Copyright © 2016 by Will Clark
Published by Will Clark at Shakespir
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment or information only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your enjoyment only, then please return to Shakespir.com or your favorite retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
If this is a free book you may share it any number of times.
For more information about the author visit:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” Marcus Tullius Cicero, 58 B.C. Speech in the Roman Senate
Barack Obama’s administration began with lies and deceit. Perhaps that started even before Obama was elected President of the United States. Although he produced a birth certificate indicating he was born in Hawaii; he still hasn’t produced explanations for a questionable social security number, and he refuses to release his school records to prove he wasn’t registered as a foreign student. And, he has all along claimed to be a Christian, but all his actions, suggestions, and support have been indications of an Islamic foundation. His first clearly self-evident deception, however, was his claim that ‘If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’ Events after that statement clearly show that was a deceptive promise. His full term has been guided by lies, deceptions, falsehoods, and even blasphemy against God. His only praises are to Islam – and himself.
He strives with every effort to allow more Muslims into our peaceful nation. He has expressed no concern whether or not they are ‘peaceful’ or terrorists. He just wants them here to increase their numbers and influence in America. One must ask; why? Anyone who understands anything about the ‘plan’ of the Muslim Brotherhood will know that answer. Their written plan is to conquer America and the Western World by a process they identify as ‘Settlement.’ If and when that occurs, no true American will be safe. Christians must then become Muslim or become beheaded. That’s their plan; and Obama expresses no words or actions to discourage or thwart that plan. The question has even been proposed to question his being part of that plan, as a hidden member of that Brotherhood. It may be read at this link, and others:
Hillary Clinton hopes to replace Obama as President of the United States. And, as with Obama, her goals seem very oriented against fulfilling those hopes and dreams of our Founding Fathers. In fact, her plans and ambitions for America seem in total opposition to those rights and opportunities our Founding Fathers planned for us. They planned personal freedom, individual opportunity for success and achievement, and fulfillment of human aspirations. Words from her mouth suggest a different plan for America; a plan that supports Obama’s current agenda.
Her words propose an all-powerful central government that would determine and limit personal dreams and aspirations. The plans, rules and laws she propose are to ‘take from the rich and redistribute to the poor.’ To the poor, this plan obviously sounds great. Isn’t it nice to be promised something without any attachments or requirement to earn it? Just relax and enjoy life and let the government do everything for you. Although the parts sound great to many uninspired people; the results are always destructive. The government takes over stronger and stronger until nothing can be done in a nation without the government’s approval or involvement.
That Socialist experiment began in full in Russia. It was the ‘rise of the proletariat’ the working class guided by Vladimir Lenin and his cohorts Carl Marx and others. Soon thereafter, the economy totally collapsed. Many citizens who were promised better lives through those actions died from starvation and pestilence. Many other millions were killed and imprisoned by those in charge; those same leaders who promised a better life for everyone.
A more current example of the failure of socialism is in Venezuela. That country is now in total chaos with many starving. The grocery shelves are all empty except for the very few; those in charge and those close to those in charge. Yes; they are living the life of ‘free stuff’ but there is not enough free stuff to satisfy everyone. This is an example of the life Hillary Clinton promises. But, her plans could make things even worse. Following Saul Alinsky’s plan, there is only a plan to destroy our nation; without something positive to replace it; just destruction.
There is a clear association, a linchpin, between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That connection, that association of ideologies is grounded in the works of a man named Saul Alinsky. The following is an article at Discoverthenetworks.org that introduces that connection. The article is titled, Barack Obama’s Unlikely Political Education. It’s subtitled, ‘The Agitator.’ The article is presented by Ryan Lizza, 3-9-07. This is an extract from that article:
“In 1985, Barack Obama traveled halfway across the country to take a job that he didn’t fully understand. But, while he knew little about his new vocation—community organizer it still had a romantic ring, at least to his 24-year-old ears. With his old classmates from Columbia, he had talked frequently about political change. Now, he was moving to Chicago to put that talk into action. His 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, recounts his idealistic effusions: “Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots. That’s what I’ll do. I’ll organize black folks. At the grass roots. for change.”
His excitement wasn’t rooted merely in youthful enthusiasm but also in the psychology of a vagabond. By 1985, Obama had already lived in Hawaii, where he was born and raised by his white mother and grandparents; Indonesia, where he lived briefly as a child; Los Angeles, where he started college; and New York, where he finished it. After these itinerant years, he would finally be able to insinuate himself into a community—and not just any community, but, as he later put it, “the capital of the African American community in the country.” Every strain of black political thought seemed to converge in Chicago in the1980s.
