Lying Lunatic Left and Radical Islam Attacks American People — Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals and The Traitor and Terrorist Totalitarian Threats — Videos
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Story 1: Lying Lunatic Left and Radical Islam Attacks American People — Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals and The Traitor and Terrorist Totalitarian Threats — Videos
Radical Islam Documentary
PBS America at a Crossroads: JIHAD The Men and Ideas Behind Al-Qaeda
The Islamic Super state, the Caliphate, is coming
‘Rise of Radical Islam’ – Sean Hannity Special –
Robert Spencer on Why ISIS is Islamic
Robert Spencer “As the Middle East Burns” June 2014
The Origins of the Quran
Christopher Hitchens on Islam and Muhammad
Christopher Hitchens — Speaking Honestly About Militant Islam
Christopher Hitchens – Resisting Islam
Christopher Hitchens : islam is just another totalitarian ideology
Muslim Brotherhood in America with Steve Emerson on Mimi Geerges Show
Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America (1994)
Dennis Prager, Steven Emerson, Investigative Project, Hamas, ISIS, Islamists
The Third Jihad – Radical Islam’s Vision for America – (A Clarion Project Film)
Barack Obama’s Master, Saul Alinsky
Real truth behind islam – Full Documentary
“I’d Organize Hell” – Saul Alinsky TV interview 1966
Alinsky for Dummies (Mr. Joseph A. Morris – Acton Institute)
Rules for Radicals — Matt Kneece
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
Hillary. Obama, and Saul Alinsky There Rules For Radicals
Saul Alinsky: Brilliant, Epic Conversation on Revolution…A MUST SEE
Rules for Radicals: An Analysis
Rules for Radicals: What Constitutional Conservatives Should Know About Saul Alinsky
The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America: David Horowitz Interview (2007)
David Horowitz – Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
RADICAL ISLAM’S ALLIANCE WITH THE SOCIALIST LEFT
The Western socialist left detests the United States and its capitalist economic structure, and seeks to facilitate that structure’s downfall by any means necessary — including the formation of whatever alliances will further that ultimate objective. One seemingly unlikely alliance that the socialist left has forged is its alliance with radical, fundamentalist Islam, which emphatically and unambiguously rejects virtually everything for which the socialist left claims to stand: the peaceful resolution of international conflict; respect and tolerance for other cultures and faiths; civil liberties; freedom of expression; freedom of thought; human rights; democracy; women’s rights; gay rights; and the separation of church and state.
There could be no stranger bedfellows than Western leftists and Islamic extremists. Yet they have been brought together by the one overriding trait they do share — their hatred for America; their belief that the U.S. is the very embodiment of evil on earth and must consequently be destroyed.
As Osama bin Laden told a CNN interviewer in 1997, “We declared jihad against America because America is unjust, criminal and tyrannical.” This pronouncement does not differ at all, either in substance or tone, from the declarations of the West’s radical left, whose ill will toward America is similarly detectable in the following excerpt from an al Qaeda manifesto:
“America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by the people via legislating laws that contradict the way of Allah and permit what Allah has prohibited. This compels the other countries to act in accordance with the same laws in the same ways . . . and punishes any country [that rebels against these laws] by besieging it, and then by boycotting it. By so doing [America] seeks to impose on the world a religion that is not Allah’s.”
While Western leftists make no similar religious references, they do contend, like radical Islamists, that the United States is determined to overrun other nations and dominate the world.
Radical Islam seeks purification and “social justice” by means of jihad, or holy war, whose highest ideal is martyrdom achieved while attempting to conquer an evil worldly power such as the United States, the Great Satan (and Israel, the Little Satan). The radical Islamist’s ultimate goal is to subdue the “infidel” nations and therein institute sharia, or Islamic law, so as to redeem the world for Allah.
The radical left, similarly, advocates revolution as the means of achieving its ends — eliminating capitalism and creating a socialist paradise on earth.
While Islamic radicals seek to purge the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftist radicals seek to purge society’s collective “soul” of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed.
Just as Islamic radicals aim to impose their religion on the rest of the world in a totalitarian fashion requiring unwavering obedience, so do radical leftists strive to create an omnipotent socialist state that will control every aspect of daily life and will impose a universal brand of “social justice” on all mankind.
