’s running for council again, and if she’s elected, odds are pretty good that she’s going to be Charlottesville’s next mayor. Pet peeve: Civil War Monuments.” So people should have known right up front where she was coming from. It was all laid out before she was elected. So why did the people of Charlottesville even vote for her? Hadn’t they had enough of the community organizer we have in Washington? Did they want a repeat performance at the local level?

Just in case, at this late date, people still do not realize what a “community organizer” really is, I will quote a few brief passages from Stanley Kurtz’ book Radical-In-Chief—Barack Obama and the untold story of American Socialism. Mr. Kurtz has noted, near the beginning of his book: “Community organizing is a largely socialist profession. Particularly at the highest levels, America’s community organizers have adopted a deliberately stealthy posture—hiding their socialism behind a ‘populist’ front. These organizers strive to push America toward socialism in unobtrusive, incremental steps…Altlhough contemporary community organizers deliberately hide their socialism, with a bit of digging, their secrets can be revealed.” Kurtz observes that community organizers will often “consciously mask a hard-edged socialism in feel good euphemistic code.” But the “hard-edged socialism” is there if people are willing to dig for it.

We in the South have got to realize the reason and intent, and political persuasion, of those who seek to tear down our culture and history, and we have got to start exposing that intent and political persuasion. From what I’ve been able to read, the people in Charlottesville were informed that this lady was a community organizer. Did they even realize what that was and the socialist intent of that profession? If not why not? Do our people who are protesting what she is trying to do in Charlottesville realize where this lady is coming from and, if so, have they been able to expose her socialist position to those who view their protests? This is something they need to start doing if they haven’t been doing it. If this woman is a socialist, people need to be aware of it and they need to be aware of the sort of profession (socialist) that community organizing really is. These people have permeated the South for generations (some of the earlier ones were outright Communists) and most of our people don’t seem to have a clue. Those who practice Cultural Genocide on the South are Marxists and they are trying to replace your accurate Southern history, heritage and culture with their Marxist version of the New World Order. These people don’t plan to cease and desist. They are out to tear down your culture because it is Southern, but primarily because it has been Christian and they vehemently hate Christ and Christianity.

I almost wish we could create some sort of seminar that would deal with exposing these people for what they are and that would propose ways to combat their efforts.

“Community Organizing” and Stealth Socialism

By Al Benson Jr.

Up until 1970 I had never even heard the term “community organizer.” In 1970 I heard the term applied to a man who had been hired to lecture college students. The man was a puredee Communist Party member. So for years I could honestly say “The only man I ever heard about who was a community organizer was a Communist.” Turns out that wasn’t really all that far off.

Stanley Kurtz, in his book Radical-In-Chief—Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism has some informative comments on community organizers. He notes, quite accurately, that: “Community organizing is a largely socialist profession. Particularly at the highest levels, America’s community organizers have adopted a deliberately stealthy posture—hiding their socialism behind a ‘populist’ front. These organizers strive to push America toward socialism in unobtrusive, incremental steps, calling themselves ‘pragmatic problem-solvers’ all the while. Barack Obama’s colleagues and mentors were some of the smartest and most influential stealth- socialist community organizers in the country. Their strategies of political re-alignment and social transformation guide the Obama administration to this day.”

In referring to the president, Kurtz observed: “Obama is a community organizer who sincerely believes what other community organizers believe. The problem is that community organizers are not forthcoming about the true nature of their beliefs. All too often, they consciously mask a hard-edged socialism in feel-good euphemistic code.” In other words, folks, they lie to us about what their real intent is. They cover up bad intentions with “feel-good” terminology. Sadly, due to the immense lack of discernment so apparent in our day, they get by with it because we are dumbed-down enough so that we don’t know what we don’t know. These people have as their agenda the destruction of our country as we know it and the removal of our liberties and we are so occupied with trivia that we haven’t got time to be bothered learning how to do anything about it.

David Horowitz, a former leftist radical who now runs the website http://www.frontpagemag.com interviewed Stanley Kurtz back in January of 2011 regarding his book. He said: “And what Stanley has shown is just what I said, that Barack Obama was raised as a leftist and starting right out of college was part of the Marxist Socialist, what I call Neocommunist left.”

Mr. Kurtz, in this interview, had some very interesting comments about the evolution of socialism in this country over the past eighty years or so. In commenting about the research he did for his book he stated: “I kept running into evidence of real Socialism, people who thought of themselves as Socialists, Marxists, hardcore. And a variety of Socialism and Socialists that I hadn’t known about that I think you could still call it hardcore, but it was a revised form of Socialism that took over the movement after the 1960s and that most Americans know nothing about.”

