October 2008

By Joan Swirsky
Four years ago, when I had just about completed the lengthy legal and financial vetting process required by the U.S. government to place my then-92-year-old-mother in a nursing home, I was asked to produce her birth certificate as “proof” of her citizenship. While she was born in America, had voted in every election for untold decades, and paid her taxes religiously, that wasn’t good enough to qualify my elderly mother  –deaf, legally blind, and confined to a wheelchair – to be admitted to the facility I had chosen for her near my home.

Frankly, I didn’t think finding my mother’s birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn’t speak English. Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the care she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913.

First I called an official in Hartford, the capitol of Connecticut, who recommended that I call the Storrs record-keeping office.
That took two minutes.

Next I called the Storrs office and was told to call another number.

That took two minutes.

When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something impossible." I gave her my mother’s first name and her father’s last name.

Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!" She had found my mother’s birth certificate, and it surprised me when I learned my mother’s "real" first name and "real" last name had changed significantly as she and her family became Americanized.

When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: "That’s nothing…we’re routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!"

Total time it took me to find my mother’s 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes.

To this date, Barack Obama has refused – or been unable – to produce an authentic birth certificate that attests to the fact he is an American-born citizen. He has had more than the two-years of campaigning for the presidency of the United States to do this, but failed.

Why is this important? Because the Constitution of the United States expressly forbids anyone born on foreign soil to run for the highest office in our land.

You would think that Obama would have volunteered the "proof" of his eligibility within a nanosecond of entering the race. But here we are, less than two weeks away from the election, and Americans still don’t know if Obama is an American!

While Obama’s camp submitted a supposedly authentic birth certificate to the far-left blog Daily Kos, it was found to have been a photo-shopped version of the birth certificate of his half-sister, who was actually born in Hawaii, as Obama claims he was.

While this glaring omission in Obama’s eligibility to become the most powerful man on earth mystified some and rankled others, a few people – clearly alarmed at what they considered a stealth candidate’s attempt to dance his way around the Constitution and venture into the realm of criminality – took action.

The first sleuth was lawyer Philip J. Berg, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and an undisguised Hillary fan. Last August, Berg – a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and one-time candidate for both governor and senator – filed a lawsuit in Federal Court (Berg v. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083) seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction against Obama, alleging that the first-term Illinois senator did not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States.

Berg’s suit was based on Obama’s failure to answer satisfactorily the question of where he was born. Was it in Hawaii, Kenya, or Indonesia? Was his legal name Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro (his stepfather’s surname), Barry Obama, Barack Dunham (his maternal grandparents’ surname), or Barry Dunham?

Among the other questions Berg raised were the authenticity of the name Obama used on his Illinois Bar Application and his possible allegiance to other countries.

Details of the case, including direct quotations, are found on Berg’s website: http://www.obamacrimes.com/  .

"Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Senator Obama’s lies and obfuscations," Berg said. "He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his actions in using the forged birth certificate and the lies he’s told to cover his loss of citizenship. We believe he…supported this belief by his actions in hiding his secret, in that he failed to regain his citizenship and used documents to further his position as a natural born citizen…His very acts prove he knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?…If the DNC officers and/or leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence, we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament…from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship through an oath of allegiance at age eighteen [18] as prescribed by Constitutional laws."

The net result of Berg’s efforts was that, on September 9, both Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a joint motion for a Protective Order to Stay Discovery pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss his lawsuit. In other words, to make Berg’s lawsuit go away!

Berg said he was "outraged, as this is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President." The joint motion, Berg asserted, was a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President. He said it is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Simply stated, Obama "is unable to produce a certified copy of his Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist."

An e-mail friend of mine, a lawyer, stated: "What has boggled my mind about this case is that Berg simply waited for a court order to compel the  production of the birth certificate, when he could just as easily have served a subpoena on the Hawaii County Clerk or County Recorder – or whoever is the custodian of records in Hawaii – to produce the original birth certificate for examination by an expert forensic-document examiner to produce certified copies to the Court, the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, which would have shifted the burden to Obama to quash the subpoena – and if he filed a motion to quash the subpoena to produce his own birth certificate, that would sure as hell tell us that he has a lot to hide."

Also in August, longtime Obama nemesis Andy Martin – a Chicago journalist, lawyer, author of the bestseller, "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask," and executive editor or http://www.contrariancommentary.com/  – filed a suit in the Court of the First Circuit State of Hawaii  (08-1-2147-10) against the Republican governor, Linda Lingle, and the director of the Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.

Martin’s suit alleged that the defendants had refused to provide a copy of the requested, certified copy of the birth certificate of Senator Obama "attested to by the State and not a `certificate’ which is posted on a website and which has been debunked as possibly having been altered."

"It is axiomatic," Martin’s suit said, "that the birth certificate of a presidential candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance."

Failing both his petition and an initial "emergency motion," Martin filed his second emergency motion this month (-1-2147-10 BIA) "for an Order to Show Cause (`OSC’) directing the defendants…on or before October 22, 2008…at a hearing before this Court why the relief requested by the Plaintiff should not be granted…This lawsuit does not involve complicated or disputed facts."

"Why is Barack Obama obstructing access to his birth records?" Martin asks. "Along with his obstructing access to college records and other essential information about his past? I want to see a certified copy issued by the State of Hawaii, not one issued by the State of Obama… Interestingly, we think we also know now why he has virtually imprisoned his white grandmother and refuses to allow her to appear in public?"

Numerous conservative journalists, talking heads and bloggers have addressed Obama’s fitness to be president, questioning his:
* Reed-thin résumé.
* Stunning lack of concrete legislative accomplishments (both in the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate).
* Long-time close relationships and associations with Marxists and anti-American militants like Frank Marshall, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Phleger, Khalid Rashidi, et al.
* Failure to provide transcripts of his years at Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.
* Failure to provide any more than a one-page "report" from his medical doctor about his health status.