Central to both radical Islam and the radical Western left is an inclination to overthrow the existing order by any means necessary, so as to create a paradise on earth. Leftists may find the bigotry and intolerance of Islamic radicals repugnant, but their desire to rid the world of U.S. “imperialism” and capitalism overrides this revulsion and beckons them to forge the unholy alliance.
In the early stages of the Iraq War, George Galloway — a British Member of Parliament and an inveterate America-hater — gave voice to the mindset underlying the socialist left’s alliance with radical Islam. Galloway was asked: “You often call for uniting Muslim and progressive forces globally. How far is it possible under current situation?” He replied:
“Not only do I think it’s possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressi ve movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries. They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture. And whose only role in life is to consume the things produced endlessly by the multinational corporations. And the progressive organizations & movements agree on that with the Muslims…. So on the very grave big issues of the day-issues of war, occupation, justice, opposition to globalization-the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side.”
The leftist Australian journalist John Pilger, who denounced “American imperialism” even as he praised Fidel Castro’s Communist dictatorship, has been another vocal exponent of the alliance between the socialist left and radical Islam. Pilger publicly endorsed the killing of American troops in Iraq during the war that began in 2003. “[T]hey’re legitimate targets,” he said of those troops. “They’re illegally occupying a country.” Pilger openly supported the Iraqi resistance on the grounds that “we can’t afford to be choosy” in acquiring much-needed allies. His sentiment clearly expressed the governing principle of the Islam-leftist alliance: The enemy of my enemy is my friend [whomever he may be].
Islamists and the radical left: Co-belligerents in a war on America
It should surprise no one that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has joined the Black Lives Matter movement.
It is logical that CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for providing support to the terrorist group Hamas, should join a group which has contributed to an atmosphere of violent incitement and hatred against police officers across the nation.
While Islamic radicals seek to rid the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftists desire to purge society of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed.
Although their motivations are different, fundamentalist Islam and the radical political left are both devoted to totalitarianism, have a shared hatred of Western civilization and Judeo-Christian democracy and they are equally determined to extinguish liberty and subjugate the individual, either to Sharia or the state.
The current turmoil playing out every day on American streets and fomented by criminals and extremists, has been tolerated if not encouraged by the hands-off approach of Barack Obama, whose own radical leftist beliefs and his love of, if not strict adherence to Islam, could qualify him as the nation’s first Marxist Mahdi, eager to cleanse America of the “evils” perpetrated by capitalism and Judeo-Christianity.
Societal division and social unrest are tactics used to destabilize and demoralize, to further fundamentally transform the country, which has already been undermined economically and culturally from within; of which, in no small part, is the deliberate, politically-motivated invasion of the United States by illegal immigrants and so-called Muslim refugees.
This premeditated mass migration has several purposes including the dilution of U.S. nationalism i.e. “Americanism” through multiculturalism and to establish the demographics for a one-party state.
In addition, the social and economic turmoil created by uncontrolled illegal immigration or undesirable legal immigration, like George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” can generate an environment of perpetual crisis requiring growing government surveillance, sustained by state-sanctioned media, and all governed by a privileged and oppressive political elite led by a quasi-divine party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality and considers personal liberty as a source of unhappiness.
One could say that it represents the realization of Obama’s private fantasy, the fundamental transformation of America to a totalitarian state dominated by either mullahs or magistrates.
In the 20th century, Germany and Russia were examples of major countries that succumbed to totalitarianism, largely because of economic and social chaos. In the German federal election of 1928, the Nazi Party garnered a mere 2.6% of the vote. Five years later, they controlled Germany. What happened? The Nazi message hadn’t changed, but the economic and social conditions in the country had, resulting in extreme political polarization and rampant street violence.
Although subjected to many of the same economic and social strains of that era, the United States and Great Britain did not follow a similar path because both had long-standing democratic institutions and, more importantly, a populace with a sense of its own history and traditions.
It has long been a goal of the left, now joined by American Islamists, to re-write U.S. history and re-interpret what it means to be an American, in order to produce low-information voters willing to submit to tyranny and a political-media- academic class willing to implement revisionism.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS), for example, a one-size-fits-all, top-down national education system, embraced by Democrats and big government Republicans alike, does just that, turning primary and secondary schools into re-education camps for leftist and Islamic indoctrination .
