Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Tag Archives: Frank Marshall Davis

Obama Not the Only Communist in the White House

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, July 1, 2015:  

Official portrait of Senior Advisor and Assist...

Valerie Jarrett

Dozens if not hundreds of books have been written about Barack Hussein Obama, including six authored by himself. His Wikipedia entry is 100 pages long. Movies have been made about the man. Historians will be writing about his presidency for years into the future.

But Judicial Watch (JW), in its brief summary of the FBI files it received about Obama’s senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, may have revealed not only another Communist in the White House but one with possibly more influence over policy than the president himself.

Thanks to those files, informed citizens now know that

Keep Reading…

Valerie Jarrett’s Communist Ties Confirmed by Judicial Watch

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, June 25, 2015: 

Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to President B...

Valerie Jarrett

 

On Monday, Judicial Watch (JW), a conservative government watchdog group, released its findings that President Obama’s closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, has had close ties to Communists for decades. Thanks to files released to JW by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Jarrett’s father, grandfather, and father-in-law all “had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals.”

Jarrett’s father, Dr. James Bowman, worked closely with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled the country after being charged with espionage. Bowman was also a member of the pro-communist group

Keep Reading…

Review: America: Imagine a World Without Her (book and film)

This review first appeared at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, July 24, 2014:

Statue of Liberty

Dinesh D’Souza’s movie America: Imagine the World Without Her, co-produced and directed by John Sullivan and Gerald Molen, is based on his book with the same title and, like his previous offering, 2016: Obama’s America, is filled with nuggets of pure gold. However, just like his previous effort, it takes some effort to mine them and to separate them from the iron pyrite — fools’ gold — that often misleads and distracts the reader and viewer.

His book was released in early June and its initial popularity was unintentionally enhanced by Costco’s decision to pull the book from its stores followed by its awkward reversal to restore it to those same stores. D’Souza’s first film was the second-highest grossing political documentary of all time, while his present effort, released over Independence Day weekend, is already in seventh place, and climbing.

His distractions begin with his title. At no time in either his book or his movie does he answer the question of how the world would look without America’s influence. His first chapter is inaccurately titled as well: Suicide of a Nation. A suicide is self-inflicted, a deliberate purposeful effort to end one’s life. This title assumes that the average American is deliberately immolating his country by ignoring his responsibility as an informed voter in a constitutional republic.

D’Souza quickly corrects that initial idea, however, by focusing his attention on both the myths and the machinations of the disciples of destruction who are deliberately weakening the country by deceiving those voters. D’Souza might have titled his book America: Imagine a World Without Saul Alinsky and Howard Zinn, but that probably wouldn’t have garnered the audience or the coveted A+ rating it received from CinemaScope.

There are other difficulties that need to be exposed before this review can begin in earnest. Underlying D’Souza’s work is the assumption that Progressives want to punish America for its alleged theft: for its stealing of land from Mexico and Native Americans, for its eternal meddling in the Middle East to secure its oil, for its co-opting of the labor from its slaves in the 19th century, for its looting of resources from poor countries around the world. At no time, however, does D’Souza acknowledge the real purpose behind efforts to bring down America’s standard of living: to comfortably submerge the United States into the New World Order. There is no mention of the influence of foundations such as Ford, Carnegie, or Rockefeller. The world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations garners not a single reference in either the book or the movie. Thus, the “punishment” meme is a distraction away from the Progressives’ real intentions.

D’Souza repeats the myth that the Civil War was fought primarily to end slavery, and that Obama absorbed most of his colonialist-oppressive worldview from his father, when instead it came from hard-core communist Frank Marshall Davis. D’Souza claims that America is the “first country in history to be based on invention and trade” without any explanation as to why. He fails to explain the vital and fundamental roles the rule of law, enforcement of contracts, private property, and especially that of a limited government that allowed people to write their own ticket to their futures.

That being said, there is much useful for those involved in the freedom fight, including responses to claims made by Progressives that America is guilty of massive theft and needs to be punished. Early on he makes clear his intentions and purposes:

I intend to turn the progressive critique on its head. [Progressives] are not on the side of the ordinary citizen, because their policies lead to stagnation, impoverishment, indebtedness, and decline — all in evidence today.

It is progressives who rely on government seizure and bureaucratic conquest to achieve their goals and increase their power….

I intend to blow the whistle on these people, starting with Obama and continuing with Hillary Clinton and the whole progressive menagerie.

For instance, he rebuts the claims that America stole vast territory from native Americans without remuneration or guilt:

The Indians have gotten a bad deal. At the same time, we should be clear about what the alternatives are.… You say, “Give us back the Black Hills,” You point out that there is uranium and other minerals in those hills, and now that land is worth a fortune. Once again, no Indian tribe knew how to mine uranium and no Indian tribe knew what to do with uranium if they had it.