It was the intellectual center of black nationalism, the base both for Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaigns and for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. Moreover, on the eve of Obama’s arrival, Harold Washington had overthrown Richard J. Daley’s white ethnic machine to become the city’s first black mayor. It was, in short, an ideal place for an identity-starved Kenyan Kansan to immerse himself in a more typical black American experience.
Not long after Obama arrived, he sat down for a cup of coffee in Hyde Park with a fellow organizer named Mike Kruglik. Obama’s work focused on helping poor blacks on Chicago’s South Side fight the city for things like job banks and asbestos removal. His teachers were schooled in a style of organizing devised by Saul Alinsky, the radical University of Chicago trained social scientist. At the heart of the Alinsky method is the concept of “agitation”—making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to “rub raw the sores of discontent.”
In Dreams, Obama spent some 150 pages on his four years in Chicago working as an organizer, but there’s little discussion of the theory that undergirded his work and informed that of his teachers. Alinsky is the missing layer of his account.
Born in 1909 to Russian-Jewish immigrants, Alinsky had prowled the same neighborhoods that Obama now worked and internalized many of the same lessons. As a University of Chicago criminology graduate student, he ingratiated himself with Al Capone’s mobsters to learn all he could about the dynamics of the city’s underworld, an experience that helped foster a lifelong appreciation for seeing the world as it actually exists, rather than through the academic’s idealized prism. Charming and self-absorbed, Alinsky would entertain friends with stories—some true, many embellished—from his mob days for decades afterward. He was profane, outspoken, and narcissistic, always the center of attention despite his tweedy, academic look and thick, horn-rimmed glasses.
Alinsky was deeply influenced by the great social science insight of his times, one developed by his professors at Chicago: that the pathologies of the urban poor were not hereditary but environmental. This idea, that people could change their lives by changing their surroundings, led him to take an obscure social science phrase—“the community organization”—and turn it into, in the words of Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, “something controversial, important, even romantic.” His starting point was an early fascination with John L. Lewis, the great labor leader and founder of the CIO. What if, Alinsky wondered, the same hardheaded tactics used by unions could be applied to the relationship between citizens and public officials?
To test his theory, Alinsky left the world of academia in the 1930s and set up shop in Chicago’s meatpacking neighborhood, the “Back of the Yards”—the same wretched, multiethnic enclave that Upton Sinclair had chronicled three decades earlier in The Jungle. He created the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, which won a succession of victories against businesses and decreased crime, while increasing cooperation between rival ethnic groups. The results were impressive enough that they were celebrated far beyond Chicago in newspaper stories with headlines like, “they called him a ‘red,’ but young sociologist did the job.”
Alinsky had been dead for more than a decade when Obama arrived in Chicago, but his legacy was still very much alive. Kruglik, Kellman, and Galluzzo had all studied his teachings through the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the organizing school Alinsky founded. By the ’80s, not even the IAF strictly adhered to every principle that Alinsky taught. But at least one of Obama’s teachers considered himself a true believer: “I regard myself as St. Paul who never met Jesus,” Galluzzo told me of Alinsky, who died shortly after Galluzzo moved to Chicago on a pilgrimage to meet him in 1972. “I’m his best disciple.” Alinsky has attracted other, more famous admirers, including Hillary Clinton, who wrote an undergraduate thesis about him, a favorite bit of trivia for right-wingers.
But, while Alinsky is often viewed as an ideological figure—toward the end of his life, New Left radicals tried to claim him as one of their own—to place Alinsky within a taxonomy of left-wing politics is to miss the point. His legacy is less ideological than methodological. Alinsky’s contribution to community organizing was to create a set of rules, a clear-eyed and systemic approach that ordinary citizens can use to gain public power. The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. Horwitt says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: “You want to organize for power!” End of article.
Two important conclusions should be made from this article. First, Barack Obama’s actions have been to follow Alinsky’s guidelines to disrupt and destroy the influence of our responsible national leaders; simply to destroy, not to build something better. Second, Hillary Clinton leans strongly toward that same ideology; to destroy ‘what is’ not to replace it with something better. They both are endowed with that Alinsky fever. Let’s consider her Alinsky ideologies in the next chapter.
Hillary’s Guiding Ideologies
Hillary Clinton’s association with Saul Alinsky began early in her life, while she was in school. This information from Freebeacon.com introduces the beginning of that relationship. The article was submitted by Alana Goodman on 21 September, 2014:
“Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.
Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing. Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin. The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”
“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”
“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.
Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.
However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”
“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.
According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.
“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.
She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.
“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”
Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.
But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.
“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”
Harper told Clinton that Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals had been released. She enclosed several reviews of the book.
“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”
It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.