The Islamo-Leftist educational agenda seeks to popularize theories specifically designed to weaken the foundations of Judeo-Christian democracy and to eradicate our cognitive ability to transmit to the next generation, the ideas and values upon which America was built.
Much of the social chaos and extremism we are currently witnessing in the country is the product of a well-funded and well-organized anti-American, radical Islamo-leftist agenda – and an administration that enables rather than opposes the aims of our enemies.
Why the Left Casts a Blind Eye on Radical Islam
This week came news that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant burned alive a Jordanian pilot in a metal cage. Thursday morning’s National Prayer Breakfast speech represented the first sign that President Obama is prepared to acknowledge a connection between Islam and the violence — beheadings, mass murders, rape, human slavery, state sponsorship of terrorism, and military conquest — jihadists are perpetrating in Muhammad’s name.
To be sure, President Bush’s “global war on terror” shielded the exact identity of America’s adversary. But the Obama administration has taken euphemism to new heights. By avoiding reference to Islamic extremism or radical Islam, Obama has reinforced the left’s proclivity to condemn critics of radical Islam instead of the jihadists who fight in its name.
Only last week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz staunchly denied to an incredulous press corps that the Taliban is a terrorist organization. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy pointed out, that is nonsense. The relevant provision of the U.S. Code is Sec. 1189 (a) of Title 8. Since the Taliban is a foreign organization, engaged in terrorist activity, and a national security threat to the United States, it qualifies as a foreign terrorist organization. The purpose of the White House’s ludicrous denial is to hide that the basis of the Taliban’s enmity, strategy, and objectives is a doctrine of Islamic supremacy.
Such suppression is nothing new for the administration. As early as early 2009, it renamed campaigns in the struggle against Islamic extremism “overseas contingency operations.”
Then, in November 2009, U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan committed premeditated mass murder at Fort Hood in Texas, killing 13 and wounding 30 more. Astonishingly, the administration classified the massacre as a case of “workplace violence.” It was certainly violent. It was also inspired by Hasan’s religion as he made clear while shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he sprayed military personnel with bullets. He also received guidance from foreign terrorist organizations and had exchanged emails with al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.
Last September in a White House speech, Obama actually declared that ISIL — even as it was establishing a new caliphate in Iraq and Syria — had nothing to do with Islam.
The president has crass political calculations for disguising the religious inspiration of the jihadism currently roiling the Middle East and plotting terrorist attacks around the globe. Obama claims to have routed al-Qaeda, brought the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to successful conclusions, and to have made progress in negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program.
It would be awkward to acknowledge that individuals, organizations, and states dedicated to radical Islam and committed to crushing and conquering the West are making headway in the very arenas where he has declared victory or boasted of gains. But the president also has reasons grounded in the progressive or left-liberal sensibility that he epitomizes to avoid mention of the Islamic roots of the jihadists’ rage. Michael Walzer, editor emeritus of Dissent, elucidates those reasons in a striking article in the magazine’s current issue. Although he never mentions Obama by name,
Walzer argues persuasively that the left has failed to adjust its thinking to the rise of “Islamist zealotry” because of a set of increasingly typical moral and intellectual errors.
One of the nation’s outstanding political theorists for almost half a century and a politically engaged man of the left for just as long, Walzer criticizes fellow leftists from within the tent. He faults them in his essay, “Islamism and the Left,” for misunderstanding the moral and political imperatives that flow from the leftist quest to advance freedom, equality, toleration, and pluralism.
Walzer emphasizes his “generalized fear of every form of religious militancy” and notes that every religion is capable of inspiring fanaticism. But since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, he argues, Islamist zealotry is the form of religious militancy that has posed the principal transnational threat to liberty and democracy. Yet, he laments, many on the left ignore it or apologize for it.
The problem, Walzer argues, stems in part from the general failure of those on the left to appreciate religion. Notwithstanding the evidence of recent decades, progressives cling to the Enlightenment conceit that faith is destined to fade as science flourishes and secularism spreads.
Another reason the left has failed to grapple with the religious beliefs of radical Islam is “the terrible fear of being called ‘Islamophobic.’” This, Walzer maintains, “makes some sense in Western Europe and possibly also in America, where Muslims are recent immigrants, the objects of discrimination, police surveillance, sometimes police brutality, and popular hostility.” But opposition to bigots, he insists, cannot justify exempting Islamists or Islam from criticism.
