Obama: a very good anti-American president; a very bad American president

Full of specific documentation about the things Obama has done since he became president:

The Anti-American President

Just released: proof that Obama met William Ayers years earlier than previously believed

A new book released today uncovers for the first time where and how President Obama first met Weather Underground terrorist-group founder William Ayers – and it is much earlier than previously believed.

The book reveals the two were brought together by a student of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky, whose name, it has emerged, was obscured in Obama's autobiography "Dreams from My Father."

The new book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and other Anti-American Extremists", charges Obama has deep ties to an anti-American extremist nexus that has been instrumental not only in building his political career but in crafting current White House policy.

Most exhaustive investigation ever into prez's background, radical ties

Van Jones: The Last Straw

RADICAL. ANTI-AMERICAN. ANTI-ISRAEL: Van Jones has a past as a record producer. That's right; his "civil rights" group, the Ella Baker Center, produced a handful of CDs between 2002 and 2006. One of them, which appears to have been made around 2002, "starred" convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who presumably recorded his portions of the album in prison.

UPDATE: ...and as of late Saturday night, this crude, self-righteous bigot is no longer part of the United States government! Praise God and thank Glenn Beck.

TREASON: CONGRESS MUST INVESTIGATE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

If the Obama Administration is, in effect, acting as an agent of Venezuela (and Iran) in Honduras, such a foreign policy could be described not only as anti-American but potentially treasonous, considering that the outcome could be the loss of another country in Latin America to the Chavez brand of communism.

It is time for some investigative reporting into the nature of the Chavez-Obama axis.

THE CHAVEZ-OBAMA U.N. PLOT AGAINST HONDURAS
By Cliff Kincaid
July 25, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

The United Nations on Thursday begins a debate over a new U.N. military doctrine called the “Responsibility to Protect,” which would authorize the world organization to be used as cover to intervene in the sovereign affairs of a nation state, supposedly to protect the people of a country against their own government. The first target could be anti-communist Honduras.

The “Responsibility to Protect,” also known as RtoP or R2P, is mostly the work of the World Federalist Movement, a group dedicated to world government by strengthening the United Nations system. It is the major force behind the “International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect.”

R2P was sold as something to be exercised against regimes practicing genocide against their own people. But the new doctrine is so vague and subject to political manipulation that one can speculate it could be used to justify some form of U.N. intervention in Honduras on the pretext that the people there are somehow being victimized by a popular military-backed regime. In fact, some Hondurans are telling this columnist that they are fearful that U.N. “blue helmets” are right now being prepared to invade their country.

It is difficult to dismiss these concerns as baseless rumors, considering what will be happening at the U.N. The key U.N. official orchestrating the debate, General Assembly President and Lenin Peace Prize recipient Miguel D’Escoto, is the same figure who recently managed passage of a U.N. resolution supporting the return to Honduras of Manuel Zelaya, who was removed by the military on the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress. Zelaya is a lackey of Venezuelan communist ruler Hugo Chavez, who is using his oil money to buy and influence governments throughout Latin America.

In an ominous development, blogger Jason Poblete, an astute observer of Latin American affairs with excellent sources, reports that “The Obama Administration is considering a United Nations Security Council Resolution against the constitutional government of Honduras.” If true, anticipated U.N. sanctions against Honduras could be followed by the world organization being used as cover for outside forces to invade Honduras and reinstate Zelaya.

The new government in Honduras replaced Zalaya because he was trying to set himself up as president-for-life, Chavez-style. All of this was found to be in violation of Honduran law and the Constitution. Despite what officials of the Obama Administration said in trying to orchestrate media coverage of this crisis, it was not a military coup in any sense. The military doesn’t run Honduras today. In fact, the new president, appointed by Congress, is from Zelaya’s own political party. Zelaya was dismissed because of the simple fact that he tried to violate the law and the Constitution.

