Some Thoughts on #FreeStacy, Twitter, SJW’s, Censorship. and All Around Evil


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

too much to think

I wanted to briefly interrupt my blogging retirement to discuss #FreeStacy, Twitter, and censorship.

Imagine that you go to a restaurant, and the following happens…

  • The chef intentionally under-cooks your food
  • The waiter intentionally doesn’t turn in your order
  • The server announces to all the other patrons that you are a racist
  • The pastry chef posts your address, pictures of your children, and your employers home address on the front door of the establishment
  • The dishwasher creates a fake social media account in your name and posts racist content to it
  • The busboy calls the police and states that you harassed him, even though you’ve never seen him before
  • The owner kicks you our before you get your meal for “abuse,” even though you’ve done nothing but speak about the news of the day.

Now, imagine that you not only pay your bill at this restaurant, but you also return every day for the next round!

Well, if you have a Twitter account, and are a Conservative and/or Christian, you might be experiencing this on an increasing basis. And for some inexplicable reason, you continue to go back.

When I was on Twitter, I followed Stacy McCain.   At no point in time did he target or harass others. However, while Stacy had the absolute nerve to call out people for lying, or stalking others. Or, he was a regular critic of feminism, quoting feminists and giving his take on their ideas. At the same time, SJW’s on Twitter were posting people’s addresses, encouraging others to harass them, and even posting pictures their target’s children. We’ve seen the use of scripts to encourage bans, attempts to target sexual abuse victims and their families, the filing of false claims of harassment, and swamping accounts with fake followers. None of the aforementioned SJW’s were banned for their actions, however, Stacy McCain was.

Now, rather than “boo-hoo” and state that it’s “so unfair,” I’ll say we should expect this. Given the SJW’s totalitarian impulse, and their attraction to evil, we should not be surprised when evil people do evil things. The fact is simple; liars lie, cheaters cheat, stalkers stalk, and then laugh at the misfortune of their victims. They are the “crybullies,” who stalk, harass, and otherwise try to destroy the lives of others. However, when they are confronted with their own words and actions, they quickly claim to be the victim and call down the powers that be upon their target. It is a fairly predictable and easily observed pattern. And, when the playing field is Twitter, should we be surprised when this happens? Of course not, all the parties are acting within their own nature.

The real question is; why do Conservative play their game-on their playground?

The recent changes at Twitter have made a bad situation even worse. It was bad when I was on the platform, and even worse since. Since the formation of their “Ministry of Truth,” Conservatives have been banned, had their blue checkmarks removed, and “shadowbanned.” Their sin? Not being SJWs. Or, even worse, telling the truth about SJW’s.

So then, what is the freedom loving, truth telling segment of the population to do?

Before I answer that, let’s take a look at Twitter’s business model. Twitter sells targeted ads that appear in user’s feed…

Twitter (TWTR) earns 85% or more of its revenue from advertising. In the second quarter of 2014, Twitter posted an advertising base of $277 million, which was more than double the amount of revenue the social media site brought in during the same time in 2013. Twitter uses promoted tweets, promoted accounts and promoted trends. Twitter sells promoted tweets to marketers, and these then appear in users’ Twitter feeds. The company creates tailored advertising opportunities by using an algorithm to make sure promoted tweets make it into the right users’ timelines. 

Twitter makes additional money through data licensing. From the first six months of 2012 to the first six months of 2013, Twitter’s data licensing revenue increased by 53% to $32.2 million. Twitter has named four companies “official data resellers,” and these companies have direct access to all tweets. Each company has developed algorithms for data mining that measure consumer response to everything from brands to movies.

Twitter also made a profit in the last quarter, albeit a small one…

Twitter executives and investors would probably like to forget 2015 on the whole, but things aren’t looking much better for the social media company heading into the new year.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Gone are the heady days of 2013, when the San Francisco-based company was signing up new users at a brisk pace and was, literally, the talk of the town. Twitter’s share price soared following its initial public offering to more than US$60 on the New York Stock Exchange on expectations that it would become the next Facebook – an online advertising juggernaut with upwards of a billion users.

Two years later, the company has instead stalled at about 300 million users, with anaemic growth punctuating 2015. Twitter added only four million users in its most recent quarter, which helps explain its share price spiral to about $22 to close out the year, well below its IPO debut of $44.90.

The company fired the chief executive, Dick Costolo, in June and replaced him with Jack Dorsey, its founding chief executive who had himself been axed from the job in 2008. Upon his return, in October, Mr Dorsey had the pleasure of overseeing more than 300 layoffs.

Yet Twitter hasn’t been in free fall. The company finally became profitable last year, posting net income of $7 million in its most recent quarter. Revenue garnered from advertisers has also been climbing steadily, to $569m in the third quarter, up 58 per cent compared with a year earlier.

But, it’s growth has stagnated.

When you look at the business model, Twitter’s primary income comes from ads. Looking at this a bit realistically, you see that being able to publish 140 characters for the privilege of being stalked by SJW’s (and later being banned for it) is not actually Twitter’s product. The users themselves are the product! Twitter sells access to its 300 million users to advertisers, who get to present their ads. Also, they allow data mining for all users and Tweets.  Your abuse is just a bonus-you are the product!

In other words, if you are “Tweeting while Conservative,” not only are you being potentially abused in an environment that clearly does not like or want your company, you are actually feeding it.

Twitter is a private company. As such, they can do as they please. However, this also means that no one is obligated to use Twitter. And, in fact, why would you want to contribute to a business that seeks to harm you?   Twitter is making it clear that truth is not wanted there. They don’t want to hear us. They don’t want us there. They already allow regressive users to target and stalk Conservatives, so why go there at all?

My suggestion is clear. Conservatives are not welcome on Twitter. If Twitter wants to be the SJW hugbox of hate, leave them to it. Stacy McCain cannot go back. Adam Baldwin has already left. Milo has been unverified for being too fabulous. Many others have been banned or are leaving. If you want to call their advertisers and state your dissatisfaction, go for it. But leaving Twitter, and then abandoning to the cold hands of the free market is the best move. If they fail, they fail. If they manage to continue, they can be the regressive zoo of the internet. Just like Stacy McCain critiques Tumblr Feminazis, the regressives of Twitter could be a display of child-like, censorious, totalitarian evil, much like a forensic psychiatric ward of the internet.