Anxieties about “Orientalism” also play a role. Literary theorist Edward Said claimed that decades of condescending Western scholarship produced distortions of the Muslim world by which Western elites sought to marginalize Islam. This is the same Said, Walzer notes, who declared in his 1979 book, “The Question of Palestine,” that “the return to ‘Islam’” was a “chimera.”
In addition, many on the left are blinded, Walzer contends, by anti-Americanism. They celebrate Islamists whom they imagine to be resisting the Western imperialism that they deplore. University of California, Berkeley Professor Judith Butler, for example, regards it as “extremely important” to understand Hamas and Hezbollah – Iranian-backed movements devoted to jihad — as “progressive” and “part of a global left.”
Many on the left, moreover, view Western imperialism as the true source of Islamic extremism. Applying a loosely Marxist analysis, they regard Islamism as the distorted ideological reaction to the poverty and oppression that the West has inflicted on the Muslim world.
Finally, there are the radical multiculturalists. Their propensity to excuse Islamic extremism is epitomized by French postmodernist Michel Foucault, who, Walzer writes, justified “the brutality of the Iranian revolution” on the grounds that “Iran doesn’t ‘have the same regime of truth as ours.’”
But surely, argues Walzer, the respect for the dignity of the individual expressed in basic human rights, democracy, and the rule of law is not a Western idea, but rather a universal one that the West has embraced and seeks to champion at home and abroad.
How then, according to Walzer, should the left respond to the challenge of Islamist zealotry? The left must admit that the progressive belief in the inevitable triumph of science and secularism has proven both elusive and facile. Leftists should attempt to understand the theological bases of Islamist morality and politics. This will enable them to distinguish between Islamic zealotry and Islam in all its contemporary complexity and historical richness. And, having shed their own ideological blinders, it will allow the left to grasp the transnational menace the Islamist zealots pose to freedom, equality, toleration, and pluralism.
Walzer’s analysis and recommendations are eminently sensible. It is a measure of the extremism that grips much of the left that in an exchange in Dissent following the article, Yale political scientist Andrew March greets them with barely disguised disdain.
A self-proclaimed leftist, March stresses his commitment to understanding Muslim religious claims. But he seems to confuse understanding Islam with an uncritical sympathy for those who profess it. For example, he bitterly asserts that “the war against violent Islamism is taking care of itself” although he fails to provide a shred of evidence that Islamists in Libya, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, or Iran are on the run, or that zealotry is abating. March maintains that criticism of imperialism, colonialism, and global capitalism is in short supply, which will come as a surprise to anyone familiar with our universities. And he refuses to join Walzer in regarding the Islamists as enemies; March finds too much uncertainty about what can be done in the greater Islamic world to promote “left-liberal political goals” to take a stand.
In replying to March’s tutorial on the imperatives of an authentic leftism, Walzer exhibits admirable restraint. Even if Islamist zealotry were a response to “colonialism, imperialism, and global capitalism,” Walzer rightly notes, it would still be necessary for the left to understand why the zealots embraced radical Islam and not, for example, Marxism, as well as to examine precisely what Islamist beliefs demand from the faithful.
To March’s argument that as a leftist, Walzer should forthrightly oppose the massive state violence directed at the Islamists, Walzer responds that “the left-wing anti-communism of Dissent in its early years” was subject to analogous criticism. But many of those who apologized for or defended Stalin, Walzer trenchantly observes, “went on to defend or apologize for third-world dictators who call themselves anti-imperialists and for terrorists who call themselves liberators — and now for Islamist zealots.”
While March prefers to dwell on the crimes of the West and boasts of his belief in reform arising from within the Islamic world, Walzer counters with a hard fact: “the America he [March] excoriates is right now the only force effectively opposing or, at least, containing, the power of ISIS and therefore the beheadings and the mass executions and the enslavement of Yazidi girls.”
May Michael Walzer’s bracing critique of his fellow leftists ascend speedily to the top of Barack Obama’s reading list.