* Rationale for flip-flopping on every major issue – economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, et al – during this campaign.
The sleuthing continues. According to Berg, Martin, and a number of other sources, Obama was really born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombassa, Kenya at 7.24 PM on August 4, 1961, a birth that was documented by a certificate with an embossed seal that displays the name of the hospital, as well as witness signatures. In addition, if these reports are accurate, his grandmother in Kenya, as well as his brother and sister, claim they were present during Obama’s birth in Kenya.


Now – belatedly – that the net is closing in on Obama, and the suspicions, as many have alleged, are that he is a Trojan Horse for Islamic interests, or a Manchurian Candidate, or a total fraud – Obama has seemingly discovered an interest in his ailing grandmother. Yes, that Grammy who he so facilely threw under the bus during the early days of his campaign.

He is now so worried about Grandma Dunham – the woman who raised him but strangely didn’t attend his nomination – that he is taking a few days off from his intense campaign to visit this ailing widow.

Or could his strangely-timed trip to Hawaii really be to "clear up" the sticky case of his missing birth certificate?

I live in New York, where it is not uncommon for BIG payoffs to influence people to come up with "the goods." A half-a-million here, a dire threat there, often influence people to do things – like perjure themselves, produce phony documents, et al – that they would never do under less "pressured" circumstances.

If the magic document doesn’t appear, it is possible, and entirely legal, that Obama could be removed from the ballots in states that are questioning his eligibility.

According to a recent article in The Daily Herald in Everett, WA, a civil action was filed in Washington State Superior Court against Sam Reed, Secretary of State, demanding that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama be removed from the ballot in Washington unless he can provide verification of his status as a United States citizen. The citizen who filed the suit, Steven Marquis, asked that Reed verify – by looking at "original or certified verifiable official documents" – that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and eligible to serve as president, and that the office do so by Election Day.

Like others investigating the matter, Marquis said that answering the unanswered questions about Obama’s citizenship and background would "preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest" that would arise if information about Obama’s ineligibility came to light after the election.

This week, on October 21, 2008, Mr. Berg released the result of his investigation. In a startling press release, he has announced that "Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama."
In his release, Berg explained that "by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions…the DNC `ADMITTED’ that Obama is "NOT QUALIFIED" to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."

Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed "ADMITTED." Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.

According to Berg, Obama – by default – admitted to every charge the lawyer made, among them:
1. I was born in Kenya.  
2. I am a Kenya "natural born" citizen.
3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.  
4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.
5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.

The list includes 56 admissions.

The DNC’s admissions, which number 27, include that:
1. They nominated Barack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.  
2. They have not vetted Barack Hussein Obama.
3. They did not have a background check performed on Barack Hussein Obama.  
4. They did not verify Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
5. Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.

For the entire list, go to: http://www.obamacrimes.com/


Interest in this case is understandably intense. Berg’s website has already received over 55 million hits. But predictably, the overwhelmingly liberal media has yet to pick up on this story, as if ignoring a story that has profound implications for our Republic and for the potential of a Constitutional crisis is less important than discussing Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

It’s possible that all the states that are working on obtaining Obama’s birth certificate will simultaneously remove him from the ballot at one time. It’s also possible that, failing to produce the birth certificate, Obama will voluntarily step aside, leaving a breach through which Hillary will walk.

Meanwhile, as legal challenges proceed at warp speed, and Obama’s lawyers scramble to avoid the Scandal of the Century, one thing remains intractably the same: Obama still has not produced proof of his U.S. citizenship.

Liberal assaults on the executive branch have made us vulnerable.

Twenty-five years ago today a terrorist truck bomb in Beirut, Lebanon, killed 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers, and wounded more than 100 others. Had it not been for crass political partisanship, and efforts by Sen. Joe Biden and other congressional liberals to usurp the constitutional powers of the president, the loss of life in Beirut may have been avoided.

In part because it did, Osama bin Laden concluded that America could not accept casualties and ordered the 9/11 attacks. Similar congressional usurpation of presidential power over foreign intelligence played an important role in guaranteeing the success of those attacks.

This story goes back at least to November 1973, when congressional liberals pushed through the War Powers Resolution — which claimed congressional control over all use of military force abroad — overriding a presidential veto. (All seven American presidents since then have shared the view that that statute is unconstitutional.)

President Reagan sent the Marines to Beirut as part of a multinational peacekeeping operation that included forces from Great Britain, Italy and France. The purpose was to help maintain peace while the feuding factions tried to negotiate an end to years of strife. Nevertheless, Democrats — particularly in the Senate — decided to turn the deployment into a partisan issue in preparation for the 1984 elections. They demanded under the War Powers Resolution to know exactly when the troops would return home.

Gen. P.X. Kelley, the commandant of the Marine Corps, respectfully cautioned the Foreign Relations Committee that a partisan debate about placing time limits on the deployment would encourage hostile forces inimical to the "life and limb of the Marines." Senior Democrats denounced this warning as a "ludicrous argument" designed to "intimidate the Congress and to frighten the American people."

Referring to the assertion that the Senate debate would encourage attacks on Marines, Sen. Biden said, "My response to that is that may be true . . . but until we . . . invoke the War Powers Act," we are always going to be "beaten over the head by every administration that says 60 days is not enough time." In the end, only two Senate Democrats voted on Sept. 29, 1983, to "authorize" the continued deployment.

Syrian Foreign Minister Abdel Halim Khaddam announced during the congressional debate that America was "short of breath." And as reported in U.S. News & World Report, American intelligence intercepted a message between two radical Muslim militia groups that read: "If we kill 15 Marines, the rest will leave." At sunrise on the morning of Oct. 23, 1983, a terrorist truck bomb crashed into the Marine Headquarters in Beirut and exploded. Early the following year, the surviving Marines were withdrawn.

During a 1998 interview with an ABC News reporter in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden declared that this withdrawal proved Americans can’t accept casualties. It was obviously a consideration in his decision to order the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But the conventional wisdom, that those deadly attacks resulted from "an intelligence failure," doesn’t tell the full story.