Or, consider the old Klingon proverb; “Only a fool fights in a burning house.”

By the way, I don’t have a Twitter account. So the only way this gets on Twitter is for someone else to put it there. And, I’m not keeping the comments open on this, as I don’t have time to moderate. I’ll be getting back to my retirement, and studies, so God bless, and stay away from Twitter.

And for some informative reading, here are some links…

The #FreeStacy Story: Why Was My @rsmccain Account Suspended?

#FreeStacy: ‘A Girl’s Name’

#FreeStacy: @rsmccain ‘Will Not Be Restored’; @SexTroubleBook Suspended

The Hateful Lies of Feminism





Traitor Or Idiot: You Decide


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Traitor Or Idiot: You DecideBob asked a simple question.




Greatest Hits: What is Barak Obama?


What is Barak Obama?In early 2010, I took a look at the philosophical underpinnings of the messiah. 

The political and religious “identity” of Barak Obama is a contentious and much debated topic these days.  Claims of, “He’s a Muslim,” and “ he’s a socialist,” abound.   The left, as well as the MSM are able to field these claims, and contradict them, at least partially.  They are able to do this because he’s neither of these things.

Religion: While Obama may have a soft spot for Islam, he sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for over 20 years.  While Wright’s teachings are radical, they are clearly not Islamic.  Like the rest of us, the radical wing of Islam would cut his head off, unless he converted.

It is well documented that he attended an Islamic school while he lived in Indonesia.  That, in and of itself, does not mean that he is a Muslim, but unlike other Presidents, he has a depth of knowledge into Islam that unparalleled.  That might bias him, and blind him to the potential dangers that we face.  Either way, he does not appear to be Muslim, or, for that matter, Christian (or at least any Christianity with which we would be familiar).

Politics: You can call Obama a socialist.  It seems to fit his model of wealth redistribution rather nicely.  You might also call him a fascist, as his tampering in the banking, auto, and health care industries closely matches the actions of Mussolini and Hitler, for example, “Corporatism.”  You can also call him a “progressive,” as they believed that the state, run by an “intellectual” elite, can/should wield power to shape society into something more equitable and structured.  The common threads between all three are statism and elitism.  The idea that the state has primacy over all human activity seems a common thread though all of Obama’s policies.   And, of course, the idea of elitism; that a small group of “really smart people that know way better than you,” have the right and obligation to instruct everyone on how to live is central to any totalitarian view.

Some will say that the political theories and backgrounds conflict.  They do… and they don’t.  While that might come off as a contradictory statement, there is a case for stating it.  To draw the comparisons and contrasts, a brief look at history is required.

During the mid to late 19th century, new political ideologies were emerging.  Communism and socialism were taking root in Europe, and to a lesser degree, her in the US as well.  Also, the progressive movement was emerging in the US.  The leading minds of these movements were aware of each other, and followed each other’s writings and actions closely.  It is safe to assume that they influenced each other.

When it became apparent that Europe was going to explode into war (WWI), there was much excitement among the socialists/communists.  They had been predicting that if war came, the proletariat would rise, and there would be a vast, international communist revolution.  They thought that under the stress, death, and deprivation that would come with a war, that the people would grow weary with their governments and economic systems, and “throw off their oppressors.”

It didn’t happen.  With the exception of Russia, there were no successful communist revolutions.  Communists certainly did make a nuisance of themselves, but the established order in the West held.  More surprising was the fact that many socialists were patriotic and supported their nations in the war.

This is a crucial point in history for the socialist movement, as schisms were created by their differing reactions and ideas about the failure of the international revolution.   The hard-core communists decided to use the USSR as a “base” from which to spread communism throughout the world.  A smaller group of communists in Germany decided to examine what caused the failure of the international.  Working from the “Frankfort School,” they tagged Western Culture as the culprit.  Since Western Culture promoted patriotism, individualism, religious faith, capitalism, and self-reliance, they argued, communism couldn’t take root.  Their mission, therefore, was to find ways to negate Western Culture, and allow communism to take over.  We’ll get back to the Cultural Marxists in a bit.

However, it doesn’t end there.  There was yet another wing.  Some socialists, particularly Mussolini, decided that rather than reject national pride and western culture, that they would embrace it and use it to justify their socialism.  The terms, “National Socialism and totalitarianism,” were, if memory serves, coined by Mussolini.  Since the international revolution failed, he postulated that they could be done in single nations instead-hence, National Socialism.  He proved that assumption in his takeover of Italy.  Franco (of Spain) and Hitler followed suit.

The fascists, you see, were socialists.  They used socialist rhetoric and policies.  While they didn’t take over the means of production, they controlled it completely via regulation.  They did redistribute wealth.  They did tax heavily.  They did institute massive levels of government intervention; like heavy regulation of industry, gun control, socialized medicine, and so on.  They simply used the individual cultures and histories of their nations as a “wrapper” for their policies, corrupting the culture to serve their ends.  Even Hitler himself suggested that the Nazis and the Bolsheviks had more in common than what separated them.  He simply saw them as a competing ideology, NOT an antithetical one.  From the opposite perspective, Lenin was said to lament the “loss” of Mussolini, as early in his career, Mussolini was a powerful and well thought of advocate of socialism.

At this point, it is also important to note that there was no “pure” versions of either communism or fascism.  In each nation or movement, there were wide variations in doctrine and application.  For example, fascist Italy did not rely on antisemitism to forward it’s goals.  While Mussolini wanted to restore an “Roman Empire,” Hitler espoused the superiority of the “Aryan Race.”  All had variations, just as Leninism was different from Stalinism.

Meanwhile, the progressives continued to grow in strength in the US as well.  While they never seemed to gain a doctrinal type of theory or organization, they did press foreword with all sorts of governmental controls, such as eugenics (forced sterilization), increased government control over banking, labor, industry, and so on.  Many prominent progressives were also were great admirers of both Mussolini and Hitler (until Hitler’s anti-Semitism became too inconvenient to ignore).  In turn, the Nazis took some pages out of the progressive’s playbook in terms of media manipulation and eugenics.

So, we see that the Socialists and fascists are not antithetical, but “brothers.”  They were separated by their differing opinions on how to spread socialism.  Progressivism was a cousin, or at least a fellow traveler of Socialism and fascism.  They all knew about each other, often spoke kindly of each other, and seem to have “cross pollinated” each other’s ideas.