By Steve Baldwin, Exclusive to Western Center for Journalism
Very few Americans realize there exists a large network of far left philanthropists and foundations in America dedicated to destroying the American way of life, our Christian-based culture and our free enterprise system. They seek to remove America from its constitutional foundations and move it toward a European-style socialism. Much of this effort is coordinated by a little known group called the Tides Foundation and its related group, the Tides Center.
Over the course of its 33 year history, the Tides network has given hundreds of millions of dollars to anti-free enterprise groups, gun control groups, anti-private property groups, abortion rights groups, homosexual groups, groups engaged in voter fraud, anti-military groups, and organizations that seek to destroy America’s constitutional basis. All told, over 100 leftist organizations have received funding from one of the two Tides groups.
Not surprisingly, this network of anti-American groups played a key role in electing Barack Obama by using classic propaganda techniques in making false allegations about Bush (he lied regarding WMDs, he stole the election in Florida, he knew in advance about 9/11, etc, etc.) and created the impression that Bush and by extension, the GOP, was corrupt. Obama, of course, was portrayed as the reformer who would save America from this corruption.
Millions of Americans fell for this mythology and so without being openly partisan, this vast network of far left groups, along with its media allies, was able to manipulate American public opinion during the last election cycle. Meanwhile, anyone who tried to reveal Obama’s real agenda, his role in the corrupt Chicago political machine, his socialist political associations, or his soft spot for Middle Eastern terrorists was labeled a kook by this same network.
The amount of funding the Tides Foundation and Tides Center provides the hard left is unprecedented. Indeed, its financial disclosures show that the Tides Center has raised between $48 and $71 million each year since 1998 and the bulk of this revenue is contributed back to far left groups. The closely-aligned Tides Foundation has reported revenues of between $59 and $77 million every year since 2002. The two tax exempt groups are supposed to be non-partisan, but they are certainly extremely political and they push the envelope regarding what non-profit groups are allowed to do politically. All together, both Tides groups have contributed over $500 million to the organized left.
The list of hard-left causes is long and there is not enough space to review them all. But here’s a brief review of a few of them:
Environmental Extremist groups
Members of the Ruckus Society
The Ruckus Society is a group of environmental anarchists dedicated to the violent overthrow of America. One of its projects is to train people to disrupt events such as political party conventions using street blockades and other violent techniques. Its director has publicly stated that, “you can use vandalism strategically.” They received $200,000 from the Tides Foundation.
The California Wildlands Project received Tides funding and it is dedicated to placing millions of acres of land off limits to humans. The Natural Resources Defense Council received support from Tides and is notorious for defending the rights of animals and plants over the rights of humans. If they had their way, civilization would be returned to a primitive state. The NRDC ran ads attacking President Bush during his last presidential campaign. Another Tides recipient is Greenpeace which, despite its friendly-sounding name, is best known for its illegal actions at sea that often endanger humans. Greenpeace received $250,000 from Tides.
The Tides entities fund the Iraq Peace Fund and the Peace Strategies Fund, which in turn have funded much of the anti-war movement and led to the creation of the hysterical anti-war group MoveOn.org and the radical website Indymedia. The later group has coordinated radical activists worldwide to fight American foreign policy interests.
The Tides Foundation also funded the anti-war group United for Peace and Justice, headed by longtime Communist Party member and pro-Castro apologist Leslie Cagan. Indeed, when UFPJ co-founder Medea Benjamin visited Cuba, she stated that the contrast between Cuba and America “made it seem like I died and went to heaven.” Tides has announced that it supports “nonviolent responses to terrorism,” as if that will have any effect whatsoever on the agenda of the terrorists. This attitude is dangerously naïve.
Apparently, the Tides Foundation does not consider any Islamic group to be a threat, even if they have been implicated in terrorist activities by the government. It has funded the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), probably the leading front group for Islamic radicals in America. Indeed, three of CAIR’s leaders have been arrested for pro-jihadist activities and CAIR spends much of its time attacking American efforts to track, monitor, and arrest domestic terrorists. They have opposed, for example, virtually every effort by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI to monitor Islamic radicals known to be engaged in pro-jihadist activity.
But rather then be concerned with Islamic terrorism after 9/11, the Tides Foundation poured half of a million dollars into an effort to protect the rights of homosexual Arabs. Another Tides recipient, the Democratic Justice Fund, works to east restrictions on Muslim immigration to the United States from countries designated as “terrorist nations.”
