B.O. is the Manchurian Candidate

[SHTSPRAYER]

The Manchurian Candidate
By: David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, September 11, 2009



Those who were surprised by the White House appointment of Van Jones – a self-styled “communist,” and a proponent of the idea that the Katrina catastrophe was caused by “white supremacy,” haven’t been paying attention to developments on the left since the fall of Communism, or to president Obama’s extensive roots in its political culture. Van Jones is the carefully groomed protégé of a network of radical organizations -- including Moveon.org -- and of Democratic sponsors like billionaire George Soros and John Podesta, former Clinton chief of staff and co-chair of the Obama transition team.
At the time of his appointment as the President’s “Green Jobs” czar – and despite a very recent 10-year history of “revolutionary” activity – Jones was a member of two key organizations at the very heart of what might be called the executive branch of the Democratic Party. The first is the Center for American Progress which was funded by Soros and is headed by Podesta. The second is the Apollo Alliance, on whose board Jones sits with Podesta, Carol Browner and Al Gore. This is a coalition of radicals, leftwing union leaders and corporate recruits, which had a major role in designing Obama’s green economy plans, including the “cash for clunkers” program. The New York director of the Alliance, who will be writing its applications for tens of millions of dollars in “stimulus” funds, is Jeff Jones (no relation) who was a co-leader of the terrorist Weather Underground along with Obama’s close friend and political ally William Ayers.


According to his own account, Van Jones became a “communist” during a prison term he served after being arrested during the 1992 Los Angeles race riots. For the next ten years Jones was an activist in the Maoist organization STORM – “Stand Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement.” When STORM disintegrated Jones joined the Apollo Alliance and the Center for American Progress Democrats. As he explained to the East Bay Express in a 2005 article, he still considered himself a “revolutionary, but just a more effective one.” “Before,” he told the Express, “we would fight anybody, any time. No concession was good enough;… Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I’ll work with anybody, I’ll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward.... I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”



Pursuing the deep satisfaction of radical ends is the clear sub-text of Jones’ 2007 book, The Green Collar Economy which comes with a Forward by Robert Kennedy Jr. and enthusiastic blurbs from Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore. According to Jones, the Katrina tragedies were caused by global warming, white supremacy, free market economics and the “war for oil” in Iraq. This “perfect storm” of social evils deprived poor blacks of the protection of adequate levees and private vehicles which would have allowed them to escape. The fact that a fleet of public buses was available but the black mayor and the black power structure in New Orleans failed to deploy them go unmentioned in Jones’ indictment of white racism. Instead, “The Katrina story illustrates clearly the two crises we face in the United States: radical socioeconomic inequality and rampant environmental destruction.” To deal with these crises “we will need both political and economic transformation – immediately.”

How did John Podesta and Al Gore and Barack Obama come to be political allies of a far left radical like Van Jones, a 9/11 conspiracy “truther” and a supporter of the Hamas view that the entire state of Israel is “occupied territory?” To answer this question requires an understanding of developments within the political left that have taken place over the last two decades, and in particular the forging of a “popular front” between anti-American radicals and “mainstream liberals” in the Democratic Party.


The collapse of Communism in the early Nineties did not lead to an agonizing reappraisal of its radical agendas among many who had supported it in the West. Instead, its survivors set about creating a new socialist international which would unite “social justice” movements, radical environmental groups, leftwing trade unions, and traditional communist parties – all dedicated to the revival of utopian dreams.


The new political force made its first impression at the end of the decade when it staged global demonstrations against the World Trade Organization and the World Bank. The demonstrations erupted into large-scale violence in Seattle in 2001 when 50,000 Marxists, anarchists and environmental radicals, joined by the giant leftwing unions AFSCME and SEIU, descended on the city, smashed windows and automobiles, and set fire to buildings to protest “globalization” – the world capitalist system.


In the direct aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the anti-globalization forces morphed into what became known as the “anti-war” movement. An already scheduled anti-globalization protest on September 29 was re-redirected (and re-named) to target America’s retaliation against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The new “peace” movement grew to massive proportions in the lead up to the war in Iraq but it never held a single protest against Saddam’s violation of 17 UN arms control resolutions, or his expulsion of the UN arms inspectors. It did, however, mobilize 35 million people in world-wide protests against America’s “imperialist war for oil.” The orchestrators of the demonstrations were the same leaders and the same organizations, the same unions and the same “social justice” groups that had been responsible for the Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization and the international capitalist system.


A second watershed came in the run-up to the 2004 elections when billionaire George Soros decided to integrate the radicals – including their political organization ACORN -- into the structure of Democratic Party politics. Together with a group of like-minded billionaires, Soros created a “Shadow Party” (as Richard Poe and I documented in a book by that name) whose purpose was to shape the outcome of the 2004 presidential race. “America under Bush,” Soros told The Washington Post, “is a danger to the world,…” To achieve his goal, Soros created a galaxy of 527 political organizations headed by leftwing union leaders like SEIU chief Andrew Stern and Clinton operatives like Harold Ickes. As its policy brain he created the Center for American Progress.