A major reason we failed to detect the 9/11 attacks in advance was because, beginning in the 1970s, Congress launched a major public attack on the intelligence community. Mr. Biden, for example, was one of 17 senators to vote on Oct. 2, 1974, to make all covert operations (even espionage in some cases) unlawful. In 1986, he bragged in a New Republic interview that he’d personally blocked planned covert operations during the Reagan administration simply by threatening to leak them. (That statement calls to mind John Jay’s observation, in Federalist No. 64, that because Congress could not be trusted to keep secrets, the Constitution left the president "able to manage the business of intelligence as prudence might suggest.")

In 1978, Congress continued its intrusion into presidential powers by enacting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), making it a felony for intelligence professionals to monitor communications between foreign terrorists abroad and individuals within the U.S. without first getting a special warrant. But in a unanimous opinion, the appellate court established by FISA observed that every court to decide the issue had held the president has "inherent authority" under the Constitution "to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information," adding: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority . . ."

Congress failed to anticipate in FISA the dangers posed by a terrorist like Zacarias Moussaoui — which is why FBI agents were unable to examine the contents of Moussaoui’s laptop computer and perhaps prevent the 9/11 attacks. Michael Hayden, then Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), later expressed his "professional judgment" that had these legal constraints (FISA) not existed "we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States" prior to the attacks, and "we would have identified them as such."

As we pause today to honor the memory of the 241 brave young Marines who lost their lives in 1983, Americans should vow that political partisanship should never again be permitted to endanger our country and its armed forces.

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — A Border Patrol agent fatally shot a "peaceful and passive" illegal immigrant without provocation as he tried to surrender, a prosecutor told jurors Wednesday during opening statements of the agent’s retrial.

Nicholas Corbett is charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide in the death of Francisco Javier Dominguez Rivera, of Puebla, Mexico. Jurors can convict on only one charge.

Corbett’s first trial ended in a mistrial in March because of a hung jury. The case is unusual because it involves state criminal charges but is being tried in federal court because Corbett is a federal law enforcement agent.

At least five times during opening statements, special prosecutor Grant Woods alluded to the peaceful nature of Dominguez, who was killed about 100 yards north of the Mexican border.

Dominguez "was not hotheaded," said Woods, a former Arizona attorney general. He said Corbett had lied in alleging that Dominguez threatened to smash his head with a rock, as well as in his explanation of the confrontation and how the shooting occurred.

Woods said Wednesday that he hoped to show Dominguez’s good character through witnesses, including a woman who had employed him near New York City.

Woods said Wednesday that Dominguez, his two brothers and a brother’s girlfriend had crossed into Arizona on Jan. 12, 2007, but decided to return to Mexico because of bad weather and a number of nearby patrol agents. They were near the border when they saw Corbett’s vehicle heading toward them.

"They didn’t run; they didn’t hide," Woods said. "They figured they would be apprehended."

He said the brothers and girlfriend will testify that all four were surrendering when Corbett hit Dominguez in the back of the head and was pushing him down from behind with the gun in his left hand when the weapon fired.

Woods said an autopsy showed the bullet entered under Dominguez’s left armpit, "blowing out the entire lower part of his heart."

But defense attorney Sean Chapman said Corbett defended himself with deadly force, as state law allows.

"The evidence will show that Francisco Dominguez was not a peaceful man," Chapman said, "that he had a rock the size of a baseball or softball, and tried to smash it into the head of a federal law enforcement officer."

He also called the prosecution’s three witnesses "absolute liars" and suggested the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office conducted an incompetent investigation. He said investigators didn’t find a pair of gloves that Dominguez had been wearing until a year later at the crime scene and that they didn’t test for gunshot residue on Corbett’s hands, among other claims.

Chapman said his client was "accused falsely of a crime he did not commit. He is innocent."

Conviction on the second-degree murder charge could bring a sentence of 10 to 22 years in prison. The manslaughter charge carries a possible seven to 21 years sentence, and negligent homicide four to eight years.

By Cooper Sterling

A Barack Obama presidency now seems inevitable. So the hard-left policies of his Administration on education compel urgent consideration.
Given Obama’s emphasis on greater funding for education, he could leave a real mark—and further entrench an increasingly radical faction of cultural Marxists within America’s learning establishment.
Did you ever wonder where those bomb-wielding militants from the Weather Underground ended up? Many, like William Ayers, traded their militancy for careers as "educators."
Other high-profile leaders of the Weather Underground and its precursor Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Bernardine Dohrn, [Email] Michael Klonsky, Mark Rudd, and Cathy Wilkerson, are now educrat academics.
Over the past several decades, left-wing radicals—Saul Alinsky’s "community organizers" —carved out a unique niche in education in their Gramscian "long march through the institutions."
They work day-in and day-out to transform America into an ethnically and culturally balkanized and borderless wreck.
In speeches, debates, and on his campaign’s website, Obama emphasizes both education’s significance and his desire to strengthen civil rights—the twin social incubators of radical egalitarian and multicultural social policies.

As Obama noted in a speech to La Raza’s 2007 conference:

"It doesn’t matter if the injustice involves a brown man who’s badgered into proving his citizenship again and again or a black man who’s pulled over because the car he’s driving is too nice—it’s injustice either way and we all have a role in ending it."
For years, conservatives expressed their opposition to multicultural education. But they’ve achieved nothing.
Instead conservatives, who once called for the dismantling of the federal Department of Education, have capitulated to the permanent government’s steady leftward drift.
Despite constant public vigilance, taxpayers are unaware of a growing menace to their local public schools: the pervasive reach of radical multicultural educators.
The ongoing downward slide of our public educational system corresponds with the aggressive agenda of the multicultural educators.
Their underlying objective is to subvert public education with "a philosophy of inclusion" that eclipses the traditional emphasis on knowledge, competition, ability, talent, excellence, and performance standards with a core concentration on "cultural pluralism," ethnocentric-centered "understanding," "alternative family" structures, and "liberating" the curriculum through "storytelling."

The multiculturalism juggernaut’s core elite— the fanatical avant-garde of multicultural ideologues—is represented in the movement’s primary organization: the National Association of Multicultural Education.