It was noted by Kurtz that there are lots of conservatives out there, even today, who really are not comfortable with the idea that Obama is a Socialist. They liken that to what they think they heard from the John Birch Society or from Joe McCarthy, and they’ve been taught that, as good “conservatives” they’re not to pay any attention to any of that. They’ve been taught that ultra-liberals are really nice folks, just a little misguided and that, maybe, if you are nice to them they will not bother anyone. That’s all a pile of cow chips, but they’ve bought it and so anyone that exposes the machinations of the leftists to them can expect a stern lecture back on why they are not “loving” enough toward the people that are trying to tear the country down. I’ve been a member of the John Birch Society in past years and most of the folks I knew there (and still know) were and are among the most decent and honorable people I know. They have a concern for the leftist direction they see the country headed in and they try to do what they can to stem that tide. Everyone should have their concern, but most don’t. As far a Joe McCarthy, he was, and still is, one of the most maligned people in the country. That’s the price you pay anymore for trying to tell people the truth. Contrary to what you’ve heard, McCarthy did not “destroy” the lives of thousands. There were only a certain few he went after and he already had overwhelming evidence of Communist affiliation about them, which is why he went after them—and some of them were in high positions in government.

Anyway, back to Mr. Kurtz and the Socialists. Kurtz noted that: “Even knowledgeable ex-leftists don’t have full awareness of the Socialism I discuss in this book because it comes from a group of community organizers who represented one particular faction within contemporary American Socialism and they were secretive.”

Kurtz notes several Socialist conferences that Obama attended and he says: “…when I finally reconstructed what had gone on at these Socialist conferences that Barack Obama attended, I was truly amazed because what I saw was a kind of map of Barack Obama’s entire subsequent political career. It was at these Socialist conferences in New York in the mid-80s that Barack Obama encountered the groups, the strategies, and the mentors who would guide him throughout his entire political career. Now, what do I mean? Well, for one thing, these Socialist conferences touted community organizing as the key to the future for American Socialism.”

Mr. Kurtz shed even more light on the way these stealth-socialists operate. He stated: “So he (Obama) ran into organizations like ACORN and Project Vote, at these Socialist conferences. They were considered the future of Socialism. And there was another theme at these conferences and that was that rainbow coalitions led by minority political leaders, particularly African Americans, were the key to the future of Socialism in the United States. And the model of all this was Mayor Harold Washington of Chicago…In fact, Jeremiah Wright was deeply involved in Harold Washington’s various electoral campaigns…Well, there were an awful lot of Socialist community organizers in Chicago. And these Socialist community organizers were really the key to Harold Washington’s success.” So Washington was willing to work with the Socialists and they saw his administration as one that would promote their goals and agendas.

So these people labored to create an anti-business, ‘quasi-Populist’ movement that leaned left and was the result of the agitation of these community organizers. At some point, some of these community organizers rise to the top of the heap and become politicians themselves, and from their new positions of prominence they lead this “coalition” of community groups with an agenda of anti-business and economic populism, which is really controlled by the Socialists behind the scenes. They don’t call themselves Socialists anymore. Now they are “Populists” or “Communitarians” (stealth-Socialists) and they talk about “democratizing power.” But when you look at what really goes on, you find that it’s nothing but Socialism with a new name tag and you have Socialists running all these “Populist” groups. This is what “community organizers” really do.

The minute Obama told people he had been a “community organizer” that should have set warning bells off. And the “news” media knew all this, and the Republican establishment knew all this. All that remained was to make sure the American people didn’t find out about any of it. Mr. Kurtz’s book is still available on Amazon.com and I would urge folks to order a copy while it can still be had.

Chicago’s School of Socialism—Midwest Academy

By Al Benson Jr.

Somehow, given the type of city it is, it only seems fitting that Chicago should have a school dedicated to the promotion of “progressive” agitation and propaganda supposedly to enable the poor and downtrodden to help them straighten their lives out—at the expense of everyone else and to the benefit of the political far left. Hence we have Midwest Academy—the Alinskyite paradise of the mid-continent.

Most who will read this have probably never heard of this school and that’s not by accident. An “educational” institution with an agenda like this one has is not to be advertised to the masses, lest they begin to ask questions.