A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla tactics and civil disobedience to correct what he saw as an institutionalized power gap in poor communities. His philosophy divided the world into “haves”—middle class and wealthy people —and “have nots”—the poor. He took an ends-justify-the-means approach to power and wealth redistribution, and developed the theoretical basis of “community organizing.”
“The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” wrote Alinsky in his 1971 book. “Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when Wellsley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years. Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed “the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.” Clinton opponent turned Clinton defender David Brock referred to her as “Alinsky’s daughter” in 1996’s The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.
The paper was opened to the public in 2001. While the thesis is largely sympathetic to Alinsky, it is also critical of some of his tactics.
Clinton described the organizer as “a man of exceptional charm,” but also objected to some of the conflicts he provoked as “unrealistic,” noting that his model could be difficult for others to replicate.
“Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon suggest that Clinton experimented more with radical politics during her law school years than she has publicly acknowledged.
In Living History, she describes her views during that time as far more pragmatic than leftwing.
She “agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” Clinton wrote in her first memoir, but the two had a “fundamental disagreement” over his anti-establishment tactics.
She described how this disagreement led to her parting ways with Alinsky in the summer before law school in 1969.
“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote.
“Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”
A request for comment from the Clinton team was not returned.
The author of this article, Alana Goodman, is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, she was assistant online editor at Commentary. She has written for the Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the Washington Examiner. End of article.
This is a full typed copy of the original version of Clinton’s letter with addresses included:
July 8, 1971
When is that new book coming out – or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about and need some new material to throw at people. You are being rediscovered again as the New Left-type politicos are finally beginning to think seriously about the hard work and mechanics of organizing.
I seem to have survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact. If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now. The more I've seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead,-- if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to seem more than eloquence and frustration.
I miss our biennial conversations. Do you ever make it out to California? I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you. Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together -- 2667 Derby #2, Berkeley 415-841-5330.
There were rumors of your going to SE Asia to recruit organizers. Is the lack of imagination among my peers really so rampant as that suggests or did you get yourself a CIA-sponsored junket to exotica?
I hope you are still well and fighting. Give my regards to Mrs. Harper. Hopefully we can have a good argument sometime in the near future.
Until then --
2667 Derby #2
Berkeley, CA 94705
MR. SAUL ALINSKY
c/o The Industrial Areas Foundation
8 South Michigan Ave.
This is another article, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, that gives even more information about Hillary’s fascination with the work of Saul Alinsky:
“In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled “There Is Only the Fight . . . “ An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.
2 White House and Wellesley limiting of access
3 Thesis unveiled
The thesis offered a critique of Alinsky’s methods as largely ineffective, all the while describing Alinsky’s personality as appealing. The thesis sought to fit Alinsky into a line of American social activists, including Eugene V. Debs, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Walt Whitman. Written in formal academic language, the thesis concluded that “[Alinsky’s] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts” and that Alinsky’s model had not expanded nationally due to “the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict.”
In the acknowledgements and end notes of the thesis, Rodham thanked Alinsky for two interviews and a job offer. She declined the latter, saying that “after spending a year trying to make sense out of [Alinsky’s] inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor.” Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on the thesis.
White House and Wellesley limiting of access:
The work was unnoticed until Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the White House as First Lady. Clinton researchers and political opponents sought out the thesis, thinking it contained evidence that Rodham had held strong radical or socialist views.
In early 1993, the White House requested that Wellesley not release the thesis to anyone. Wellesley complied, instituting a new rule that closed access to the thesis of any sitting U.S. president or first lady, a rule that in practice applied only to Rodham. Clinton critics and several biographers seized upon this action as a sure sign that the thesis held politically explosive contents that would reveal her radicalism or extremism. Hostile Clinton biographer Barbara Olson wrote in 1999 that Clinton “does not want the American people to know the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.” In her 2003 memoirs, Clinton mentioned the thesis only briefly, saying she had agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas, but had not agreed with his belief that it was impossible to “change the system” from inside.
Years after the Clintons left the White House, the mystery thesis held its allure; for example, in 2005 Clinton critic Peggy Noonan wrote that it was “the Rosetta Stone of Hillary studies . . . [which] Wellesley College obligingly continues to suppress on her request.”
In fact, however, the thesis had been unlocked after the Clintons left the White House in 2001 and is available for reading at the Wellesley College archives. In 2005, msnbc.com investigative reporter Bill Dedman sent his journalism class from Boston University to read the thesis and write articles about it; one of the students, Rick Heller, posted his article online in December 2005. The thesis is also available through interlibrary loan on microfilm, a method reporter Dorian Davis used when he obtained it in January 2007, and sent it to Noonan and to Clinton critic Amanda Carpenter at Human Events, who wrote a piece on it in March. Although publishing the thesis violates copyright, it can nevertheless be found on various websites.