At taxpayer expense, numerous "progressive educators" and "radical activists" attend NAME’s annual conferences.
The 17th Annual NAME conference [Oct. 31 to Nov. 4, 2007] was held in Baltimore, Maryland,, to overflow capacity.
Several speakers and attendees lauded the "Jena Six", a reference to six black youths facing second-degree attempted murder charges in Jena, Louisiana. "Racial tensions" at Jena’s high school were the focus of considerable media coverage in 2007. The Jena incidents have since become a rallying slogan for left-wing activists.
Workshop panelists and keynote speakers openly described their mission as multicultural activists as "subversive". They advocated "activist" strategies for teachers, administrators, university professors, and researchers that advance the goals and agenda of multicultural education "beyond Taco night"—a quote from a pre-conference workshop in which multiculturalists expressed concern that their liberal colleagues can’t get beyond the "Taco Night" stage of recognizing diversity.
The multiculturalists aim to create a permanent resistance to conventional educational teaching methods and curriculum. They seek to undermine the status quo in the classroom by aggressively promoting "consciousness" and "social justice" among a cadre of committed teacher-activists in our public schools and colleges.
"Critical Multiculturalism" advocates, such as Paul Gorski [Email him], a co-founder of EdChange.org and the incoming president of NAME, offer a more radicalized strain of multicultural education that thoroughly subverts liberal teaching methods and goals.(As a subfield of "education," "critical multiculturalism" is a robust subculture dominated by counter-culture advocates.)
During a pre-conference workshop titled Beyond Celebrating Diversity: Teaching Teachers How to be Critical Multicultural Educators, Gorski asserted
"One problem with teacher education is pragmatism."

The workshop’s purpose was to grapple with the problem of well-meaning educators who lack a fully developed "consciousness" for "achieving social justice."

Objective teaching methods in history, mathematics,, science, and the humanities are seen as an obstacle to implementing the agenda for more diverse and inclusive community schools.
Gorski emphasized the importance of addressing the testing gap—test score disparities between racially diverse student populations—as an outcome of the educational "system."
According to orski, "privilege" and "systemic oppression" create educational disparities in testing-based outcomes. Differences in student performances are attributed to "oppression" and the "hegemonic pedagogy" of the educational establishment. Teachers should continue to shift the emphasis to "what is wrong with the system" issues, implying that equity and social injustices trigger testing disparities.
Said Gorski: "You don’t make progress through objectivity."
Gorski views contemporary American culture as a "white/male supremacy" hegemony—one that reinforces the "normalcy of Christianity" and creates an "invisible culture."
Aspects of this include:

  • Individualism
  • Traditional family
  • Capitalism
  • Competition that reinforces market-place solutions

Keynote speaker Cornel Pewewardy, [Email] assistant professor of education, University of Kansas, where he teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in "Multicultural Education" and “Culture and Education of Indigenous Peoples”, emphasized the efforts of multiculturalists to correct the record on Columbus—that he was lost on his voyage and stumbled onto the New World —a region with a thriving culture.

Pewewardy’s address, "Multicultural Education Since 1492: An Indigenous Perspective," included a reference to Thanksgiving…which he called "Thankstaking."
According to Pewewardy, Thanksgiving and the official history of the early colonial settlements perpetuate falsehoods about North American Indian culture.
Such myths, he claimed, oppress and deny the cultural contributions of "indigenous peoples" to America’s cultural formation.
An entire sub-field of Multicultural Education is devoted to the oppression of so-called "indigenous peoples"—formerly known as Indians oor Native Americans.
Pewewardy asked the audience: "How do you tell your children and grand children that your people were hunted and killed?" That’s his version of the European colonial settlers’ encounter with American Indians.
Pewewardy cited radical author Howard inn—described by the Revolutionary Worker, a Maoist publication, as "one of America’s foremost radical scholars"as an authority on the "massacres" of Indian Americans.
In his interview with the Revolutionary Worker,, Zinn explained his interest in history:

"I got into history not to be a historian, not to be a scholar, not to be an academic, not to write scholarly articles for scholarly journals, not to go to academic conferences to deliver papers to bored fellow historians. I got into history because I was already an activist at the age of 18…. I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle. I wanted to be a part of history and not just a recorder and teacher of history."[Howard Zinn: "History as a Political Act”: 100 Years of U.S. Empire 1898-1998 and Radical Hopes for the Future Revolutionary Worker #987, December 20, 1998]

Pewewardy also reviewed the efforts of activist educators like himself  to eliminate Indian mascots and ban the names of athletic school teams, and professional football franchises, such as "Redskins" and "Chiefs," via NAME’s initiative to pressure the NCAA.
The theme that emerged from the various speakers, participants, presenters, and attendees: a commitment to actively transform American society via the educational system to reflect a socialistic utopian community,, rather than simply putting forth an alternative multicultural curriculum to counter conventional teaching.
These core activists seek the radical transformation of American society—to a Marxist, classless, multiracial, multicultural, multilingual, borderless social order..

One NAME workshop that illustrated this social activist agenda: "Undoing Whiteness in the Classroom: Critical Educultural Approaches for Social Justice Activism."

The panelists stressed the need to have students recognize unconscious racism or interrupt unsuspected racist thinking during classroom exercises.
One panelist noted that the Academy Award-winning movie Crash offers a number of valuable lessons for deconstructing racial stereotype types, even though four or five examples of "institutional racism" exist in the film.
Friday’s keynote address by two leading Multicultural academics, Sonia Nieto [Email her](University of Massachusetts) and Patty Bode (Tufts University) [Email her] explained their revisions to the 5th edition of their Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education which is the standard textbook in the field of multicultural education.
Bode noted that even after "30 years of multicultural education there is still a disconnect between theory and practice." Bode stressed that "teachers are not the villains" and that a "mind-numbing pedagogy" is rampant in public education.
Bode noted that multicultural education is

  • "Inclusive of many differences," including gay, lesbian, transgender families.
  • "Reflection plus action" with an emphasis on the "sociopolitical context of multicultural education."
  • An "amalgamation of numerous identities stemming from our differences," which "encompasses culture, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, etc."
  • Supportive of the "manifestations of the sociopolitical context, namely who benefits and who loses?" in American society.