Other Americans have added value to the Black Hills by figuring out how to tap its resources, and now the Indians want the land back so they can take advantage of what others have figured out how to do.

He dismisses claims that America stole Mexican territory:

After the [Mexican-American War ended in 1848], the United States immediately recognized as valid the property rights of Mexicans who were now part of U.S. territory. The change was not in any individual’s land ownership but in the fact that people who were once Mexicans now became Americans.

While progressives deplore American aggression … what we do know is that the vast majority of Mexicans who ended up on the American side of the border, following the Mexican War, never attempted to return to Mexico. And neither have their descendants.

His response on the big screen is even more convincing, showing that following the war the United States essentially owned all of Mexico, but gave half of it back. It also paid $15 million to the government of Mexico and assumed some $3 million of debt that government owed to American citizens. So much for colonialism, according to D’Souza.

As far as slavery is concerned, D’Souza was equally candid:

Did America owe something to the slaves whose labor had been stolen? … That debt … is best discharged through memory, because the slaves are dead and their descendants are better off as a consequence of their ancestors being hauled from Africa to America.

He enlists the help of Muhammad Ali to make his point. As D’Souza noted in both his book and movie, following one of his most famous fights in the 1970s held in Zaire, Ali was asked: “Champ, what did you think of Africa?” Said Ali: “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat!”

D’Souza also makes a compelling point by bringing to light some history that Progressives ignore: that there were black slave owners oppressing their slaves in addition to white owners.

He successfully enlists the help in both his book and the film of Alexis de Tocqueville, who highlighted his astonishment as he observed the American experiment in person in the early 1800s. He noted that people considered themselves equal to everyone else, that it was a voluntary society where people helped other people, and no one ran to the government for assistance. De Tocqueville considered the Christian religion as foundational to political freedom while noting that slavery degrades the work ethic: It makes slave owners lazy, as well as the slaves, as neither has the incentive to engage in work.

Another of D’Souza’s nuggets is his revelation that the first female millionaire in the United States was black: Sarah Breedlove, otherwise known as Madam C. J. Walker, the founder of Madam C. J. Walker Manufacturing Company, a maker of beauty and hair products for black women. In a lengthy clip, D’Souza had a black actress play the part of Breedlove in encouraging other black women to get involved in her company. It was something right out of an Amway recruiting presentation! Over and over again, Breedlove, born a slave but emancipated in 1865, reiterated the American promise: Given the opportunity, anyone in America can make their own future.

D’Souza spent the balance of the 100-minute long film exposing two of the prime movers behind the Progressive lies, Howard Zinn and Saul Alinsky. Zinn, a hard-core communist, authored A Peoples’ History of the United States which has sold more than two million copies and is required reading at colleges across the land. Zinn described his goal in writing it elsewhere as “not a revolution in the classical sense of a seizure of power, but rather from people beginning to take power from within the institutions.”

D’Souza outed Saul Alinsky in two riveting revelations. The first of these was Alinsky’s devotion to Lucifer as the first radical, dedicating his book Rules for Radicals to him:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer

The second was D’Souza’s revelation that Alinsky was mentored in his youth by Frank Nitti, best known as Al Capone’s “enforcer” and later the front man for the Chicago Outfit following Capone’s incarceration. Alinsky learned firsthand from Nitti just how extortion worked thanks to Nitti’s vast experience in prostitution, gambling, control of labor unions, and blackmailing of the Hollywood film industry.

D’Souza traced the links in his film from Zinn and Alinsky to Obama and Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately the flow charts briefly shown on the screen weren’t reproduced in his book, but his intention is clear: Obama is a disciple of Alinsky who was a disciple of Nitti, all of whom are disciples of the Great Deceiver Himself.

For those not involved in the freedom fight, the book and the movie on which it is based might be a bit much to digest in one sitting. Happily, evidence and proof is available not only in the copious notes provided by D’Souza for each chapter, but also from The John Birch Society (jbs.org).

In this reviewer’s opinion D’Souza has created a good work, despite its flaws, and will help those long involved in that fight with new insights, new revelations, and new responses to old tired charges that America was built on theft.

 

Keep Reading…

Obama Intends to Bring Down Capitalism

ENEMY OF THE ECONOMY

ENEMY OF THE ECONOMY (Photo credit: SS&SS)

I have great respect for the work done by the Cato Institute. I attended one of their week-long economic seminars a couple of years ago, thanks to my generous brother, and was greatly impressed and informed by their work. I still refer to the copious notes I took there.

But Alan Reynolds fails to see that Obama intends the results of his actions. Reynolds explains Obama’s actions through abysmal economic ignorance:

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed (November 2) President Obama wrote that “in the eight years after” Bill Clinton left office, “we followed a different path. Bigger tax cuts for the wealthy we couldn’t afford. . . . The result of this top-down economics? Falling incomes, record deficits, the slowest job growth in half a century, and an economic crisis . . .”