Soros failed to achieve his goal in 2004 but he went on working to create new elements of the network, such as the Apollo Alliance. Four years later the Shadow Party was able to elect a candidate who had spent his entire political career in the bowels of this movement. Obama’s electoral success was made possible by the wide latitude he was given by the press and the public, partly because he was the first African-American with a chance to be president and partly because his campaign was deliberately crafted to convey the impression that he was a tax-cutting centrist who intended to bring Americans together to find common solutions to their problems. When confronted with his long-term associations and working partnerships with anti-American racists like Jeremiah Wright and anti-American radicals like William Ayers, he denied the obvious and successfully side-stepped its implications.

Just eight months into his presidency, however, a new Barack Obama has begun to emerge. With unseemly haste Obama has nearly bankrupted the federal government, amassing more debt in eight months than all his predecessors combined. He has appeased America’s enemies abroad and attacked America’s intelligence services at home. He has rushed forward with programs that require sweeping changes in the American economy and is now steamrolling a massive new health-care program that will give the government unprecedented control of its citizens.



Among the hallmarks of this new radical regime the appointment of Van Jones stood out for its blatant departure from political normalcy. In his White House role, the radical Jones would have represented the president in shaping a multi-billion stimulus package, which could easily function as a patronage program of particular interest to his political allies in the “Apollo Alliance,” ACORN and the leftwing unions. In the classic manual for activists on how to achieve their radical goals, Obama’s political mentor Saul Alinsky wrote: “From the moment an organizer enters a community, he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing, and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army.” As the president’s green jobs commissar, Van Jones had entered the trillion-dollar community of the federal government and would soon have been building his radical army. The rest of us should be wondering who his sponsors were within the White House (senior presidential advisor and long-time “progressive” Valerie Jarrett was certainly one). Then we should ask ourselves what they are planning next.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Horowitz is the founder of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and author of the new book, One Party Classroom.

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

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Frankie

There certainly is a lot more evidence for that than the laughable excuse of spreading of democracy.

Says who? The guy who doesn't understand when no-bid contracts are superior to competitive bidding and the guy who thinks he was lied into war? Sorry Frankie, you've got no credibility on these topics so your hand-waving just isn't enough.

Originally Posted by Frankie

I said a "Western Style" Democracy. Democracy and the notion of freedom can be in different flavors suiting a countries history and cultural heritage. Democracy is ideal but cannot be brought aboard tanks and Hummers to a country in a region where we have politically abused historically. The trust is simply not there and will take time and not guns to grow.

Donger may have said "western democracy" in this thread, but I don't think there was much confusion in the Bush administration on this point. They recognized that the Iraqis would have to find their own path toward a freedom-respecting form of self-government. The Bush administration wanted to build as many democratic institutions as possible to help them get started, but no one expected Iraq to be a perfect reflection of the western model.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Could you elaborate on the reasons?

Sure. The big one is urgency. It's a lot quicker to get a sole-source (no bid) deal in place than it is to hold a competitive bidding process. In the case of a major war, timeliness is critical. The other major reason is that you want to make sure the outfit that you contract with is capable of doing the job. The middle of a war is no time to find out that your low bidder just wasn't up to the job.

Originally Posted by Frankie

There's more of that intellectual response that I was talking about in post #65. Bravo.

[Griswald]

Originally Posted by Donger

And you think that Bush arranged this war for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of these friends? Seriously?

Frankie graduated from one of the best madrassa's in the world he has been taught well

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by D2112

He is King of the United States..lol

"US of KKK A".

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by patteeu

That's a list of issue disagreements. I'm talking about an actual change of opinion about the man. Do you still think Obama is who you thought he was when you voted for him?

"We are the change that we have been waiting for".

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I still say the Rs needed to be replaced to slap them around for acting like democrats.

The alternative, to having a pig with enough lipstick on it that even a blind psrson could see that it was a pig, would have been to have a pig with no lipstick on it being called a right wing nut job.(McCain, for those of you who are slow).

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Says who? The guy who doesn't understand when no-bid contracts are superior to competitive bidding and the guy who thinks he was lied into war? Sorry Frankie, you've got no credibility on these topics so your hand-waving just isn't enough.

Pat, please!... In working for the state of Iowa I have worked a lot in contracting out our work. Yes, the scale is different, but a no bid contract is a no bid contract. Not giving equal chance to competing contractors is NOT ALLOWED. That's the practice here at the State Government and there is no reason it can be allowed by the big Gov. Unless you have lawyers rewriting and re-interpreting laws.[/quote]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Donger may have said "western democracy" in this thread, but I don't think there was much confusion in the Bush administration on this point. They recognized that the Iraqis would have to find their own path toward a freedom-respecting form of self-government. The Bush administration wanted to build as many democratic institutions as possible to help them get started, but no one expected Iraq to be a perfect reflection of the western model.