The suppression of the thesis from 1993 to 2001 at the request of the Clinton White House was documented in March 2007 by reporter Dedman, who read the thesis at the Wellesley library and interviewed Rodham’s thesis adviser. Dedman found that the thesis did not disclose Rodham’s own views much. A Boston Globe assessment found the thesis nuanced, and said that “While [Rodham] defends Alinsky, she is also dispassionate, disappointed, and amused by his divisive methods and dogmatic ideology.” Rodham’s former professor and thesis adviser Alan Schechter told msnbc.com that “There Is Only The Fight . . .” was a good thesis, and that its suppression by the Clinton White House “was a stupid political decision, obviously, at the time.” End.
Patriotupdate.com has a more current analysis of Hillary Clinton’s political positions. This article by David L. Goetsch, on June 30, 2013, is titled: ‘Who is worse for America: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?’
“When Barack Obama squeaked by Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination back in 2007, some conservatives sighed in relief and said, “Well at least Hillary won’t be president,” or words to that effect. Of course, when they made that kind of comment, they knew plenty about Hillary but relatively little about Obama. I wonder if conservatives would make this kind of comment today. The functional question is this: Who is worse for America, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? I know what you are thinking. Why not just ask if the reader would rather be run over by a truck or a bus? To paraphrase Hillary Clinton: What does it matter?
The reason I bring up this unwelcome topic is that even with Benghazi on her record and even with her subsequent testimony in which she insulted the grieving families of the Americans who were abandoned and killed in that God-forsaken place, Hillary is still the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination for president. Provided she can stay out of jail over the Benghazi tragedy—and her record of legal slipperiness is well established—the next Republican candidate for the presidency will run against Hillary Clinton. Since this is the case, it behooves all Americans to consider Hillary’s beliefs as demonstrated by her own words.
“We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” These may sound like the words of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao (or Barack Obama for that matter), but they are the words of Hillary Clinton. She made this socialist statement all the way back in 2004, well before Barack Obama introduced the concept of redistribution of wealth as a normal plank in the Democrat’s political platform. In other words, Hillary was leaning toward socialism even before Barack Obama took up the cause. Don’t forget, before there was Obamacare there was Hillarycare. When it comes to socialized medicine, Obama just finished what Hillary started. (Author’s note: Don’t forget; the first rule for radicals according to Alinsky is ‘Control healthcare and you control the population.)
In 2007, Hillary made it clear that her leftwing philosophy had not changed when she said: “We…can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.” By “business as usual” Hillary meant free market economics in which people pursue opportunity, accept personal responsibility, work hard to build a better life, and enjoy individual and economic freedom. What red-blooded leftist would want this type of business as usual to go on? Not Marx, not Lenin, not Stalin, not Mao, and certainly not Hillary. The “something” that Hillary claimed must be taken away from “some people” is not just money in the form of coercive taxes but freedom—the very freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution.
In the same speech in 2007, Hillary also said: “We have to build a political consensus that requires people to give up a little of their own…in order to create this common ground.” Quite a statement. Let’s parse her words and see what Hillary really means. She talks about building a “political consensus” but what she really means is a voting majority. In order to pass coercive tax laws that require “people to give up a little of their own,” Hillary and her comrades on the left will need a dependable voting majority consisting of people who will be on the receiving end when wealth is redistributed. After all, what sane person is going to willingly give up what he has worked hard to earn when the recipient is someone who not only has not worked hard, but does not intend to. In fact, not only do Hillary’s fortunate recipients of other people’s money not intend to work, they don’t even think they should have to. It’s called the entitlement mentality.
Barack Obama ranks right down there among the worst of America’s presidents. He is right in there with James Buchanan, Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and even Jimmy carter. But even so, I am afraid Hillary will be even worse, provided of course she can win the presidency. It may be hard to imagine things getting worse than they have been under Barack Obama, but I suspect Hillary could manage. End of article.
The Real Hillary
Discoverthenetworks.org offered an over-all analysis of Hillary Clinton’s background and history. These are some important points from that analysis:
1. Rodham was deeply influenced by a 1966 article titled "Change or Containment," which appeared in Motive, a magazine for college-age Methodists. Authored by the Marxist/Maoist theoretician Carl Oglesby, who was a leader of the Students for a Democratic Society, this piece defended Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and Maoist tactics of violence. Its thesis was that "certain cultural settings" (most notably American capitalism) were inherently inequitable and oppressive, and thus caused people to feel "pain and rage" that sometimes erupted into violence -- like that of "the rioters in Watts or Harlem" -- which was "reactive and provoked" rather than aggressive or malicious. Hillary later said that the Motive article had played a key role in her metamorphosis from Goldwater Republican in 1964 to leftist Democrat in 1968. During her years as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton would tell a Newsweek reporter that she still treasured the Oglesby piece.