Obama had taken up that theme during the first presidential debate, arguing that “The approach that Governor Romney’s talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003, and we ended up with . . . the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”

This is a remarkably imaginative theory — albeit one that reveals appalling economic illiteracy. Who else would have imagined that the housing bust and subprime-mortgage crisis were actually caused by cutting the top two tax rates in mid-2003?

He goes on say that at least Obama is consistent in his

Keep Reading…

Don’t Bother Seeing 2016: Obama’s America?

I lost an hour and a half of my life Sunday at a matinee showing of the sleeper-hit documentary “2016: Obama’s America.” But I kept the stub for tax purposes, and you get to read this column. With luck, we’ll both end up just slightly worse off for the experience.

President Barack Obama and Speaker of the Hous...

President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at the US Capitol. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Gene Healy is a VP at Cato, one of my favorite think tanks, but I think he has successfully missed the main point of the movie: Obama is a mystery, and D’Souza is trying to figure it out.

Healy uses the rhetorical device of belittlement to misdirect the conversation:

D’Souza, “2016’s” narrator, stresses his commonalities with the president: born the same year, both with third-world parentage, both steeped in an anticolonial tradition. “I get it,” D’Souza assures us, which is why he alone has the secret decoder ring that can explain Obama’s positions on the war on terror, Israel, the Falkland Islands and much else besides.

This even applies to Obamacare:

Then there was the health care bill” D’Souza segues. But who needs a decoder ring to explain why, like every Democratic president of the post-WWII era save Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama pushed for universal health insurance? Does “anticolonialism” explain Obama’s embrace of a plan cooked up in a conservative think tank and first implemented by his 2012 Republican opponent?

This is misdirection of the first order. Just because Obama (more accurately, Nancy Pelosi and her thuggery) got Obamacare passed by Congress when other presidents couldn’t, doesn’t diminish the impact of it on

Keep Reading…

What Makes Obama Tick?

A FRAUD THROUGH AND THROUGH

(Photo credit: SS&SS)

After hitting No. 2 on the New York Times’ best-seller list in early September, “Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream” author Dinesh D’Souza was asked why he was surprised at the success of both his book and the movie based on it: “2016: Obama’s America”. He said: “It shows a real hunger for information on Obama. There’s a sense [that] we haven’t got the full story on this guy.”

The official narrative is that President Barack Obama is a graduate of Harvard Law, the first African-American president, whose father is from Kenya and his mother from Kansas. As D’Souza takes great pains to point out, the official narrative hides an enormous amount of background from view. D’Souza exposes some of that background and then claims that Obama adopted his father’s “anti-colonialism” – the doctrine which Argentine Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara called “a world system, the last stage of capitalism [which] must be defeated in a world confrontation” – which maintains that the West, primarily America, got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries to obtain their mineral wealth. As D’Souza noted in Forbes magazine in September 2010:

Barack Obama, Sr.

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America’s military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation.

He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America.

In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America’s power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe’s resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet

As a result, Obama seeks “a smaller America, a poorer America, an America unable to exert its will, an America…in decline so that others might rise…America needs to be taken down a notch.”

There are at least two problems with D’Souza’s thesis: one, Obama never

Keep Reading…

Obama’s America: 2016 Movie Review

Recently released in Texas and now being presented at some 400 theaters across the country, conservative scholar Dinesh D’Souza has, with the help of Gerald Molen (“Schindler’s List”) and John Sullivan, produced a documentary in “2016” which persuasively projects a frightening future for America: emaciated in military power, weakened financially, with diminished allies such as Israel in a world increasingly dangerous and threatening.

D’Souza starts out by proving his status not as an ideologue but as a patriot with roots in India who loves the opportunities this country has given him that would scarcely be possible back home. He persuades his audience that he only seeks to understand how a man like Obama, with so many similarities (born in the same year, married in the same year, attended Ivy League schools at the same time) could come out with such a different, even radical, point of view about America.

Based on his two books about Obama (“The Roots of Obama’s Rage” and “Obama’s America”) D’Souza concentrates on Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father” and begins with the thesis that because it is not entitled “Dreams OF My Father” it provides an essential clue into that thinking: that Obama has internalized the anti-colonial ideology of a man he scarcely knew.

D’Souza said, “One of the themes in the movie is the anti-colonial goal of downsizing America in the name of global justice. So the core idea here is that America has become a rogue nation in the world and also that America enjoys a standard of living that is unconscionably high compared to the rest of the world. So anti-colonialism is a program of global reparations…It’s reparations for global injustice. Obama’s goal is to shrink America.”

There are significant gaps in the movie that cry out for remedy and explanation. First, there is a persuasive argument put forth by

Keep Reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2018 Bob Adelmann