The Tides groups also funds other groups who work against the creation of internal security measures such as the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Radical Legal groups
The National Lawyers Guild receives support from the Tides foundation. The NLG began as the legal arm of the U.S. Communist Party and still functions today as a legal support arm for terrorists, spies, and other anti-American scum. Conventions of the NLG sound ridiculously like a politburo meeting or a cheering section for worldwide jihad with speakers praising terrorists worldwide. Also receiving Tides funding via the Peace Strategies Fund is the Center for Constitutional Rights, headed by long-time Marxist psychopath William Kunstler. CCR opposed every effort by the Bush Administration to make it difficult for terrorists to operate in America. One Tides press statement announced that CCR was educating people “about the dangers posed by government anti-terrorism activities.” In other words, the U.S. government is the threat, not Islamic jihadists. Finally, the Tides also funds the ACLU which spends much of its time fighting for the “rights” of non-citizen terrorists.
Voter Fraud groups
When the story broke last year about how ACORN founder Wade Rathke was caught embezzling a million dollars from ACORN, it was Tides founder Drummond Pike who reimbursed ACORN for the missing money. Pike did not want an investigation of ACORN that would force it to open its books. With ongoing investigations in at least a dozen states involving ACORN and voter fraud, you can understand Pike’s concern. Not only that, but Rathke sits on the board of both the Tides Center and Tides Foundation.
With the Tides Foundation and Tides Center now the largest funder of the left in America today, Drummond Pike may be one of the most powerful men in America. This scruffy, California-based, anti-war activist, founded the Tides Foundation in 1976 and has managed to raise millions of dollars from America’s leading foundations. What he promises them is anonymity since they are able to claim they are simply contributing to a foundation self described as being “committed to a society based on fairness, equal justice and equally shared economic opportunities…” That sounds fairly innocuous. The contributors therefore have some “deniability” about how their money is used but Pike then directs this money to a massive network of hard-left groups. Indeed, Pike even states, “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.”
But that scam needs to come to an end and these donors need to be held accountable for their actions. It is extremely hypocritical for individuals and foundations whose wealth is due to America’s free enterprise system to support causes that seek to destroy our way of life.
If you’ve ever heard the clique “Limousine Liberal,” this is a perfect description for these people.
Four of its largest supporters are as follows:
The Heinz Endowment.
Led by John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, this group has contributed at least $8.1 million to the Tides entities since 1994. This is the endowment created by the Heinz food empire which Teresa Heinz still has ownership interest in.
Soros is an eccentric billionaire who has been funding anti-American groups and causes for a decade. He was convicted of insider trading in France in 2005 and is the leading force behind the effort to legalize all drugs. While he is the founder of the Open Society organization, he hides a great deal of his wealth in offshore banks considered havens for money laundering. He has given more than $7 million to the Tides Foundation. Tides founder Drummond Pike serves as the treasurer for Soros’s Democracy Alliance, a major funder of ACORN.
Ford Foundation. This foundation consistently supports causes Henry Ford would never have supported and has become one of the largest donors to Tides, giving them millions of dollars since 1997. Not only that, but the Ford Motor company itself also gives to Tides.
Rockefeller Foundation: They have been funding the left in America for 40 years, so this is no surprise.
Other large Tides donors include: the Pew Charitable Trust, the James Irvine Foundation, Citigroup Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, Hearst Foundation, Fannie Mae Foundation, JP Morgan Foundation, Bank America Foundation, Chase Manhattan Foundation, Verizon Foundation, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, AT & T Foundation, Bell Atlantic Foundation, Citicorp Foundation, ARCO Foundation, US West Foundation, John D. MacArthur Foundation, ALCOA Foundation, Richard King Mellon Foundation, and the Carnegie Foundation.
What’s sad is that many of these foundations were originally endowed by America’s first generation of great capitalists but have decided to spit on the legacy created by these captains of industry. It is very doubtful William Randolph Hearst, J.P. Morgan, John D. MacArthur, Andrew Carnegie, Richard Mellon, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, or W. K. Kellogg, would support efforts to move America toward socialism or assist terrorists who desire to destroy America. These foundations have been captured by the left and now use the money created by free enterprise to attack the very system which created such wealth.