Describing lingering racism as "smog in the air," Bode identified four components of achieving "social justice" in education:

  • Challenge, confront, and disrupt misconceptions, untruths and stereotypes
  • Provide resources
  • Draw on students’ resources, their talents and strengths
  • Create learning environment for social change, activism

One issue Bode mentioned was the practice of "unstandardizing standards" which utilized "detracking math curriculum" and the experience of Hurricane Katrina provided for an opportunity for change.
A PowerPoint presentation explained a new approach to first graders that challenged the traditional concept of the family.
"What is a family" showed first graders who, in artwork, emphasized that there are "all kinds of families." One first grader drew a picture of one family having two fathers.
This year’s NAME conference, as in years past, featured a number of vendors: book publishers, such as Routledge, Teachers College Press (Columbia University) and Peter Lang; boutique clothing booths (representing African and South American clothing fashions); and radical-socialist-anarchistic merchandise and literature.
Bumper stickers with slogans, "Fascism is capitalism in decay," "Well-behaved women seldom make history," as well as Che Guevara, Malcolm X, Karl Marx, and Emma Goldman posters, buttons, shirts, and bumper stickers were on sale.
Francisco Rios, [Email him] professor of education studies at the University of Wyoming, and newly appointed director of the Social Justice Research Center at the University of Wyoming, is the associate editor of Multicultural Perspectives, NAME’s official in-house periodical.
Rios recently explained, in a University of Wyoming press release, that the Social Justice Research Center at the University of Wyoming is:

"established to encourage and nurture scholarly research in topics related to social justice. …The center’s long-range goals include developing meaningful solutions to identified problems; serving as a catalyst for grant funding; developing an outreach program to create and present research; and strengthening existing UW academic programs that have a social justice focus, such as Women’s Studies, African American Studies, American Indian Studies, Chicano Studies and other programs."

Rios delivered Saturday’s Keynote Speech: "La Casa De Esperanza: The House that Multicultural Education Built."
The concept of La Casa Esperanza, Rios explained, is a metaphor to describe "issues, wholeness and connectedness, challenges, which show that we [multicultural activists] live in the same ghetto, city, barrio, and village."
Rios urged the passage of the DREAM Act, which would allow illegal immigrant children attending K-12 schools to be eligible for permanent residency if they were either attending college or serving in the Armed Forces.
For his various multicultural efforts, Rios has secured a $1 million grant from the Wyoming legislature for three diversity projects.
The NAME conference underscored the importance that multicultural education advocates place in getting the federal government to subsidize multicultural projects.
An Obama Administration, pledging to increase the nearly $70 billion in federal education funding by an additional $18 billion, will certainly underwrite this Treason Lobby approach to education.
There is one simple way to start immobilizing the Marxist momentum of multicultural education: dismantle the federal Department of Education—and push to minimize federal support for this ideologically contaminated area.
Just another missed opportunity in the Great Bush Bust.

DESPITE being shot twice during an ambush in Afghanistan, an SAS soldier lashed himself to the front of his patrol vehicle so he wouldn’t be left behind if he passed out from loss of blood and kept on fighting.

The Digger is expected to be recommended for a high level bravery award.

Suffering from serious upper body wounds, the soldier struggled on to the front of his SAS long range patrol vehicle (LRPV) and, under heavy fire, used a rope to attach himself firmly between the vehicle’s bull bar and radiator.

Once he was secured, and there was no chance that he would fall off if he fainted, he picked up his rifle and resumed firing at the enemy during a two-hour fighting withdrawal.

SAS troops and their special forces comrades from the Commando Regiment are well aware of the slow and painful death that awaits them if they are captured by the Taliban.

The Digger, who cannot be identified, faded in and out of consciousness, emptying several magazines as volleys of enemy rounds and rocket propelled grenades, rained down around him.

He was finally evacuated from the battle field at high speed still lashed to the front of the LRPV.

While the Diggers fought for survival, bureaucrats in Canberra docked the pay of more than 100 SAS men, including many serving in Afghanistan.

Several troops had been told they had debts of $30,000 for allowances that shouldn’t have been paid and were being forced to repay the funds.

The issue was resolved yesterday when army chief Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie admitted it was a fault with the auto pay system, adding it would be fixed immediately.

A source told The Courier-Mail the Digger was now "up and about" and would recover fully from his serious gunshot wounds. His heroic deeds will be recognised when he is recommended for a high level bravery award.

Several others engaged in the do-or-die battle on September 2 are also in line for top honours.


Heads_Up Rantburg

And she’s so good at it, it brings tears to daddy’s eyes.

Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden delivered his speech on Wednesday, October 22, 2008, at the Pueblo Union Depot, in Pueblo, Colorado.

Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden delivered his speech on Wednesday, October 22, 2008, at the Pueblo Union Depot, in Pueblo, Colorado.

— Despite the massive American flag that hid most of her, it was difficult to miss the really big-boned gal in the little black dress standing next to the stage at Joe Biden’s rally.

Especially with that bow and arrow she was holding.

Normally, Diana the Huntress — the statue of her, that is — poses au naturel in front of the Union Depot building in downtown Pueblo. But on Wednesday, that changed. At least for a few hours.

"I don’t think they wanted bare breasts showing," said Mike Randall, the person in charge of putting a makeshift shift on Diana, goddess of the hunt and the moon.

"They said cover her up, so I put her in a toga," said Randall, who used a large swath of black cloth to cover Diana’s unmentionables and a bunch of black string to keep his creation from blowing away.

The enormous flag was added after the toga alone was deemed inadequate to keep Diana out of the picture.

The statue, which stands about eight feet tall not counting the imposing stone base, was a gift from Pueblo’s sister city in Mexico, Chihuahua, and its placement was the source of some controversy, Randall said.

But that’s all in the past. Now, nobody seems to mind.