But what happened to the Cultural Marxists?  They were booted from Germany when Hitler came to power, and they migrated to here, eventually settling at Columbia University, where they continued their work.  They proposed a “long march through the institutions” in order to destroy western culture.  They made good on that idea, and now, education, media, law, and even theology have all been “infected” with cultural Marxism.  Here is an excerpt from an article that I quoted in a previous post on Cultural Marxism.

The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.

Does that sound familiar?  Or what about this?

Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).

The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins.

I would say that this is a correct assessment.

Needless to say, Cultural Marxism has infected all of our institutions.  When Obama said he associated with the “radical professors,” he was being steeped in Cultural Marxism.  The idea that it is somehow “unfair” that the US is so powerful and prosperous is part of that equation.  Think about many of Obama’s policies and actions, and you will see Cultural Marxism.

So, as a “progressive,” Obama stands on an intellectual base that has as its foundation, elements of fascism and Marxism.  Then, it’s finished off with a thick coat of Cultural Marxism.  It is safe to say that he is a fascist, socialist, and a “progressive.”  While none are exclusive, all are part of the foundation of his beliefs; and therefore, his actions.

Disclaimer: As usual, I could have wrote a book on this.  Kindly consider this post an outline.  However, Jonah Goldberg covered much of it in his fantastic book Liberal Fascism.


Greatest Hits: All Your Children Are Belong to us: The Sequel


All Your Children Are Belong to us: The SequelThe government owns you, your income, and your children too.

Last April, I covered Melissa Harris-Perry’s comment that “All your children are belong to us,” and by “us,” I meant the state.  That stupidity, like all liberal stupidity, was repeated recently.  The Trifecta gang covered the state’s claim on our children…

Here is the reaction, and quotes I used in the post on Harris-Perry’s claim on children.

Now, this whole concept of children belonging to the “community,” read, the state, is not new at all. Here are some historical references…

When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
Adolf Hitler
Speech November 1933, quoted in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer

Kinda reminds you of public education, doesn’t it?

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

— Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

Harris-Perry must have been doing her homework!

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.
Vladimir Lenin

That would be the goal, wouldn’t it?

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.Vladimir Lenin

Just to make sure that no one missed it.

Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.
Joseph Stalin

Hey, why depend on dead dictators to show the origins of Harris Perry’s thinking?

Remember how the Clinton administration viewed children and “human capital.”  These principals are at work in our country as we speak! -Editor 

Shortt also cites Robert Owen, one of the Anglo-American world’s first influential socialists, who developed a similar philosophy of education. Owen believed that children should be separated from their parents as early as possible and raised by the state. He believed people were exclusively the products of their social environments, and that if nurtured properly by the state, could be molded into whatever was desired. A key to the thinking that went into forming the official ideology of state-sponsored education was that human beings are innately good, not sinful, and that human nature could be perfected by the right kind of educational system. The ideology that eventually developed would hold that children could be molded into willing consumers of the products of big business and obedient servants of government. In short, the aims of state-sponsored schools were to transform thinking, highly individualistic and very literate citizens into an unthinking, collectivized mass. The slow but steady decline in literacy of all kinds was a by-product.

Yes, the children belong to the community!

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future.”

–Professor Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard

Getting a better idea now?

“Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are…[a] National Department of Education…the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society.”

     –William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America, 1932 National Chairman of the American Communist Party (1933-44, 1945-57)

OK, I know, that’s overkill.  But what Harris-Perry is talking about.  Totalitarian systems always take children, claiming that they are belong to the state.  They take them in the name of nurturing and protecting them, but in the end, what they are doing is enslaving them to a failed ideology.  And, they also get the added benefits of the students coming out uneducated, unthinking, unquestioning, and following the regressive ideology to the nth degree.  After all, there is free stuff to be had.

My assessment today is the same as last April-education is an indoctrination machine, and parents have no right to interfere with the creation of more low information voters.


Greatest Hits: More on the Fate of Useful Idiots


More on the Fate of Useful IdiotsFunny thing is that out social justice warriors will never see it coming…

After republishing Yuri Bezmenov’s videos, I decided to see if there were more.  I found another that expands on destablization.

Disclaimer: Conjecture follows

What sticks out for me is how very well this all compares to what is happening now.  There have been outside influences “inserted” into our society.  Whether it is Move  On, Think Regress, organized labor, the organizations formerly known as ACORN, Common Cause, ACLU, SPLC, and so on, all are designed to disrupt and destroy  our Republic.  These organizations  are causing disorder, and are simply making our free society increasingly impossible to function.  Any of the organizations might create, invent, or otherwise exploit class differences, attack our culture and values, smear people that resist or expose them, cause businesses, systems, or communities to fail…the list goes on and on.  And then, as Bezmenov points out, the accumulated damage caused by these efforts brings the nation to crisis.  We are rapidly approaching that point.

Additionally, our government is actively pursuing these same ends.  From the Department of Education, to the EPA, our own government is engaging in endless “Cloward-Piven” strategies.    While, on the surface, they are trying to “nudge” us into what they have deemed to be the “correct” way to live, can we also say they these strategies are also pushing us into crisis?  And if it is crisis that they seek, is not more power the end-goal?  Is not a result that more and more people are now dependent on government?  As the video points out, how many people are asking for more government to “solve” the problems that government caused in the fist place?

Where the video does show it’s age is in the idea of “sleepers.”  Obviously, since the Soviet Union is no more, there are no more sleepers.  However, there is no longer a need for these, as the Marxists/fascists/”progressives” operate in the open, and are self perpetuating.  From many public school teachers, to the Marxist professor, to the talking heads on MSNBC, to a host of actors, producers, pundits, and community organizers, there results a massive propaganda/indoctrination machine for producing more useful idiots.  And, the beauty of it is that the useful idiots are blissfully unaware that they are being used.  Unfortunately for them, as Bezmenov points out, they will never catch on until they’re being put up against a wall, if they even earn the courtesy of that.


Greatest Hits: Attention Useful Idiots! I Have a Glimpse Into Your Future


Attention Useful Idiots! I Have a Glimpse Into Your FutureAll of those social justice warriors are in for a big, and terminal, surprise.