But the Tides organizations have also successfully raised millions from fairly new foundations as well, such as foundations created by: Hewlett Packard, Verizon, ARCO, Citigroup, and AT& T. This potent combination of old and new wealth is posed to radically change America due not only to how Tides Center and Foundation has combined this wealth to create and fund the hard-left infrastructure in America, but also due to how the Media has unabashedly bought into all the themes perpetrated by this network of groups.
But Americans need to realize that this is how the hard left in America is now funded. Indeed, this is the same network used by the Obama campaign machine to manipulate public opinion. This coalition of left wing groups and hijacked foundations will destroy America unless Americans wake up and quit funding the corporations linked to these foundations.
The impact this group is having was evident just recently in the debate on the Stimulus legislation and the Cap and Trade initiative. A project of the Tides Center is the Apollo Alliance, a group “designed to bring together the elements of organized labor with the community organizers with the green groups, the environmental groups, and to access all of the big foundation money that’s been supportive of those causes in the past,” according to Phil Kerpen, director of policy for Americans for Prosperity.
A former board member of the Apollo Alliance is Van Jones, a self described communist now serving as President Obama’s new “green jobs” czar. Apollo Alliance leaders claim to have written both the stimulus bill and the Cap and Trade bill. It is shocking to realize that unelected radicals now appear to have more power than our elected members of Congress.
One way to reduce the power of this alliance would be to boycott the products and services these organizations are involved with such as Ford automobiles, Heinz food products, Bank of America, Kellogg cereals, HP computers, etc. While these foundations usually no longer have any financial association with the corporations that originally endowed them, you can be sure the people from both entities still travel in the same circles. If thousands of Americans, for example, told Ford dealers they will no longer buy Ford cars as long as the Ford Foundation funds anti-American causes, the Foundation will quickly get the message. If thousands of Americans wrote the Hewlett Packard Company and informed them they will cease to purchase HP computer products as long as its foundation funds the left, you can be sure HP will pressure its foundation to back off its agenda.
My philo cronies and I were discussing this over Sunday breakfast. Why don’t leftists — who obviously do not share the characteristic values and beliefs of Islamists — grant what is spectacularly obvious to everyone else, namely, that radical Islam poses a grave threat to what we in the West cherish as civilization, which includes commitments to free speech, open inquiry, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom to reject religion, and so on? Why do leftists either deny the threat or downplay its gravity?
Here is a quickly-composed list of ten related reasons based on my own thinking and reading and on the contributions of my table mates Peter Lupu and Mike Valle. A work in progress. The reasons are not necessarily in the order of importance. ComBox open!
1. Many leftists hold that no one really believes in the Islamic paradise. The expansionist Soviets could be kept in check by the threat of nuclear destruction because, as communists, they were atheists and mortalists for whom this world is the last stop. But the threat from radical Islam, to a conservative, is far more chilling since jihadis murder in the expectation of prolonged disportation with black-eyed virgins in a carnal post mortem paradise. For them this world is not the last stop but a way station to that garden of carnal delights they are forbidden from enjoying here and now. Most leftists, however, don’t take religion seriously, and, projecting, think that no one else really does either despite what they say and pretend to believe. So leftists think that jihadis are not really motivated by the belief in paradise as pay off for detonating themselves and murdering ‘infidels.’ In this way they downplay the gravity of the threat.
This is a very dangerous mistake based on a very foolish sort of psychological projection! Conservatives know better than to assume that everyone shares the same values, attitudes, and goals. See Does Anyone Really Believe in the Muslim Paradise?which refers to Sam Harris’s debate with anthropologist Scott Atran on this point.
2. Leftists tend to think that deep down everyone is the same and wants the same things. They think that Muslims want what most Westerners want: money, cars, big houses, creature comforts, the freedom to live and think and speak and criticize and give offense as they please, ready access to alcohol and other intoxicants, equality for women, same-sex ‘marriage’ . . . .
This too is a very foolish form of psychological projection. Muslims generally do not cherish our liberal values. What’s more, millions of Muslims view our in some ways decadent culture as an open sewer. I quote Sayyid Qutb to this effect inWhat Do We Have to Teach the Muslim World? Reflections Occasioned by the Death of Maria Schneider.
3. Leftists typically deny that there is radical evil; the bad behavior of Muslims can be explained socially, politically, and economically. The denial of the reality of evil is perhaps the deepest error of the Left.