2. Following the June 1968 assassination of Democratic presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy, Hillary ended her affiliation with the Wellesley campus Young Republicans and volunteered in New Hampshire to work on the presidential campaign of antiwar candidate Eugene McCarthy. When McCarthy later dropped out of the Democratic primary, Hillary threw her support behind the Party's eventual nominee, Hubert Humphrey. From that point forward, wrote Barbara Olson in her 1999 book Hell to Pay, "Republicans were the enemy and the enemy was allied with evil -- the evils of war, racism, sexism, and poverty."
3. At Yale, Hillary was strongly influenced by the radical theoretician Duncan Kennedy, founder of the academic movement known as critical legal studies, which, drawing on the works of the Frankfurt School, viewed law as a “social construct” that corrupt power structures routinely exploited as an instrument of oppression to protect and promote their own bourgeois values at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. Advocates of critical legal studies were interested in revolutionary change and the building of a new society founded on Marxist principles.
4. Hillary served as one of nine editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, where she worked collaboratively with Mickey Kantor (who, more than two decades later, would serve as U.S. Trade Representative and U.S. Commerce Secretary under President Bill Clinton) and Robert Reich (who would serve as Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary from 1993 to 1997). “For too long,” said the Yale Review, “legal issues have been defined and discussed in terms of academic doctrine rather than strategies for social change.” The publication was replete with articles by or about such radicals as William Kunstler, Charles Reich (author of The Greening of America); Jerry Rubin (who wrote a piece exhorting parents to “get high with our seven-year-olds,” and urging students to “kill our parents”); and Charles Garry (the civil rights attorney who defended Black Panther Party members accused of murder). The Fall and Winter 1970 editions of the Yale Review, on which Hillary worked as associate editor, focused heavily on the trials of Black Panthers who had been charged with murder. Numerous cartoons in those issues depicted police officers as hominid pigs.
5. One of Hillary's Yale professors, Thomas Emerson (known as "Tommy the Commie"), introduced her to the aforementioned Charles Garry. Garry helped Hillary get personally involved in the defense of several Black Panthers (including the notorious Bobby Seale) who were then being tried in New Haven, Connecticut for the torture, murder, and mutilation of one of their own members. Though evidence of the defendants' guilt was overwhelming, Hillary -- as part of her coursework for Professor Emerson -- attended the Panther trials and arranged for shifts of fellow students to likewise monitor court proceedings and report on any civil-rights abuses allegedly suffered by the defendants. (Those abuses could then be used, if the Panthers were to lose their case, as grounds for appeal.) Striving to neutralize what she considered the pervasive racism of the American legal system, "Hillary was," as Barbara Olson observed in Hell to Pay, "a budding Leninist."
6. Also in 1972, she went to Berkeley to work as an intern at her hand-picked law firm: Treuhaft, Walker, and Bernstein. Founded by current or former members of the Communist Party USA, this firm had long acted as a legal asset not only for the CPUSA but also for the Black Panthers and other Bay-area radicals. Founding partner Bob Treuhaft, head of the California Communist Party, had been labeled one of the nation’s most “dangerously subversive” lawyers. According to historian Stephen Schwartz, “Treuhaft is a man who dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB.” Hillary did yeoman’s work while learning at the feet of Treuhaft and his fellow masters. Associates say that Hillary, during her tenure with the firm, helped draftees get themselves declared conscientious objectors so they could avoid serving in Vietnam; they also contend that Hillary served VA interns seeking to avoid taking a loyalty oath to the United States.
7. Edelman went on to help Hillary secure a coveted research position with the Carnegie Council on Children, where the young attorney assisted Yale psychology professor Kenneth Keniston in the production of a report (titled All Our Children) advocating a dramatic expansion of social-welfare entitlements and a national guaranteed income -- all in the name of children's rights. Moreover, the report maintained that the traditional nuclear family was not inherently preferable to any other family structure, and that society had an obligation to honor, encourage, and support alternate arrangements such as single-parent households. What really mattered, said the Council, was the network of professionals -- teachers, pediatricians, social workers, and day-care workers -- who would collectively play the most vital role in raising children properly. In short, the Carnegie Council preached that childrearing was less a parental matter than a societal task to be overseen by "public advocates" -- judges, bureaucrats, social workers and other "experts" in childrearing -- who could intervene between parents and children on the latter's behalf. According to the report, the role of parents should be subordinate to the role of these experts.