I’ve been seeing some repeating themes as of late.  We have the hard left calling for the revolution.  We have people on our side lamenting the fact that there are millions of Americans that have not seen Obama and the left for what they really are.  That, in spite of overwhelming evidence, we didn’t win both houses of Congress by record margins.  And that Obama has any approval rating at all.   All of these snippets made me go back to one of my favorite sets of videos.

The videos were made in the 1980’s and feature Yuri Bezmenov, the highest ranking KGB official to ever defect to the West.  Take a  listen to how our proud useful idiots will meet their end.  Also not the personality traits that Bezmenov attributes to them.

It’s freakin’ uncanny if you ask me.  This man, back in the 80’s, was describing, in great detail, so many of the useful idiots that we vote for every month. And he was saying it over 20 years ago.

The Major Downside: You have to realize that some of us that have gone public will be targeted.  Just saying.

As for the people that won’t wake up, there is a reason for that…

There is much more to Bezmenov’s interviews.  They can be found on both YouTube and Google Video ( for longer versions).  But again, when we look at reality, and see things fall into place just as we predicted, or, even as our opponents  said they would, and people don’t get it at all, there is a reason for that.  The simple answer is that they aren’t supposed to get it, and they probably never will.  Until, that is, they are about to be lined up against the wall.  That is why I have not advocated a ton of outreach to the left.  They are programmed to deny reality, rendering them useful only as idiots, and temporarily at that.

I love that it so often comes right back to Cultural Marxism.


Greatest Hits: This is Your Grocery Store on Communism


This is Your Grocery Store on Communism- And of course, it was someone else’s fault.

After reading Robert Stacy McCain’s complete dismantling of the pro-communist rantings of Jesse Myerson, I’ve kept my eyes peeled for other stories that show how, in the words of the late Yuri Bezmenov, “how the beautiful society of equality and social justice is in practice.”  Here is one such example.  The following video shows a typical Moscow grocery store was on a typical day, in 1986.

Now, besides the scarcity, did you notice that no one seemed to smile? No friendly exchanges, no banter, no warm greetings. Just mind-numbing obedience and drudgery.
That was communism in the 80’s, and will be communism where ever it is tried. It is a slow, painful death of the spirit. While all the time, the government and media tells you how great it is. It’s a psychosis that is caused by the contradiction of reality and propaganda. You’re in paradise, while you’re in misery. You’re equal-equally poor, equally oppressed, and equally unhappy. There is the practical application of social justice, while the party big wigs have the best of everything.


Greatest Hits: Why Leftists Deny Reality?


Why Leftists Deny Reality? Facts are the kryptronite to the left. 

Ever try to argue facts and information with a Liberal?  Ever come away from the encounter frustrated?   Well, there’s a reason for that. Here are some excerpts from an interview with Yuri Bezmenov, a defector from the Soviet Union.

I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic…. That’s probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first stage being “demoralization“. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.

The result? The result you can see — most of the people who graduated in the 60?s, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern can not change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. [alluding to Pavlov].

So, It would seem, by the admission of a former KGB official, that their efforts were successful.  If fact, the progress has even exceeded their expectations…

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it’s over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. …he will refuse to believe it…. That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

Mind you, these words were spoken in the 80?s.  I think we all recognize that the situation has deteriorated significantly since then. Think about politicians like Allen Grayson, everyone on MSNBC (and most of the MSM), and the public schools and universities.  It’s all there.  Rights that do not exist are created, and rights that do exist are denied.  Capitalism is decried, and socialism is praised.  Lies, deceit, thuggery, intimidation, propaganda, and media control are all practiced by the left, and are viewed as acceptable practices.  They cling dogmatically to socialism, as it continues to destroy the country.  They deny, emphatically, all evidence to the contrary, irregardless  of it’s bulk and validity.  Then, they turn and attack anyone that presents the truth.

It seems hopeless, but it isn’t.  Since the last term of Bush, and especially since Obama’s election, more and more Conservatives have been speaking out.   While the left has entrenched and are attacking with all of their resources (which are considerable), they are losing the debate, as well as the battle for public opinion.  Our advantage is that they are still, in spite of their best efforts, a small minority.  Our disadvantage is that while the left is statistically small, they are extremely well placed.  Since their “long march through the institutions,”  their impact reaches far beyond their numbers.

As usual, here are some ideas on how to deal with this situation:

1.  Don’t engage a leftist unless you can bury them in facts.  It won’t matter to the leftist, but anyone else that can see, hear, or read might be convinced by reality.

2.  Stay on message.  Leftists, when hit with reality, will change the subject to something that they think they use against you.  The classic, “Where were you when Bush was POTUS?” is easily answered by saying, “where are you now?”  You might be tempted to state that most of us didn’t agree with Bush’s policies, but then you are talking about history, and not what’s happening now.  Also, you are defending yourself rather than dealing with Obama’s policies.  Thread hijacking, ad-hominem attacks, lies, and logical fallacies are all part of the leftist playbook.  Point out that they are not responding to content, and move on with your point.  If they get shrill, let them, because you win!

3.  Don’t allow yourself to be distracted.  The infiltrators, the “anarchists,” and the MSM are all lying and/or threatening the movement.  While these need to be addressed, they don’t have to be a primary focus.  From what I saw, the Tea Parties did a fantastic job of identifying the infiltrators.  That, and the message still got out, and that is the key.  As for the MSM, let them say what they will.  This blog, and many others, expose their lies on a regular basis.  When they lie, and anyone can look it up on-line and see the truth, the more audience they will lose.  Let them fall on their own swords.  Basically, if your adversary is self destructing, get out of the way and let them.

4.  Facts, facts, and non-violence are our weapons of choice.  Stick with those, and we win.  Forget the left, they cannot be convinced of anything.  They will likely not overcome their programming.  We are trying to convince the people that aren’t sure, and might still be able to think a bit.  That too is working.  More people are coming to our cause all the time.

5.  Educate yourselves.  Read, watch, and learn.  A knowledgeable opponent will give the average leftist fits.  Again, when they get shrill, we win.

6. Stay calm.  If you lose your cool, you lose.  The goal of the leftist, beyond taking you off message, is to upset you and make you lash out, rendering you ineffective.

To sum it up, this is the key to our victory.