4. Leftists tend to think any critique of Islam is an attack on Muslims and as such is sheer bigotry. But this is pure confusion. To point out the obvious, Islam is a religion, but no Muslim is a religion. Muslims are people who adhere to the religion, Islam. Got it?
When a leftist looks at a conservative he ‘sees’ a racist, a xenophobe, a nativist, a flag-waving, my-country-right-or-wrong jingoist, a rube who knows nothing of foreign cultures and reflexively hates the Other simply as Other. In a word, he ‘sees’ a bigot. So he thinks that any critique of Islam or Islamism — if you care to distinguish them — is motivated solely by bigotry directed at certain people. In doing this, however, the leftist confuses the worldview with its adherents. The target of conservative animus is the destructive political-religious ideology, not the people who have been brainwashed into accepting it and who know no better.
5. Some leftists think that to criticize Islam is racist. But this too is hopeless confusion. Islam is a religion, not a race. There is no race of Muslims. You might think that no liberal-leftist is so stupid as not to know that Islam is not a race. You would be wrong. See Richard Dawkins on Muslims.
6. Many leftists succumb to the Obama Fallacy: Religion is good; Islam is a religion; ergo, Islam is good; ISIS is bad; ergo, ISIS — the premier instantiation of Islamist terror at the moment — is not Islamic. See Obama: “ISIL is not Islamic.”
7. Leftists tend to be cultural relativists. This is part of what drives the Obama Fallacy. If all cultures are equally good, then the same holds for religions: they are all equally good, and no religion can be said to be superior to any other either in terms of truth value or contribution to human flourishing. Islam is not worse that Christianity or Buddhism; it is just different, and only a bigot thinks otherwise.
But of course most leftists think that all religions are bad, equally bad. But if so, then again one cannot maintain that one is superior to another.
8. Leftists tend to be moral equivalentists. And so we witness the amazing spectacle of leftists who maintain that Christianity is just as much, or a worse, source of terrorism as Islam. See Juan Cole, Terrorism, and Leftist Moral Equivalency.
Leftists are also, many of them, moral relativists, though inconsistently so. They think that it is morally wrong (absolutely!) to criticize or condemn the practices of another culture (stoning of adulterers, e.g.) because each culture has its own morality that is valid for it and thus only relatively valid. The incoherence of this ought to be obvious. If morality is relative, then we in our culture have all the justification we need and could have to condemn and indeed suppress and eliminate the barbaric practices of Muslims.
9. Leftists tend to deny reality. The reality of terrorism and its source is there for all to see: not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terroists at the present time are Muslims. Deny that, and you deny reality. But why do leftists deny reality?
A good part of the answer is that they deny it because reality does not fit their scheme. Leftists confuse the world with their view of the world. In their view of the world, people are all equal and religions are all equal — equally good or equally bad depending on the stripe of the leftist. They want it to be that way and so they fool themselves into thinking that it is that way. Moral equivalency reigns. If you point out that Muhammad Atta was an Islamic terrorist, they shoot back that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian terrorist — willfully ignoring the crucial difference that the murderous actions of the former derive from Islamic/Islamist doctrine whereas the actions of the latter do not derive from Christian doctrine.
And then these leftists like Juan Cole compound their willful ignorance of reality by denouncing those who speak the truth as ‘Islamophobes.’ That would have been like hurling the epithet ‘Naziphobe’ at a person who, in 1938, warned of the National Socialist threat to civilized values. “You, sir, are suffering from a phobia, an irrational fear; you need treatment, not refutation.”
When a leftist hurls the ‘Islamophobe!’ epithet that is his way of evading rational discussion by reducing his interlocutor to someone subrational, someone suffering from cognitive dysfunction. Now how liberal and tolerant and respectful of persons is that?
10. Leftists hate conservatives because of the collapse of the USSR and the failure of communism; hence they reflexively oppose anything conservatives promote or maintain. (This was Peter Lupu’s suggestion at our breakfast meeting.) So when conservatives sound the alarm, leftists go into knee-jerk oppositional mode. They willfully enter into a delusional state wherein they think, e.g., that the threat of Christian theocracy is real and imminent, but that there is nothing to fear from Islamic theocracy.
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Make a Comment