"It’s been on TV too many times for it to matter anymore," he said

 Original story via the pro-Obama RMN:

Third-grader Brandon Garcia, 8, stands tall Wednesday at Sunset Ridge Elementary School in Westminster after his question was asked to vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Chris Schneider © The Rocky

Third-grader Brandon Garcia, 8, stands tall Wednesday at Sunset Ridge Elementary School in Westminster after his question was asked to vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

WASHINGTON — Asked by a Colorado third-grader what a vice president does, Republican candidate Sarah Palin responded that the vice president is the president’s "team mate" but also "runs the Senate" and "can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes."

While aimed at a typical 8-year-old, Palin’s explanations oversimplify the Constitution’s definition of the duties of the vice president and don’t match the office’s traditional role in Senate activities.

The vice president’s main duty is to replace the president if the president dies, resigns, is removed from office or can no longer carry out his or her duties for other reasons. The Constitution names the vice president as the president of the Senate but allows the vice president to cast a vote only to break a tie.

The vice president, as a member of the executive branch of the government, has no official role in developing legislation or determining how it is presented to or debated by the Senate, which is part of the legislative branch. In all meaningful ways, the leader of the majority party runs the Senate.

Traditionally, the vice president appears in the Senate for ceremonial events and in case of a tie vote. Although the vice president can preside over the Senate, vice presidents have left that day-to-day chore to senators themselves. In the past, each president has determined the role of the vice president in an administration.

The subject of the vice president’s duties came up as Palin sat Monday for an interview with 9News, which has a feature called "Question from the Third Grade." The interviewer asked, "Brandon Garcia wants to know, ‘What does the vice president do?’"

"That’s a great question, Brandon, and a vice president has a really great job, because not only are they there to support the president’s agenda, they’re like the team member, the team mate to that president," Palin said.

"But also, they’re in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it’s a great job and I look forward to having that job," she said.


Eight-year-old Brandon Garcia has dreamed for a long time about becoming a police officer, but by the end of Wednesday he was throwing newscaster into the mix, too.

No wonder.

When his question, "What does the vice president do?" got pitched to the current contenders for the job, it put the Westminster third-grader’s name front and center in the local and national spotlight – on the Today Show, the Keith Olbermann show Countdown on MSNBC, The Associated Press, 9News and, well, here.

His parents, Silviano and Graciela Garcia, have their own opinion of the turn of events.

"They said I’m great, and a good son," Brandon said.

It began when 9News came to Sunset Ridge Elementary School in Westminster to ask third-graders to rustle up questions for reporter Adam Schrager’s viewer- driven Q & A Your Show. One of the questions would be posed to Joe Biden and Sarah Palin when they came through town this week.

Brandon said it took him three weeks to come up with his question. Biden’s answer to "What does the vice president do?" passed under the radar. For some, Palin’s remarks became the gotcha of the day.

Palin’s answer – "they’re in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators" – has been pounced on by her critics, a fact that the 8-year-old found somewhat bemusing.

On one hand, Brandon is aware that Palin "answered my question almost wrong," but on the other hand, he thought her answer was "great," too. He especially liked the part where she promised "to make good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom."

But apparently she can’t win his support. Brandon, a composed young man who speaks English and Spanish, and loves soccer and video games, has made up his mind whom he would vote for.

"Obama," he said. "I always listen to the speech of Obama in the commercial that he will help pay the rent of (our) house."

In any case, the school is tickled. "I think it’s pretty neat," said Principal Roger Vadeen.

When the mother of Brandon’s teacher called from New York to say she had just heard Brandon’s name on Olbermann’s cable show, Vadeen’s thought was: "Hey! Brandon Garcia is kind of like Joe the Plumber!"

And to think it all might not have happened if Brandon had chosen his backup question.

"How old is the White House?"


FYI: Sunset Ridge Elementary School has one of the worst ratings for a school in Colorado.

School rating:
Score: -0.54 (Low)

State average from 1417 schools: 

 Hispanics students or in politically incorrect terms, Mexican illegal alien anchor babies, out number non-Hispanic legal students (source)

 Via Daily Mail:

Over the past 150 years, the experience of men at war has become incomparably more vivid to us than it was to our forefathers.

However many tales of battle were told before, none achieved the impact on popular imagination of photographs, such as the first captured images of the Crimea and American Civil War.

Yet even in World War I, cameras were still cumbersome.

Most pictures from that period were posed, alleged shots of battle staged behind the Front.

All this changed in the Thirties when photographers were able to carry on to the battlefield portable cameras with fast exposures  –  most famously the German Leica.

For the first time, it became possible to capture spontaneous snapshots of men in the extremes of fear, peril, exhilaration, distress.

The Spanish Civil War, then World War II, became the first conflicts which produced visual records worthy of their terrible enormity.

To be sure, many of the pictures were still framed to serve as propaganda. But among millions of images of planes, ships, tanks and  –  above all  –  men, there were many which have deservedly become classics of World War II.

More than a few photographers died, recording war ‘at the sharp end’ as never before, and most risked their lives daily.

But they also preserved some of the droll oddities of war for millions of young men plucked from their civilian lives and obliged to learn to be warriors.

These are a few among a host of visual memories. I have chosen them to reflect the weird range of experiences known to men and women in the greatest war in human history.

royal navy.jpg

The Royal Navy’s submariners were given sun-ray lamp treatment ashore, before they put to sea, in the photo above.

This allegedly strengthened their health before they became prisoners of their stinking, ill-ventilated steel tubes for weeks under water.

Only watch-keepers enjoyed the luxury of fresh-air duty in the conning tower when the vessels surfaced at night to replenish their batteries.

The submarine service always recruited volunteers, who suffered heavy casualties, but prided themselves on being an elite.

The ordeal of enduring long patrols, subject to terrifying depth-charge attacks, was among the most testing of the war. But the submariners’ contribution, especially in the Mediterranean, was among the most distinguished of the Royal Navy’s war.

gas mask .jpg

The first child born in London after the outbreak of war in September 1939 is used to demonstrate the grotesque gas mask designed for babies, on his way home from hospital with his mother.

It was widely expected that Hitler would dispatch his Luftwaffe to launch a mass gas attack, in which case doom-mongers predicted 250,000 deaths in the first week. In the event, the Germans never used gas, almost certainly because they knew that the British were equipped to retaliate.