Stanley Kurtz’s book Radical-In-Chief—Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism has an entire section dedicated to exposing this organization to the public, starting on page 131. Mr. Kurtz presents information and documentation that the public ought to be aware of so that we might begin to grasp the enormity of the socialist problem in our midst—from the White House on down. Mr. Kurtz, on page 131 of his book notes: “On Labor Day 1969, a group that included past SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) national secretary Paul Booth, his activist wife, Heather Booth, onetime SDS field secretary Steve Max and radical community organizer Harry Boyte published a pamphlet titled Socialism and the Coming Decade. Clustered several years later around an institute called the Midwest Academy, this group would go on to create a new way of blending socialism, community organizing, and electoral politics. In many ways, the Midwest Academy is the hidden key to Barack Obama’s political career. Obama’s organizing mentors had ties to it; Obama’s early funding was indirectly controlled by it; evidence strongly suggests that Obama himself received training there; both Barack and Michelle Obama ran a project called ‘Public Allies’ that was effectively an extension of the Midwest Academy; Obama’s first run for public office was sponsored by Academy veteran Alice Palmer;…Perhaps more important, Barack Obama’s approach to politics is clearly inspired by that of the Midwest Academy. Therefore, it is of no small interest that the Midwest Academy is a socialist ‘front group,’…The story of the Midwest Academy’s transformation from a stealthy nest of radical sixties socialists into a force at the center of the Democratic Party offers unparalleled insight into Barack Obama’s hidden political world.” How much of this did our investigative “news” media ever bring out? Our prestigious “presstitutes” of the fifth column are taught to bury this kind of information. This is “off limits” for the average American.

Mr. Kurtz is to be commended for the research he did for his book and for his attempt to alert the public as to the president’s deep socialist background. Others have also been trying to do the same thing, but thanks to an almost total media blackout, very little of this information makes it to the public at large. The “news” media and those that pay their tab want to make sure none of this sort of thing arises to disturb the public’s concentration on the nightly “reality” shows trotted out there to bemuse them and keep their minds off anything of real importance.

For all of that, some information does manage to seep through. On November 29, 2011, an article appeared on http://www.frontpagemag.com written by Matthew Vadum and entitled Union Gangsters: Heather Booth. Mr. Vadum writes, near the beginning of his article: “A disciple of Saul Alinsky, the socialist-feminist Booth co-founded the Chicago-based Midwest Academy, a training institute for community organizers…The Midwest Academy is funded in part by radical left-wing philanthropies such as George Soros’s Open Society Instutute, Tides Foundation, and the Woods Fund of Chicago. (Barack Obama and Bill Ayres served together on the Woods Fund board.)” Booth has embraced what is now called “stealth socialism” in that it advances the socialist agenda without appearing to do so. Earlier in her career, Booth was a bit more candid about her objectives. She said: “Truly reaching socialism or feminism will likely take a revolution that is in fact violent, a rupture with the old ways in which the current ruling class and elites are wiped out.” Today she is a bit less candid but the objectives are the same—depending on how you define “ruling elites.” She has no problem taking funding from George Soros and he has got to be one of the rulingest elites there is.

So we must conclude that outfits like Midwest Academy and those that run it are not really against our ruling elite as the ruling elite, in many cases, funds them. What they are really after is ordinary folks who have made good through hard work and dedication because these are some of the folks that will resist their socialist agenda. People like Soros will support it and promote it. The “super-rich” and the socialists have a lot in common. Us rubes in flyover country, however, are not supposed to be able to figure that out.

And another article on http://www.wnd.com written by Aaron Klein on 3/18/10 commented on the Woods Fund which has funded the Midwest Academy. Klein observed: “The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy…Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayres, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.” Do you get the impression that many of these 60s socialists never really got rid of their socialist spots? All they did was cut their hair and put on business suits and proceeded to insert themselves into the “establishment” they professed to hate so much. And the “establishment” seems to have had no problem accepting them. Does this begin to tell you something about the “establishment?” All this may be a bit new to some of you, but think about it for awhile before rejecting it out of hand.

Probably lots of folks will not want to be bothered. As long as Big Brother lets them watch Monday night football and go fishing on Saturday morning they won’t complain too much, but I’ll tell you something folks, the end of those days may be coming. For that handful of you that wants to find out what’s going on you need to read Gary Allen’s None Dare Call it Conspiracy and The Rockefeller File. And while you’re at it, try to locate W. Cleon Skousen’s book The Naked Capitalist. You will find from reading these that the agendas of the ruling elite from above and the socialists from below are very similar, with the rest of us caught in the middle and being squeezed from both sides. And then, if you go back in our history 150 years and read Donnie Kennedy’s and my book Lincoln’s Marxists you will find that the socialists were the establishment. Actually, very little has changed since then, except that the destruction of the folks in the middle, the middle class, is becoming more apparent with each passing year, and the middle class, many of them Christians, sleep on unaware and unconcerned.

I have had occasion to wonder—where is the Christian alternative so something like the Midwest Academy? Unfortunately, I am afraid it doesn’t exist.

“Socialist Feminism”

by Al Benson Jr.

At present, I am working my way through an excellent book written by Stanley Kurtz back in 2010 and entitled Radical-In-Chief. It is a history of the deep socialist background of the present occupier of the White House and it is available on Amazon.com

I will have more to say about Mr. Kurtz’s book in future articles because he brings out an amazing amount of documentation about the “stealth socialist” movement in this country, in which our president has been and is a major player.