Zelaya flew from Costa Rica, where he was deported, to U.N. headquarters in New York, where D’Escoto, who is also a Communist Catholic Priest from Nicaragua, greeted him as a comrade. Since the crisis began and the U.N. voted to have him reinstated, the Obama Administration has been trying to figure out a way to get him back into power. Costa Rican President Oscar Arias recently hosted some negotiations to try to resolve the dispute but they appear to be going nowhere.

The U.N. may be the logical next step, if Zelaya’s allies in the region don’t act precipitously on their own and intervene. Chavez has already threatened to invade Honduras to put Zelaya back in power.

Interestingly, according to one report, when Zelaya tried to return to Honduras by plane and was turned away, his supporters began chanting “We want blue helmets!”—a reference to U.N. peacekeepers. This could be the scenario we see developing, using the “Responsibility to Protect” or something similar as justification for U.N. economic and military intervention.

R2P is usually offered as a possible remedy in the case of Darfur, a region of Sudan where people are being massacred by the Islamic regime. But this was never realistic. President Obama promised but has failed to do anything about this. The real source of the problem in Darfur is the communist regime in China, which directly finances the Sudanese regime through oil purchases. Obama won’t confront China because he needs Chinese help to finance his tax, spend and debt policies.

With Arab and Muslim governments also unwilling to confront the problem directly, the burden of responding to Darfur falls on the incompetent and corrupt U.N., which is always anxious to expand its scope and power. The “Responsibility to Protect,” which was actually approved by the U.N. General Assembly in 2005, when the Bush Administration was in power, is supposed to be the answer. The debate unfolding in the U.N. is over how to implement this doctrine and under what circumstances. What can be certainly be expected are calls for more money for the U.N. to finance more military power, perhaps even a standing World Army that includes more U.N. “blue helmet” peacekeepers.

Everybody knows, of course, that the doctrine will not be used against China, a member of the U.N. Security Council. Nobody expects a U.N. force to liberate Tibet. Neither will a U.N. force be deployed to protect Georgia from Russia. Instead, it will be used against small countries, possibly Honduras, where there is a U.N. “consensus” and the Obama Administration could vote and work with China and Russia.

D’Escoto, or as he is called, “Father D’Escoto,” will preside over the U.N. debate, which is expected to run into Friday. Pope Benedict XVI endorsed the “Responsibility to Protect” in an April 2008 speech before the U.N. but has been unclear about how it should be implemented. He has called for dialogue in Honduras.

On the ground in Honduras, an overwhelmingly Catholic Central American country, the Catholic Church has backed the ouster of Zelaya because of the realistic fear that he was a front man for Chavez. In a statement, the Catholic bishops of Honduras declared that Zelaya had been removed from office on the basis of a valid court order.

But not all of the Catholic elements in the country are opposing Zalaya’s return. The Jesuit-run Radio Progreso has been acting as a mouthpiece for Zalaya and his supporters and is the source of the recent report that Zelaya intends to invade the country in cahoots with something called the Peaceful Resistance Front. The Catholic Church in Honduras fears that Zelaya could spark a bloodbath. Such a spectacle could provide the cover for U.N. intervention.

With Obama’s plans to seize the health care and energy sectors a focus of public attention, few in Congress are taking a hard look at the prospect of violence in Honduras. However, Senator Jim DeMint and several other senators have protested the Obama policy. DeMint also introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill to require the Director of National Intelligence to present a “full report” on the roles played by Chavez and the leaders of Nicaragua and Cuba in facilitating the crisis in Honduras.

What is also needed is for the Congress—and the media—to start investigating the Obama Administration’s role in all of this. On July 13, the State Department spokesman confirmed that Chavez had called Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon to “discuss the current situation in Honduras and the ongoing negotiations mediated by Costa Rica’s President Oscar Arias.” The confirmation followed news of Chavez boasting about the telephone call on Venezuelan state TV.