But throughout the war, every British civilian was required to carry a gas mask to the office, the pub, the shops.

Soldiers carried masks into battle, until it was decided that fighting the Wehrmacht was quite difficult enough without such encumbrances. The baby’s mask shown here came equipped with hand bellows to pump in filtered air.

sleeping war kids.jpg

When the Luftwaffe’s Blitz on London began in September 1940, civilians found themselves in the front line  –  and desperate for sanctuaries safer than the little Anderson shelters in back gardens.

When thousands of people took up night quarters in Tube stations, at first they were driven out by officialdom. But the pressures of fear and need were too great.

The authorities bowed to the inevitable, and began to provide bunks and hammocks, such as these for children. Underground nights became the norm for many people for many weeks.

They brought down their own food and blankets, and were organised by ARP wardens. More than 50,000 British civilians died from enemy air attacks.

royal engineers.jpg

The image seems comic, yet the purpose was deadly: men of the Royal Engineers in Italy were taught the vital skill of probing blind, in darkness, for enemy mines which would blow them to fragments if they made a false move.

The Germans became expert at making and laying wooden mines which metal detectors could not identify. In every attack, engineers were among the unsung heroes, clearing paths through minefields in advance of the infantry and tanks.

Many men paid with their lives for a moment’s carelessness.

burma soldier.jpg

A face that knows the meaning of suffering, with only a pack to keep off the rays of the merciless sun. This was one of Orde Wingate’s Chindits in Burma, returned from a 1943 deep-penetration mission behind Japanese lines, which was among the epics of the war in the east.

They marched hundreds of miles, always hungry, often prey to tropical disease, knowing that if they were badly wounded they must be shot: there was no means of evacuating casualties, and no man could be left to the savagery of the Japanese.

The Chindits’ losses were fearful. But they raised the morale and prestige of Britain’s Army in Asia by proving that they could survive and fight in the jungle, on level terms with the enemy.

eastern front.jpg

The Eastern Front was the critical theatre of the war against Hitler, and Stalingrad its decisive battle. Conditions were unspeakable as hundreds of thousands of men fought yard by yard for possession of the rubble of a city that once housed 850,000 people, through the winter of 1942-43.

Weapons and vehicle engines froze, food was chronically short and frostbite the common misery of both sides. Stalin’s generals were as merciless towards their own men as towards the Germans  –  those who flinched were shot.

Here a Soviet soldier fires from a ruined house, a frozen bath offering some protection. Hitler rejected all appeals from his commanders to retreat, and paid the price.

In February 1943, General Paulus’s Sixth Army found itself trapped by Soviet counter-attack. A quarter of a million Germans perished, or passed into brutal captivity.

burnt soldiers.jpg

How ‘the longest day’  –  June 6, 1944, in Normandy  –  ended for two desperately burned soldiers of the British Army.

They were almost certainly tank crewmen, who faced a terrible fate if they were hit by enemy fire. Sherman tanks were known with black humour as Ronsons or Tommy Cookers, because they ‘brewed up’ so readily.

The men who manned the tanks learned to jump for their lives the moment a shell struck  –  if they were lucky enough to be still able to do so.

british prisoners.jpg

British prisoners at Rangoon jail, liberated by Slim’s Fourteenth Army early in 1945. These were the first victims of the terrible cruelties visited by the Japanese on PoWs who were able to tell their stories.

The British High Command decided to censor the most harrowing details, because many thousands more remained in enemy hands in Thailand, Malaya and Japan.

Almost every man found in Rangoon Jail was starving and suffering from all manner of diseases.

Corporal Usher, the man on crutches, had a leg amputated without anaesthetic when it became infected.

There were no drugs for prisoners, only relentless hard labour until many perished.
It was later discovered that the prisoners in Rangoon were in better conditions than those on the notorious ‘Burma Railway’.

wars happy moments.jpg

In war, it was wise to snatch any brief moment of safety or rejoicing, such as this one.

The next day might again put your life in danger.

This was one of war’s happy moments  –  when British soldiers in Sicily in the summer of 1943 could share with local people the ecstatic relief of being freed from fear and German oppression.

The Italians, and especially the Sicilians, had never been enthusiastic participants in the war. When the Allies landed in Sicily in July, Italian troops on the island quickly laid down their arms.

The population embraced British and American troops with open arms. For the Sicilians, once the Germans withdrew, their sufferings were, indeed, at an end.

For the Allied soldiers, however, many months more bitter fighting lay ahead, on the Italian mainland.

Extracted from The Faces Of World War II by Sir Max Hastings (Cassell Illustrated, £25). 2008, Sir Max Hastings. To order a copy for £22.50 (p&p free), call 0845 155 0720.

Meet Michael Klonsky, Obama’s "social justice" education expert.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

The mainstream press steadfastly refuses to delve into Barack Obama’s radicalism, his Leftist revolutionary collaboration with self-identified communists from Frank Marshall Davis to Bill Ayers. The McCain campaign, moreover, has contributed mightily to the whitewash by ineptly seizing on the issue’s least important aspect: Obama’s abject dishonesty about the depth of his relationships with committed Leftists — e.g., the portrayal of Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”

(Petrified of being smeared as a racist, McCain has never mentioned Davis, whom Obama identifies only as “Frank” in his memoir. And, of course, utterance of Jeremiah Wright’s name is verboten in McCain circles, notwithstanding that his Trinity Church, where Obama was a 20-year member, is a font of Marxist Black Liberation Theology and thus critical to our understanding of Obama’s invocations of “change” and “spreading the wealth.”)

With what little media oxygen there has been sucked out by the largely uninformative discussion of Ayers (and his wife and Weather Underground ally, Bernadine Dohrn) — in which the mantra “unrepentant terrorist” has been a pale substitute for the critical matter of the Ayers’s ideology that Obama plainly shares — much has been missed. Significantly, that includes another key Obama contact, Mike Klonsky.

Here’s what you need to know. Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website.