8. Viewing America as an authoritarian, patriarchal, male-dominated society that tended to oppress women, children, and minorities, Hillary wrote a November 1973 article for the Harvard Educational Review advocating the liberation of children from “the empire of the father.” She claimed that the traditional nuclear family structure often undermined the best interests of children, who “consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position.” “Along with the family,” she elaborated, “past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian Reservation system.” She added: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect a child’s future should not be made unilaterally by parents.”
9. Decades later, Hillary would take up these themes again in her 1996 book It Takes a Village, which stressed the importance of the larger community of adults -- many of whom are paid caretakers whose labors are funded by American taxpayers -- in childrearing.
10. Bill Clinton served as Governor of Arkansas from 1978 to 1980, and again from 1982 to 1992. Thus Mrs. Clinton spent a total of twelve years as Arkansas’s First Lady. During that time, she continued her legal practice as a partner in the Rose Law Firm. In 1978 she became a board member of the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), and from 1986 to 1992 she served as chair of the CDF Board. From 1982 to 1988 Mrs. Clinton also chaired the New World Foundation (NWF), which had helped to launch CDF in 1973. During her years at NWF’s helm, the Foundation made grants to such organizations as the National Lawyers Guild, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Christic Institute, Grassroots International, the Committees in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (which sought to foment a Communist revolution in Central America), and groups with ties to the most extreme elements of the African National Congress.
11. In the spring of 1993, shortly after her husband took his oath of office, Mrs. Clinton delivered the commencement address at the University of Texas. In her speech, she stated: “We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West.”
12. That same year, Mrs. Clinton latched onto the phrase “the politics of meaning,” an opaque concept coined by Michael Lerner that blended radical politics with New Ageish human potentialism. She invited Lerner to the White House, briefly making him her “guru” until the ridicule which this caused made her retreat from the connection. (In her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton strenuously avoids any mention of Lerner, or of Lerner’s Tikkun magazine.)
13. Also during her early years as First Lady, Mrs. Clinton was put in charge of the 500-member Health Care Task Force which tried, in secret meetings and by stealth, to socialize medical care in the United States, a sector that represented approximately one-seventh of the U.S. economy. This modus operandi was in violation of so-called “sunshine laws,” which forbid such secret meetings from taking place when non-government employees are present. Mrs. Clinton was sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons for these violations. The trial judge, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, ultimately ruled against her and the Clinton administration. In December 1997 Lamberth issued a 19-page report condemning as “reprehensible” the duplicity exhibited by Mrs. Clinton’s Task Force. “The Executive Branch of the government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court, and the government must now face the consequences of its misconduct,” said Lamberth. “It is clear,” he added, “that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of government. There were no rogue lawyers here misleading the court.”
The linchpin of Mrs. Clinton’s healthcare plan was a mandate forcing all Americans to purchase insurance, and imposing a penalty on those who failed to comply. In November 2013, MIT professor John Gruber, who was a chief architect of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), said that Hillary Clinton’s 1990s-era plan was “much more interventionist” than Obamacare, “much to the left of Obamacare,” and “would have more radically changed our healthcare system.”
14. During the 1990s, Mrs. Clinton spent eight years faithfully attending Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C., which was then pastored by the Rev. Dr. J. Philip Wogaman. Wogaman had made his political worldview clear in his many writings and sermons over the years. For instance, in 1990, a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, he wrote that “Christian socialism’s critique of the excesses and brutalities and idolatries of the free market still need to be heard.” On an earlier occasion, he had lauded the “modest but real economic success” of Communist Cuba and China. As long ago as 1967, Wogaman had written: “The USSR is characteristic of the more tolerant Communist arrangements for religion. In Russia there are specific constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship, and some provision has even been made for the upkeep of churches and theological seminaries.”
By no means was Wogaman the only radical cleric to be admired by Mrs. Clinton. In her 2004 memoir, Living History, Mrs. Clinton praised Rev. William Sloane Coffin Jr., who had served as Yale’s chaplain during Hillary’s years at the law school, for his “articulate moral critique of American involvement” in Vietnam. That critique involved his traveling to Hanoi in 1972. Seven years later, he would make a friendly trip to Tehran, capital of the first modern Islamic theocratic state which had just stormed a U.S. embassy and kidnapped dozens of his fellow countrymen.