This tends to confirm what former Marxist SDS radical Tom Hayden, leader of “Progressives for Obama,” has written about the Obama-Chavez relationship. Based on his own inside sources of information, Hayden said that he thinks Obama and Chavez are working together on Honduras and have an “understanding,” which he even describes as “collaboration.” The call Chavez made to Shannon suggests that Chavez is calling the shots.

Ultimately, according to a very detailed report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, this would benefit Iran, a terrorist state developing nuclear weapons which is developing a vast network throughout Latin America. A recent report from the organization examines the deep Iranian connections to Venezuela as well as Bolivia.

If the Obama Administration is, in effect, acting as an agent of Venezuela (and Iran) in Honduras, such a foreign policy could be described not only as anti-American but potentially treasonous, considering that the outcome could be the loss of another country in Latin America to the Chavez brand of communism.

It is time for some investigative reporting into the nature of the Chavez-Obama axis.

© 2009 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved

------------------------------------------

Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Cliff has written or co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues. One of Cliff's books, "Global Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule the World" is still awailable.

Cliff has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.

Web Site: www.AIM.org

E-Mail: cliff.kincaid@aim.org

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

MIYAMOTO'S PUBLIC RELATIONS RESOURCE STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

By Craig Miyamoto, APR, Fellow PRSA

(This is an expanded version of the 2000 Third Quarter issue of Public Relations Strategies, a quarterly publication of Miyamoto Strategic Counsel)

To paraphrase some sage advice, "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer." If your business or organization ever becomes a target of radical activists, it will be extremely helpful to know what strategies of attack will used against you. Short of having spies infiltrate their organization - a practice that is sure to be found out and exposed to your discredit - it would help to study their methods.

Known as the "father of modern American radicalism," Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely taught today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory - no matter what.

Grassroots pressure on large organizations is reality, and there is every indication that it will grow. Because the conflicts manifest in high-profile public debate and often-panicked decision-making, studying Alinsky's rules will help organizations develop counteractive strategies that can level the playing field.

Governments and corporations have inherent weaknesses. And, time and again, they repeat mistakes that other large organizations have made, even repeating their OWN mistakes. Alinsky's out-of-print book - "Rules for Radicals" - illustrates why opposition groups take on large organizations with utter glee, and why these governments and corporations fail to win.

Large organizations have learned to stonewall and not empower activists. In other words, they try to ignore radical activists and are never as committed to victory as their opposition is committed to defeating them. Result? They are unprepared for the hailstorm of brutal tactics that severely damage their reputation and send them running with their tails between their legs.

Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Press Release from the Latin American Republicans of South Florida

The Latin American Republicans Of South Florida Express Concern And Regret Regarding President Obama's Recent OAS Summit Appearances With Regional Despots

Boca Raton, FL, April 21, 2009 - The Latin American Republicans of South Florida wish to express their disappointment and disapproval regarding certain regrettable public episodes that occurred during President Barack Obama's recent overseas diplomatic visit to the OAS Summit in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. The Latin American Republicans of South Florida believe that President Obama's lack of diplomatic savviness and attention to Presidential protocol inadvertently gave public relations victories to several Latin American despots who have an established track record of oppression and tyranny.

When an American President offers to meet with certain world leaders who are the purveyors of anti-American rhetoric and engaged in the oppression of their nation's citizens - and does so without preconditions - he lends the prominence and stature of the Office of the President to those despots which can ultimately be misused in a manner that gives legitimacy to those same oppressive actions, whether our President intends this or not. The Latin American Republicans of South Florida clearly understand that the President oftentimes has to deal with despots and other unsavory elements when they are presented with no other choice. However, we also understand that public appearances with despots such as Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Evo Morales can and will be manipulated by those leaders in a way which heightens their standing at home and lends legitimacy to their domestic oppression.

Therefore, we would like to respectfully remind President Obama that American foreign policy, as well as the diplomatic appearances and overtures that he makes as President of the United States not only affect the strategic interests of the United States, they also have a moral aspect to them; and if those overtures and appearances are not carefully considered, they can be used as a tool to continue to justify the continued repression of millions of people throughout Latin America.

###