Donger didn't say it. I did. But the point is still that pushing a "democracy" on a country that has seen nothing but corrupt despots and/or leaders in the pockets of Super Powers is impossible as a short-time goal and via military take over is impossible. The Bush administration was at best (1) pathetically naive and woefully inept, in terms of foreign policy, or at worst (2) corrupt and after war profiting. Given the characters involved, I'll take (2) for one hundred.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Sure. The big one is urgency. It's a lot quicker to get a sole-source (no bid) deal in place than it is to hold a competitive bidding process. In the case of a major war, timeliness is critical. The other major reason is that you want to make sure the outfit that you contract with is capable of doing the job. The middle of a war is no time to find out that your low bidder just wasn't up to the job.

And somehow companies with close ties to the Bush/Cheney gang were just available. And nobody else. Very convenient.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Pat, please!... In working for the state of Iowa I have worked a lot in contracting out our work. Yes, the scale is different, but a no bid contract is a no bid contract. Not giving equal chance to competing contractors is NOT ALLOWED. That's the practice here at the State Government and there is no reason it can be allowed by the big Gov. Unless you have lawyers rewriting and re-interpreting laws.

You don't know what you're talking about. That may be the case in the Iowa state government (although I doubt it), but it's far from the case in the federal government. I gave you two of the big reasons why no-bid contracts are used and why they made sense in the case of the war. You can argue on the merits and try to make the case that there was no urgency or that there were plenty of other vendors who could have provided those services (although you'd be wrong on both counts), but you can't conjure false facts and pretend that no-bid contracts aren't even allowed.

Originally Posted by Frankie

Donger didn't say it. I did. But the point is still that pushing a "democracy" on a country that has seen nothing but corrupt despots and/or leaders in the pockets of Super Powers is impossible as a short-time goal and via military take over is impossible. The Bush administration was at best (1) pathetically naive and woefully inept, in terms of foreign policy, or at worst (2) corrupt and after war profiting. Given the characters involved, I'll take (2) for one hundred.

Whether any of the democratic institutions we tried to plant in Iraq will take root and survive over the long term remains to be seen. The doubters have been talking about how impossible our job in Iraq was for a long time and GWBush kept proving the doubters wrong. He handed Obama a victory to manage and Obama is in the process of dropping that ball.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Frankie

And somehow companies with close ties to the Bush/Cheney gang were just available. And nobody else. Very convenient.

By contrast, let's look at the prostitution facilitating organization with a close relationship to our current president that he has targeted for a large chunk of stimulus change and that, until recently, was going to help him out with his politicized census survey.

I'm pretty comfortable standing on the side that says that Haliburton was uniquely qualified to provide a wartime service to this country. Are you as comfortable standing up for the radical, criminal conspiracy known as ACORN?

[Comrade Crapski]

For the record, this wasn’t the only time that Davis helped accommodate Hitler. In 1940, he hooked up with one of the worst, most seditious communist fronts ever to operate in the United States: the American Peace Mobilization. That group, which in 1940 sought to keep America out of the war and from stopping Hitler because Hitler (at the time) was allied with Stalin, was organized by CPUSA and the Comintern in Chicago, which was where Davis was located.

The communists who organized the “peace” mobilization sought out dupes from the Religious Left and other various “progressive” factions. They also directly recruited African Americans, claiming that the evil FDR was seeking to send black boys to their death to fight for evil Churchill and the British.

This was the kind of vulgar propaganda that CPUSA regularly peddled. One of the African Americans that they targeted was Frank Marshall Davis. This was a powerful factor in bringing Davis into the Party as an eventual full member.

I must note that it was also through this group that Davis would work with Robert Taylor, who just happened to be the grandfather of Valerie Jarrett.
FP: That’s remarkable. Valerie Jarrett today is Obama’s right-hand woman in the White House.

Kengor: Yes, and it’s even more eerie than that. Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s mentor, also worked with Vernon Jarrett in these circles. Vernon Jarrett was Valerie’s father-in-law.

And it’s worse still. Davis, Obama’s mentor, also worked with Harry and David Canter, two other Chicago communists. The Canters mentored a young man named David Axelrod in Chicago in the 1970s. So, the troika that’s arguably running America today—Obama and Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod—all have common bonds in Chicago’s communist circles from the 1940s.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-g...80%99s-mentor/

[Frankie]

PHIL!!!!!....

[Mohammed]

Great thread.

[Amnorix]

The fruitcakes are on FIRE lately...

[Munson]

Its amazing how many connections the Dear Leader has to communists, terrorists, radicals, criminals, and scumbags.

You liberals must be proud!