15. Hillary’s Nasty, Disrespectful Treatment of Secret Service & Military Personnel: In his 2014 book The First Family Detail, bestselling author Ronald Kessler writes that during Mrs. Clinton’s years as First Lady, she was known and despised by Secret Service agents and military personnel for the nasty treatment, explosive temper, and imperious attitude she conveyed toward them. “Agents say being on Hillary Clinton’s detail is the worst duty assignment in the Secret Service,” writes Kessler. “Being assigned to her detail is a form of punishment.” In August 2014, the Daily Mail provided the following details from Kessler’s book:
“We were basically told, the Clintons don’t want to see you, they don’t want to hear you, get of the way,’ according to a former Secret Service agent.”
“She didn’t like law enforcement officers or the military, former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman stated. ‘She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her.’ She went years without speaking to some agents.”
“In response to a cheerful ‘Good morning, ma’am,’ by a former uniformed officer, Hillary’s response to him was ‘F—k off.’”
“While publicly courting law enforcement organizations, privately she felt disdain. She wanted state troopers and local police to wear suits and drive unmarked cars. No military aides could wear their uniforms in the White House. If agents driving her went over a bump, she’d swear at them.”
“Glad-handing on the road on her Senatorial campaign, when they arrived at a 4-F Club in the land of dairy cows in upstate New York, she saw cows and people in jeans. That enraged her and she asked a staffer, ‘What the f*** did we come her for? There's no money here.’”
“White House deputy counsel Vince Foster, who committed suicide in June 1993, was on the receiving end of a virulent verbal attack by Hillary. She disagreed with a legal opinion he made and humiliated him in a meeting, stating he would never be more than a hick-town lawyer and wasn’t ready for the big time. ‘The put-down that she gave him in that big meeting just pushed him over the edge’, [former FBI agent Coy] Copeland says. She blamed Foster for all of the Clinton’s problems and stated he had failed the couple….”
16. Analysis of Hillary’s Worldview and Agendas:
“Hillary Clinton’s alliances with organizations like CAP, MMFA, and ACS serve as indicators of her most deeply held political beliefs and objectives. David Horowitz has provided the following incisive analysis of Mrs. Clinton’s broad agendas and the tactics she employs in pursuit of them:
"It is possible to be a socialist, and radical in one's agendas, and yet moderate in the means one regards as practical to achieve them. To change the world, it is first necessary to acquire cultural and political power. And these transitional goals may often be accomplished by indirection and deception even more effectively than by frontal assault. ... New Left progressives [such as] Hillary Clinton ... [share the] intoxicating vision of a social redemption achieved by Them ... For these self-appointed social redeemers, the goal -- 'social justice' -- is not about rectifying particular injustices, which would be practical and modest, and therefore conservative. Their crusade is about rectifying injustice in the very order of things. 'Social Justice' for them is about a world reborn, a world in which prejudice and violence are absent, in which everyone is equal and equally advantaged and without fundamentally conflicting desires. It is a world that could only come into being through a re-structuring of human nature and of society itself. ... In other words, a world in which human consciousness is changed, human relations refashioned, social institutions transformed, and in which 'social justice' prevails. ... In short, the transformation of the world requires the permanent entrenchment of the saints in power. Therefore, everything is justified that serves to achieve the continuance of them. ... The focus of Hillary Clinton's ambition ... is the vision of a world that can only be achieved when the Chosen accumulate enough power to change this one.” End of discoverthenetworks article.
Perhaps anyone planning to, or thinking about supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton for any future political office should consider many things before they make that decision. In making that decision there are three important questions:
1. What is my vision for the future of my country, and my descendants: my children, grandchildren and all who come after?
2. Will Hillary Clinton, or anyone who promotes the socialistic philosophies that she does, lead our great nation toward that vision?
3. Will I want future generations to look back on history and ask; “Were those who supported that Communist/Socialist agenda simply non-thinking ‘Useful Idiots?’
Those Alinsky Rules
Here is the complete list of rules from Alinsky:
What have we done to ourselves? What has happened to this great nation established by our Founding Fathers? They fought; they gave their all to leave to us a nation of freedom, individual opportunity and a foundation upon which we are allowed to inspire our children and all those who follow us to see only goodness and progress into the future. They fought and died to give us that. They sacrificed all. Then during WWII thousands of brave Americans gave their lives and their futures to allow us to advance what our Founding Fathers planned for us. I remember it well. I was six years old when that war ended and the newspapers read in half page letters ‘WAR ENDS.’ Of course, I couldn’t read at that time, but I knew those big words on the newspapers were something very important. What they actually said was ‘America is great.’