To be clear, as it seems always necessary to repeat when Obamaniacs, in their best Saul Alinsky tradition, shout down the opposition: This is not about guilt by association. The issue is not that Obama knows Klonsky … or Ayers … or Dohrn … or Wright … or Rashid Khalidi …

The issue is that Obama promoted and collaborated with these anti-American radicals. The issue is that he shared their ideology.

Klonsky’s communist pedigree could not be clearer. His father, Robert Klonsky, was an American communist who was convicted in the mid-Fifties for advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government — a violation of the Smith Act, anti-communist legislation ultimately gutted by the Supreme Court. In the Sixties, Klonsky the younger teamed with Ayers, Dohrn, and other young radicals to form the Students for a Democratic Society. It was out of the SDS that Ayers and Dohrn helped found the Weatherman terrorist group.

Klonsky took a different path, albeit one that led inexorably to a new partnership with Ayers, which Obama mightily helped underwrite. Upon splitting off from the SDS, Klonsky formed a Maoist organization, first known as the “October League,” which ultimately became the “Communist Party (Marxist Leninist).”

Klonsky was CP(ML)’s chairman. He was so highly thought of by Mao’s regime that he was among the first Americans invited to visit Communist China. When he was feted there in 1977, a year after Mao’s death, the communist leadership hailed Klonsky’s party as “reflecting the aspirations of the proletariat and working people.”

Klonsky was a regular guest of the Chicoms until 1981, when the relationship soured over the post-Mao leadership’s free-market reforms. (Yes, Klonsky is apparently more committed to communism than China’s own Communist Party.) So what was a Leftist radical without platform to do? Why, what else? He became an American college professor specializing in education.

After getting his doctorate, Klonsky eventually made his way to Chicago and hooked up with his old SDS comrade (and self-professed “small ‘c’ communist”) Bill Ayers. Together, they co-founded the Small Schools Workshop in 1991. The goal — as Ayers has repeatedly made clear, most prominently in a 2006 speech before Hugo Chavez at an education forum in Caracas — is to bring the same Leftist revolution that has always galvanized them into the classroom.

The concept may be called small schools, but Klonsky and Ayers uniquely grasp the force-multiplier effect. In a small class, the teacher preaching the “social justice” gospel that American capitalism is a racist, materialist, imperialist cauldron of injustice can have greater impact on the students he seeks to mold into his conception of the “good citizen” — and on the teachers he is teaching to be preachers. Writing trenchantly about how this system of “critical pedagogy” short-changes the basic education needs of disadvantaged children, the City Journal’s Sol Stern observes that theorists like Klonsky and Ayers:

nurse a rancorous view of an America in which it is always two minutes to midnight and a knock on the door by the thought police is imminent. The education professors feel themselves anointed to use the nation’s K-12 classrooms to resist this oppressive system. Thus … teachers [are urged] not to mince words with children about the evils of the existing social order. They should portray “homelessness as a consequence of the private dealings of landlords, an arms buildup as a consequence of corporate decisions, racial exclusion as a consequence of a private property-holder’s choice.” In other words, they should turn the little ones into young socialists and critical theorists.

Klonsky himself confirms that this is precisely the goal (italics mine):

[S]uccessful social justice education ensures that teachers strike a balance between debating sociopolitical problems that affect children’s lives and teaching them academic basics on which they will be tested. A science teacher can plant an urban garden, allowing students to learn about plant biology, the imbalance in how fresh produce is distributed and how that affects the health of community residents. An English teacher can explore misogyny or materialism in American culture through the lens of hip-hop lyrics. Or as Rico Gutstein, a professor of mathematics education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, suggests, a math teacher can run probability simulations using real data to understand the dynamics behind income inequality or racial profiling. These are “examples of lessons where you can really learn the math basics,” he says, “but the purpose of learning the math actually becomes an entree into, and a deeper understanding of, the political ramifications of the issue.”

When Obama and Ayers collaborated together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) education-reform project, with Obama chairing the board that oversaw funding decisions, CAC underwrote the Klonsky/Ayers Small Schools Workshop with a whopping $1,056,162. And that’s not all. Nearly another million dollars was steered to the Small Schools Workshop by the Joyce and Woods Funds when Obama sat on their boards. The grand total comes to $1,968,718.

Furthermore, as education remains one of Obama’s core areas of concern — a fact that should frighten you — he gave Klonsky a microphone during the campaign. On the Obama campaign’s official website, Klonsky ran a blog for the candidate, as Klonsky put it, on “education politics and teaching for social justice.” He ran it, that is, until blogger Steve Diamond called attention to it back in June. A that point, the campaign scrubbed the site of all Klonsky traces — a fitting Stalinesque purge, described by Diamond here (and reminiscent of similar efforts to erase the campaign’s false claims about Obama’s relationship with ACORN).

Of course, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” John Stuart Mill called conservatives “the stupid party.” For countless American intellectuals, including many eventual giants of the Right, disdain for bourgeois values led to a ruinous infatuation with the Soviet Union — the audacity of their hope for perfecting mankind blinding them to the unremitting misery wrought by communist ideology.

In 1951, the legendary liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas insisted that, though communism might be a threat abroad, the movement in this country was a mere “bogeyman” that had been “thoroughly exposed” and “crippled as a political force.” We now know that even as he wrote those words, communists had covertly infiltrated the U.S. government at high levels and that, as a political force, the movement was just getting started. The Klonskys and Ayers were still on the horizon.

Now today’s elites, including some prominent conservative intellectuals, thumb their noses once again at the stupid party. They look longingly at the putatively cerebral Obama, a fit more to their liking even if his politics are, they hope, just a tad wayward. But the Leftist revolutionaries are under no such illusions. In Obama, they see the fulfillment of their dreams to remake America. As Klonsky has explained, “My own support for Obama is … a recognition that the Obama campaign has become a rallying point for young activists and offers hope for rebuilding the civil rights and antiwar coalitions that have potential to become a real critical force in society.”

So get ready for Klonsky’s “social justice.” It’s what Barack Obama calls “change.”

« Previous PageNext Page »