On page 140 of his book, Kurtz deals with something called “Socialist Feminism” and he goes on to show that socialism has been a major part of the Feminist Movement in the 1970s. He notes: “Yet Heather Booth’s chief efforts in 1971 were devoted to organizing for socialist feminism. Booth and her early collaborator at the Midwest Academy, Day Creamer, were involved in both the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union (CWLU) and the Action Committee for Decent Childcare. The juxtaposition of the explicitly socialist CWLU and the less ideological daycare project–open to all women, not just committed socialists– exemplifies the strategy Booth and her collaborators had laid out in 1969’s Socialism and the Coming Decade, in which small, consciously socialist groups quietly build and guide less openly ideological mass movements. Booth’s developing ideological and strategic perspective is presented in her 1971 pamphlet, written with Day Creamer and a small group of others, Socialist Feminism: A Strategy for the Women’s Movement. This pamphlet was reprinted by the Midwest Academy ‘for historical purposes,’ and was sometimes used in the Academy’s training sessions.” So you can see here, in recent times, the socialist involvement in the Feminist Movement. Sadly, this is not a new development.

In our book Lincoln’s Marxists Walter Kennedy and I deal with the Feminist Movement in this country, and in Europe, in Addendum 3, on page 307, in a section called Feminists and Forty Eighters, which was originally published in my quarterly newsletter The Copperhead Chronicle back in the fourth quarter of 2006. We observed: “Modern historians with what appears to be a selective historical bias seldom examine or mention the close connections between individuals with strong communist connections and other left of center personalities. For example the outright influence of communists in the Roosevelt administration was seldom brought to light until well after his death. Likewise, the connection between socialists and outright communists and the founding of the Republican Party, or the connection between the radical feminists and the Forty Eighters in Europe is seldom if ever reported. Radical Feminism was not something new in France and Germany during the turbulent years of the 1848 socialist revolts in Europe. When the socialist (it should be noted that the terms socialist and communist were equivalent at that time) revolutions erupted in Europe in 1848, the majority of the feminists supported and otherwise aided those revolutions. Many of these women were supporters of St. Simon and Charles Fourier, both of whom were well known for their socialist philosophies.” The article then goes on to name names. Some of them you may have heard of, such as Margaretta Meyer Schurz, the wife of the well known Forty Eighter Carl Schurz who became the Secretary of the Interior during the Hayes administration. Mrs. Schurz established the first kindergarten in this country at Watertown, Wisconsin in 1856. Interestingly enough, the government in Prussia, only two years after the socialist revolts in that country had ended, outlawed kindergartens. The Prussian government was on record as viewing these schools as places of radical indoctrination for children. Given what goes on in public schools nowadays, can one really say they were wrong? Or were they remarkably prescient?

In her book Freethinkers–A History of American Secularism Susan Jacoby notes another well known feminist, “Red Emma” Goldman. She says: “At the same time there was a politically radical agnostic minority supported by European Marxist, socialist and anarchist thought and quite willing to challenge American institutions. ‘Red Emma’ Goldman was the most fiery, persuasive, and visible representative of that minority, an outspoken atheist and feminist as well as an anarchist’…Another early “Women’s Libber” over on the left! Goldman had a strong influence on Margaret Sanger, although it’s not known if Sanger ever openly acknowledged her leftist indoctrination from “Red Emma.” Sanger is reported to have been the one that invented the term “birth control.”

Back in 2003, Henry Makow, Ph.D. wrote an article that appeared on http://www.savethemales.ca called Betty Friedan: Mommy was a Commie. In part, Dr. Makow stated: “Betty Friedan, the ‘founder of modern feminism’ pretended to be a typical 1950s American mother who had a ‘revelation’ that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career. What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn’t say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government…Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946-1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) ‘the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States.’ In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.” This is hardly the background for most ordinary 1950s mothers. Friedan obviously did not want lots of folks to be aware of her radical leftist past. If they had been, her book The Feminist Mystique might not have sold over five million copies. One has to wonder, seeing that the Communists are opposed to filthy rich “capitalists” making all manner of filthy lucre, who got the royalties from five million copies of Friedan’s book? Did she donate it all to the Communist Party USA? Actually, the Communists don’t really have a big problem with profit–as long as it’s their people making it and not the rest of us.

It’s important that we realize that the Feminist Movement, the Women’s Liberation Movement, or whatever brand of feminism you happen to run across swimming in your soup, is all steeped in socialism, communism, or some other brand of aberrant leftism. They are not, nor have they ever been, really concerned about helping women–they are concerned about helping their women into positions of power and influence here and around the world, so they can help to shape the socialist agenda in various countries, and tell the rest of us how we should live. They are interested, and have a vested interest in tearing down every Biblical truth regarding women and replacing it with their socialist dogma and rules. That’s something Christians need to become aware of because, today, not nearly enough are.