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
—  Mahatma Gandhi


Greatest Hits: David “The Red” Axelrod’s Communist Roots


David “The Red” Axelrod’s Communist Roots:  Don discovered that David Axelrod probably STILL wears red diapers…

It may be accurate to blame Barack Hussein Obama for the woes that this country is facing, but the man behind the curtain, the leftist version of a Karl Rove is solely more responsible for getting him elected than any person on the planet. Since the “historic” ascendancy and 2008 election of Obama, it has come out that Axelrod is more than just a paid political hack, more than just an “adviser.” As Paul Kengor writes in the American Spectator:

“He is imager of the image and narrator of the narrative. No single person is more responsible for making Barack Obama president. Come November 2008, it was nothing short of a stunning change for America, a genuinely historical feat the man known as Ax hopes to repeat in November 2012.

And it helps that the two—story-maker and story, composer and theme—think alike. “You know, he and I share a basic worldview,” Obama told the New York Times. “I trust his basic take on what the country should be and where we need to move toward—not just on specific policy but how politics should be able to draw on our best and not our worst.”

Born in New York in 1955, Axelrod says of his parents that they were, “your classic New York leftist Democrats.” But that doesn’t really do justice to the activities of his mother, Myril Bennett Axelrod. She worked for an extremely political newspaper, the liberal New York daily, the PM.

Existing only from 1940 to 1948, the problem at the PM was infiltration by communists pushing the “Stalinist line.” One such person was a confirmed soviet spy, I.F. Stone, among many others.

Axelrod followed in his mother’s footsteps and began writing a leftist political column for a local Chicago newspaper, the Hyde Park Herald. Following his father’s suicide, young Axelrod caught the attention of two men who would be instrumental in guiding his political leanings and by extension, Barack Hussein Obama’s as well.

Don Rose and David Canter began to mentor Axelrod and this brought him to the attention of the Chicago Communist Party USA. While Rose’s involvement with CP-USA has not been established, Canter’s communist activities are well documented. His father served time in jail for radical communist activities and eventually became the secretary of the Boston Communist Party. He ran for Governor of Massachusetts on the Communist Party ticket in 1930.

Harry Canter’s devotion to the communist party earned him an audience with Stalin in 1932 – he brought along his entire family, including his son, and future Axelrod mentor, David Canter. They stayed in Moscow until 1937, when they abruptly moved back to America, locating in Chicago and the CP-USA. Here Harry caught the attention of the Democratic controlled Congress in 1944.

Harry’s grandson Evan says, “He was a Communist. He was involved in the Party, as was my father.” Evan’s father is of course the above mentioned Axelrod mentor, David Canter.

David, like his father also caught the attention of Congress. He was called in to testify in 1962 before the Democrat-run House Committee on Un-American Activities, where he refused to answer questions about past or present membership in the Communist Party. Canter pleaded the Fifth Amendment from start to finish. Among the activities he was being investigated for was the riots during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. His publishing house was said by one source to have been a “great help” to one of the communist publications that had agitated and disrupted the convention: “We wouldn’t be anywhere without him,” said the source.

His partner, Don Rose was knee-deep in subversive activities as well. He was a member of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam. This group, of course, was the ultimate Who’s Who of Sixties radicals, and thoroughly penetrated by communist ringleaders. Rose did press work for the Mobilization Committee and for Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Yes, the same SDS that gave birth to Bill Ayers’ domestic communistic terrorist group, the Weather Underground.

Sensing a pattern here?

There is much more to the Axelrod/Obama story than what I have related here, but in the spirit of brevity, I shall summarize. You can always follow the links at the end of my article to read the details for yourself. One small tidbit is the fact that Axelrod got his job at the Chicago Tribune via a glowing letter of recommendation by Don Rose. This led to Axelrod’s work in political campaigns such as Chicago Mayor, Harold Washington and the bow tie wearing Paul Simon.

Now does all this history mean that David Axelrod is a Communist?


But what it shows, which is a very important point to remember is that he, like Barack Hussein Obama gravitated towards the extreme left, whether it was the Progressive Left, the Socialist Left or even the Communist Left. These statist ideological memes helped to form their opinion of America, and let us not forget that President Obama himself said of David Axelrod,  “You know, he and I share a basic worldview. I trust his basic take on what the country should be and where we need to move toward—not just on specific policy but how politics should be able to draw on our best and not our worst.”

Please read the two articles I drew this information from, for the more informed we make ourselves about the backgrounds of our elected leaders and their advisers, the better off America will be.


David Axelrod, Lefty Lumberjack by Paul Kangor in the American Spectator

~ and ~

David Axelrod’s Red Roots: Obama Adviser’s Communist Ties Exposed by The Other McCain


Bombshell Interview: Obama’s Brother Says Barack Is ‘Cold And Ruthless…Dishonest And A Schemer’




Hat/Tip to Joel Gilbert and to Lt. Colonel Allen West.

You might remember Joel Gilbert from another story we did on him here at CH2.0.

Starstruck Obama Voter has Fundamental Transformation: Must See Video

Well now Joel has a new film out and it is pretty damning towards Barack Obama and the shabby way he’s treated his family since he became President and accumulated his wealth, becoming a multi-millionaire.


In an interview conducted earlier this month, film maker Joel Gilbert, who produced the film “Dreams from My Real Father,” (which suggested that Obama’s Communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, may be his real father) talks to President Obama’s brother Malik, who has some very strong views about his half-brother – including his own doubts as to Obama’s parentage.

Malik says, he feels “Disappointed, disappointed, used, used and also betrayed. In the beginning, I didn’t think that he was a schemer. His real character, his real personality, the real him, is coming out now.”

Trust me Malik, you are not alone.

‘…the way that he’s turned and become a different person with the family is the same way that I see him behaving politically. He says one thing and then he does another. He’s not been an honest man, as far as I’m concerned, in who he is and what he says and how he treats people.”

While Malik and Barack are not particularly close now, Malik was close enough to have been the best man at Barack and Michelle’s wedding, has visited the White House, and is president of the Barack H. Obama Foundation.

Gilbert asks Malik if he really thinks he and Obama share the same father. Granted, Gilbert has a vested interest in the answer, considering he’s hawking a book about the subject, but Malik’s response is still troubling. He has his doubts.

However, most troubling is how Americans were duped into electing this dishonest “schemer” as president – twice.





Obama Administration Admits To Lawlessness


illegal women with DACA and DAPA signs


Hat/Tip to Caroline May at Breitbart.

Old and busted: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it….

New and wow: If a government lawyer admits the President broke the law and no MSM is around to hear it…


The Obama administration violated U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s injunction halting President Obama’s executive amnesty programs, Justice Department lawyers have admitted to the court, according to the Washington Times.

The Times reports that in a late night filing Thursday, Justice Department lawyers revealed that the Department of Homeland Security had issued some 2,000 three-year work permits (as opposed to the currently permissible two-year permits) to illegal immigrants granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

The issuance of the three-year work permits — an aspect of Obama’s November 20 executive actions which expanded DACA — was violation of Hanen’s February 16 injunction preventing the executive amnesty programs from going forward.

This occurred despite repeated statements from administration officials that they were abiding by the injunction.

“The government sincerely regrets these circumstances and is taking immediate steps to remedy these erroneous three-year terms,” the Times quoted the lawyers, who added they would get more information to Hanen about what went awry by May 15.

According to the Times, DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson has requested the DHS inspector general look into the snafu and officials are looking into replacing the three-year permits DHS improperly issued with the proper two-year ones.

Read the full story here.





Homeland Security Working Overtime To Add NINE MILLION ‘New Americans’ By 2016 Election

DHS working to make new democratic voters before 2016 election
Multiple sources at DHS confirm that political appointees are prioritizing naturalization ahead of the 2016 presidential election

Hat/Tip to J. Christian Adams at

The Obama administration isn’t just content with destroying as much of America as they can while IN office. His DHS is trying to pave the way to NINE MILLION new Democratic voters…

Hope and change much?


President Obama’s amnesty by edict has always been about adding new Democrats to the voter rolls, and recent action by the Department of Homeland Security provides further proof. Sources at the Department of Homeland Security report to PJ Media that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is reallocating significant resources away from a computer system — the “Electronic Immigration System” — to sending letters to all 9,000,000 green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.

This effort is part of the DHS “Task Force on New Americans.”

PJ Media has obtained an internal “Dear Colleague” letter written by Leon Rodriguez, the “director and co-chair of the Task Force on New Americans.”  The letter refers to a White House report called “Strengthening Communities by Welcoming All Residents.”

Leon Rodriguez has a tainted history — not only was he a central player in the radicalization of Eric Holder’s Civil Rights Division, he also “undertook a purportedly illegal search” of a government employee’s computer in Montgomery County, Maryland.  (Messy details are at the Washington Post.)

The Rodriguez letter states:

This report outlines an immigrant integration plan that will advance our nation’s global competitiveness and ensure that the people who live in this country can fully participate in their communities.

“Full participation” is a term commonly used to include voting rights.  To that end, resources within DHS have been redirected toward pushing as many as aliens and non-citizens as possible to full citizenship status so they may “fully participate” in the 2016 presidential election.  For example, the internal DHS letter states one aim is to “strengthen existing pathways to naturalization and promote civic engagement.”

leon rodriguez at dhs
Leon Rodriguez has a tainted history — not only was he a central player in the radicalization of Eric Holder’s Civil Rights Division, he also “undertook a purportedly illegal search” of a government employee’s computer


Naturalization plus mobilization is the explicit aim of the DHS “Task Force on New Americans.” Multiple sources at DHS confirm that political appointees are prioritizing naturalization ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Empirical voting patterns among immigrants from minority communities demonstrate that these new voters will overwhelmingly vote for Democrat candidates.  If the empirical rates of support for Democrats continued among these newly naturalized minority voters, Democrats could enjoy an electoral net benefit of millions of new voters in the 2016 presidential election.

Other DHS sources report that racial interest groups such as La Raza (translated to “The Race”) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association have been playing a central and influential role in rewriting the administration’s immigration policies — both the public policies as well as internal and largely unseen guidelines.

One DHS official who disagrees with the administration’s policies told me DHS “intends to ‘recapture’ ‘unused’ visas from years past to grant more visas and LPR [green card] status. In addition to this ‘visa blizzard,’ the agency will allow folks to jam in applications during the blizzard, knowing that the visa applicant/beneficiary is not eligible for the visa.”

This means that DHS is not only rushing green card holders toward citizenship before the next election, but also jamming previous visa holders toward green card status.  These policies and priorities add to the brazen public positions of the president toward enforcing immigration laws.






Bill Clinton Defends His Foundation’s Spending “In A Way That Helps The Poor”

Bill Clinton trying to defend his half million dollar speaking fees

It just depends on what his meaning of “the poor” is, I guess.

Former President Bill Clinton defended his family’s foundation amid mounting conflict-of-interest questions, claiming there’s nothing “sinister” at work — while saying he might consider stepping down as foundation president if his wife wins the presidency.

Clinton addressed the issue during an interview aired Monday on NBC’s “Today” show. The interview comes as media reports raise questions about donors potentially benefiting from their relationship with the Clintons.

But Clinton described the criticism as a “very deliberate attempt to take the foundation down.”

“And there’s almost no new fact that’s known now that wasn’t known when she ran for president the first time,” he said.

As for the foundation’s work, Clinton said there’s nothing “sinister” in trying to get wealthy people and countries to spend money in a way that helps the poor.

Because devoting a mere 6½% of its budget to charitable work is the very model of altruism, or something.

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an an organizing director.

Gee, I wonder how anyone could get that impression?

The Clintons are just Plain Folks. And they’re “broke,” remember?

Clinton also said he will continue to speak at events if asked. Some people have questioned his paid speaking engagements, which can command as much as $500,000 or more.

“I’ve got to pay our bills,” he said.

It’s tough being a Clinton. No wonder Hillary is running for president, she needs the paycheck, to help, uh, “the poor.”





Leading From Behind Or Just Plain Scared?: Obama Cowers As Iran Hijacks A U.S.-Flagged Ship

MV Maeresk Tigris, a ship traveling in international waters, owned by a company with significant ties to the U.S. government and flagged to the U.S.-protected Marshall Islands, was diverted under fire by Iranian naval forces to the port of Bandar Abbas.
MV Maeresk Tigris, a ship traveling in international waters, owned by a company with significant ties to the U.S. government and flagged to the U.S.-protected Marshall Islands, was diverted under fire by Iranian naval forces to the port of Bandar Abbas.

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and Sara Noble at The Independent Sentinel.

Either he’s afraid of the Iranians or he is okay with what they did.

Any guesses?

The U.S. should not allow Iran to seize any ships but President Obama’s Pentagon has found some lawyers who advised them they don’t have to defend a seized ship sailing under the Marshall Islands flag, despite the fact that the Marshall Islands is a U.S. protectorate

What a message. If an ally’s ship is seized, the U.S. will look for a lawyer to say they don’t have to defend them.

President Obama has allowed Iran to hijack a ship presumed to be sailing under our protection. In fact, Iran lied at first, saying it was a U.S. ship.

Instead of surrounding them and firing a shot off their bow, we have cowered.

We are now escorting our own ships out of fear. We are on the defensive and have shown ourselves to be incapable of standing up to Iran.

CNN reported that U.S. Navy warships will “accompany” every U.S.-flagged commercial vessel that passes through the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman because of concerns that ships from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps navy could try to seize a U.S. cargo ship.

IRGC ships harassed a U.S.-flagged vessel, the Maersk Kensington, and then also seized another cargo ship, the Maersk Tigris, flagged in the Marshall Islands.

Instead of acting from strength, we are acting from weakness. It’s the same stand down, back up, and retreat approach we have grown to accept and which we recently saw implemented in Baltimore. We saw it in Benghazi. We were told it’s the approach police must use in Ferguson.

A U.S. official said if it becomes necessary, U.S. warships are prepared to escort U.S. commercial vessels and British ships throughout the entire Gulf.

Why would we accept this from the nation we are negotiating with?

Are we going to accept this as a way of life?

State Department spokesman Jim Rathke was asked about the hijacking of the ship. He wouldn’t even call it a hijacking or anything for that matter.

This is the exchange with the reporter.

Reporter: What do you consider the Iranian act? Is it an act of piracy, act of violence?

Rathke: Again, I’m — this I think is underway. I’m not going to apply an adjective to it right now. We are following the situation very carefully, but I’m not going to…

Reporter: But do you condemn it?

Rathke: Well, again, we’re gathering more information. I don’t have further reaction at this point.

Even our military sound like they’re interviewing for Code Pink.

Col. Warren weakly called the Iranian gunfire “inappropriate.”

Congratulations Obama, we’re all pussies now!

The Iranian seizure is a message to America for blocking Iranian ships carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen.

However, Iran has given our administration a way out. They are now claiming they seized the Danish ship because of a dispute with Maersk, the company that owns the ship.

Is that why we are forced to escort our ships and possibly British ships through The Strait of Hormuz?

The U.S. can now pretend this geopolitical incident isn’t a geopolitical incident.

CBS, Obama’s media, is going with that line.

Conveniently, Pentagon lawyers determined we do not have to defend the Maersk ship according to our agreement with the Marshall Islands.

It’s a legal thing now?

And all the administration cowards breathed a sigh of relief.





Pizza Shop Worker Loves Seattle’s New $15 Minimum Wage, Until He Finds Out That It Cost Him His Job

Former pizza shop worker Devin Jeran, thanks to new $15 min wage law in Seattle

Hat/Tip to Ashley Dobson at RedAlertPolitics.

Fifteen bucks an hour? Score!!!!

Then reality sets in…

Pizza shop worker Devin Jeran was excited about the raise that was coming his way thanks to Seattle’s new $15 an hour minimum wage law. Or at least he was until he found out that it would cost him his job.

Jeran will only see a bigger paycheck until August when his boss has to shut down her Z Pizza location, putting him and his 11 co-workers out of work, Q13 Fox reported.

He said that while the law was being discussed all he heard about was how the mandatory minimum wage increase would make life better for him, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

“If that’s the truth, I don’t think that’s very apparent. People like me are finding themselves in a tougher situation than ever,” he told the TV station.

Owner Ritu Shah Burnham said she just can’t afford the city’s mandated wage hikes.

“I’ve let one person go since April 1, I’ve cut hours since April 1, I’ve taken them myself because I don’t pay myself,” she told Q13. “I’ve also raised my prices a little bit, there’s no other way to do it.”

Small businesses in Seattle have up to six more years to phase in the new $15 an hour minimum wage, but even though she only has 12 employees, Z pizza counts as part of a “large business franchise.” As a result, she is on a sped up timeline to implement the full raise.

“I know that I would have stayed here if I had 7 years, just like everyone else, if I had an even playing field,” she said. “The discrimination I’m feeling right now against my small business makes me not want to stay and do anything in Seattle.”

Shah Burnham said that she is “terrified” for her employees after she closes up shop.

“I have no idea where they’re going to find jobs, because if I’m cutting hours, I imagine everyone is across the board,” she said.

The organization that pushed for the higher minimum wage, 15 Now Seattle, wouldn’t comment directly on the closing to Q13 and didn’t offer any sign of sympathy.

“Restaurants open and close all the time, for various reasons,” Director Jess Spear said.

Watch Q13’s story below:






Clinton Foundation Stench Driving Away Donors


clinton foundation logo


Hat/Tip to and Hot Air.

Why? Well maybe part of the problem is the stellar endorsements that Hillz has gotten, such as these that are adding to the odor of something, not quite right…

Lesbian PAC Endorses Hillary, She Will Lick The Competition …


Larry Flynt Endorses Hillary, Centerfold To Follow?

Gee, I wonder why? After all, many of them haven’t yet been identified. Ken Vogel explains that the publicity surrounding the influence-peddling schemes at chez Clinton has potential donors looking elsewhere, but … does that apply to those who still want to buy influence? Hmmm.

Actually, the fact that so little goes to charity — and that the rate (6.4% in 2013) has become so public — is what has them rethinking their commitments:

One major donor who contributed at least $500,000 to the foundation last year said a 2015 donation is less likely because of revelations about sloppy record-keeping and huge payments for travel and administrative costs.

“There are a lot of factors and the reputational is among them,” said the donor, who did not want to be identified discussing philanthropic plans that have not been finalized. “We had some questions about how the money was being spent — and that was long before the problems were in the press.”

At least three other major donors also are re-evaluating whether to continue giving large donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with its fundraising.

They say increasing financial pressures and escalating outside scrutiny have sparked sometimes intense internal debates about the priorities and future of a pioneering charitable vehicle that was supposed to cement the family’s legacy.

The pass-through rate should have big donors looking for much better options in charitable giving … if that was their intent in the first place. If that was true, though, wouldn’t those large institutional donors and the sophisticated wealthy individual donors have done some due diligence on that point? It didn’t take Sean Davis a huge amount of time to look through the records of the Clinton Foundation and discover that only 15% of revenues went to direct programmatic grants in the four years that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The same tax records showed that over 60% of the revenue went to internal costs, an outrageously high level for a legitimate charity. It took even less to discover that the pass-through rate in 2013 was just 6.4%, and that almost as much money got spent on travel costs alone at the Clinton Foundation.

The “priorities” concern is just window dressing. People contributed to the Clinton Foundation to curry favor and get some leverage from their connections to power. The exposure of the Clinton Foundation as a political “slush fund” has embarrassed them, and now they want a reason to hit the exits. That’s why the foundation is in a “tailspin,” as Vogel puts it.

Plus, there’s also a new allegation of quid pro quo today from initial reviews of Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash. An Indian politician and donor says that his contributions convinced Hillary to change her stance on India’s use of nuclear technology:

Hillary Clinton changed her position on a 2008 nuclear agreement between the United States and India after Indian business and government interests flooded various Clinton enterprises with cash, a highly anticipated new book alleges in a chapter obtained by POLITICO. …

Implying that a group of influential Indians directed money and attention to the Clintons in order to get them to support the nuclear deal, the book details the activities of Sant Chatwal, the New York hotelier who in December was sentenced to three years probation for his campaign finance violations.

Chatwal allegedly helped arrange one of Bill Clinton’s most lucrative public speeches — a $450,000 affair in London — and once said, “Even my close friend Hillary Clinton was not in favor of the deal [in 2006] … But when I put the whole package together, she also came on board. … In politics nothing comes free. You have to write cheques in the American political system.”

Politico disputes a couple of the book’s contentions, but this is the kind of access and influence that donors expected to get. And in the end, in this and with Uranium One, they arguably got.





CONFIRMED: Obama “Siding with Iran” In Yemen Conflict


obama flying the birdHat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and the Tower.

What was it Obama said in his book?

Oh yeah!

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” – Barack Obama, p. 261 The Audacity Of Hope.

The Obama administration is “siding with Iran” while operating “over the heads of the Saudis” in its deliberations over the future of Yemen, Tony Badran, a research fellow for the Foundation of Defense of Democracies, wrote Friday in an analysis published on the Lebanese website NOW News.

Badran noted that a number of administration officials, while publicly claiming to support the Saudis, have actually “tilted much more toward Iran.” Last week, for example, one administration official said that Saudi Arabia should stick to defending its border.

“At some point, an air campaign has diminishing and marginal returns,” another official told columnist David Ignatius the following day. “Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Yemen conflict will have to be solved politically.” At the same time, other administration officials played up Iran’s supposedly positive intentions, claiming that Tehran had in fact discouraged the Houthis from taking over Sanaa.

Once the Saudis did announce an end to Operation Decisive Storm, the administration quickly took credit, leaking that it was US pressure that made Riyadh back down. “The Saudis,” a State Department spokesperson said on Wednesday, “understand that the path forward here needs to be dialogue.”

Obama was signaling a kind of indirect partnership with Tehran, which the Iranians were quick to exploit. On Tuesday, hours before the Saudis even made their announcement, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian preemptively declared “that in the coming hours, after many efforts, we will see a halt to military attacks in Yemen.” With this seemingly innocuous statement, the Iranians showed the world that they are negotiating with the Americans over the heads of the Saudis.

Badran noted that Abdollahian had previously made similar boasts about the administration telling Israel to limit its operations against the terrorist organization Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy group.

Badran concluded the analysis by noting that the White House’s desire for “equilibrium” in the region “is a fantasy. Or maybe it is something much worse. Perhaps it is just the least objectionable way of saying that Obama is now siding with Iran.”

Saudi Arabia has repeatedly rejected the Obama administration’s view that Iran could be part of a political solution in Yemen. The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, reiterated that point last week, saying, “Iran is part of the problem in Yemen, not part of the solution.”

According to a report last month by Eli Lake of Bloomberg News, ambassadors for the Gulf states predicted that the money freed up for Iran in the course of the negotiations over its nuclear program “would be used to destabilize the region.”





NO, NOT SUSPICIOUS: At least 180 Clinton Foundation Donors Also Lobbied Hillary State Department For Favors


Hillary caricatureHat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and Guy Benson at

Hillary raises “Quid Pro Quo” to an entirely new level…

Perhaps we can check Hillary’s emails to determine whether there were criminal wrongdoings. Oh, wait.

The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking. At least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place, according to a Vox analysis of foundation records and federal lobbying disclosures…This list of donors to the Clinton foundation who lobbied State matters because it gives a sense of just how common it was for influence-seekers to give to the Clinton Foundation, and exactly which ones did.

Bear in mind that this analysis only includes the disclosed donors.  The recently-revealed Russia/uranium deal involved undisclosed donations (part of a pattern, it turns out), in violation of a transparency agreement Hillary signed upon joining the State Department.  Team Clinton’s excuse for failing to disclose the information has unraveled under cursory scrutiny. Clinton’s defenders insist that nobody has offered concrete proof that this multi-million-dollar “slush fund” favor bank ever resulted in direct action by the State Department; at some point, though, enough smoke convinces people there’s a fire.  And the smoke is billowing:

Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation. Many of the companies that paid Bill Clinton for these speeches … engaged him within the same three-month period in which they were also lobbying the State Department in pursuit of their policy aims, federal disclosure documents show. Several companies received millions of dollars in State Department contracts while Hillary Clinton led the institution. The disclosure that President Clinton received personal payments for speeches from the same corporate interests that were actively seeking to secure favorable policies from a federal department overseen by his wife underscores the vexing issue now confronting her presidential aspirations…

Part of the reason so many people feel compelled to defend the indefensible is that Hillary is essentially the only game in town for Democrats, a choice that the party has made for itself.  And America’s “gliding queen” isn’t in any rush to address any of these serious allegations — or anything else for that matter:  Since announcing her presidential campaign 17 days ago, she has answered a total of seven questions from the media.  And most of her “answers” were either facile deflections or substance-free cliches.  Why subject yourself to real questions when you can stage phony “listening sessions” with hand-selected supporters stripped of their cellphones, and pander on Twitter…