I began school in 1945, the year the war ended. Then, and for the next decade, America was filled with hope, exhilaration, and high expectation that our nation was a nation under God, blessed by God, and protected by God. Then, it was clear to almost everyone; God was our savior and protector, and most of us worshiped Him. We had no doubt God had saved the world from deadly and hell fire destruction by giving the world victory over that evil trying to destroy the world. But, what was most important at that time was that those who didn’t worship God did not try to prove He did not exist. They chose to worship God, or not to worship God, but there was no great reason for them to change our ideas of God and religion. In other words, they didn’try to ‘destroy’ God and His power. Their belief was, in most part, kept personal to themselves. Today, that is no longer true. Today, the dedicated aim of the forces of Islam is to destroy God; and replace him with their god, Satan.
Although the Words tell us not to invite those who worship Satan ‘into our house’ Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to praise Islam; and strive to bring more of them into our great nation to further contaminate our society with that blasphemy. The more they invite them into our home, the greater becomes our peril to suffer great and horrible consequences. He has told us so; He has warned us. Yet, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to serve the goals and aims of Satan. 1That admonition comes from Second John, Verses 7-11:
“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
Combined, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have invited the prophesied tribulation into our home; especially Barack Obama. Read my book, ‘What is the Tribulation’ to understand the severity of the tribulation, and the preparations one must take to survive that deadly three and a half year period.
God bless America, and protect Israel
Will Clark’s author experiences began by writing inspection and evaluation reports in the U.S. Air Force. He is a retired Air Force officer and a Vietnam veteran, serving in Saigon from 1966 to 1967. His other overseas assignments include Misawa, Japan and Ankara, Turkey; where he visited the ancient sites of the Seven Churches.
In 1995, as a ‘Friends of Education’ study skills project, he authored a book, How to Learn, to encourage students to improve their grades in DeSoto County, Mississippi. Education supporters printed and distributed four thousand copies. The following school year he wrote a weekly education column for a local newspaper, The DeSoto County Tribune. He also taught an adult GED class. His book, How to Learn, has been updated and is now available everywhere.
His next published book was School Bells and Broken Tales, a parody of nursery rhyme characters, also a motivation and education book for children. Other books include Shades of Retribution, a historical novel, and Simply Success, a motivation guide for students and employees.
His action novel, The Atlantis Crystal, is the first of a trilogy based on Atlantis and crystals. The other two books are: She Waits in Atlantis, and Return to Atlantis. This trilogy is based on his travels while assigned to Turkey, site of the ancient city of Troy. His latest political thriller is: America 20XX: The New World Order.
The past five years he has devoted his full time to the study, research, and writing of an analysis of the Book of Revelation and the danger of Satan, that beast that guides Islam.
Why were four Americans killed?
Where was Hillary Clinton while it was happening?
Where was Barack Obama while it was happening?
Why did they lie and blame the event on a video?
Why were rescuers on ‘stand by’ told to ‘stand down?’
Fast and Furious
Who authorized the operation?
Why did the operation continue after weapons were lost?
Why did the procedure have no procedure?
Why weren’t tracking devices used?
The IRS Scandal
What was the highest level involved?
Who initiated it?
Why hasn’t anyone been fired or reprimanded?
What dangers could be unleashed by this organization?
of Our Time
February 18, 2008
“For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country.”
March 9, 2008“We are no longer a Christian nation – at least not just.”
September 25, 2012
Remarks to the UN General Assembly
“The future must not belong to those who slander Islam.”
March 9, 2010
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
January 23, 2013
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
December 3, 2014
“…showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”
Shades of Retribution
The Atlantis Crystal
She Waits in Atlantis
Return to Atlantis
America 20XX: The New World Order
666: Mark of the Beast
Death Drones: 2025
Forest Trails and Fairy Tales
Wishing Wells and Broken Tales
Student Study Skills
American Heroes: Students Who Learn
Obama, Hillary, Saul Alinsky and their Useful Idiots
The Education Jungle
How to Learn
The Day America Died
Obama’s Ring: The Seat of Satan
Managing Without Conflict
The Peer Pressure Monster
Denied 3 Times
The War on Christians
Who is the Antichrist
Islamic Two-Headed Beast
Islam Attacks the Whore
The Second Beast
Secrets of the Seven Churches
Two Woman of the Apocalypse
Islam’s Bloodthirsty Sword
Once Upon A Revelation: About Islam
God’s Islamaknowbe Warriors
Who is the Antichrist Beast?
Who is the False Prophet Beast?
Who is the Woman Jezebel?
Who is Babylon the Great?
What is the Tribulation
Hillary Clinton hopes to replace Obama as President of the United States. And, as with Obama, her goals seem very oriented against fulfilling those hopes and dreams of our Founding Fathers. In fact, her plans and ambitions for America seem in total opposition to those rights and opportunities our Founding Fathers planned for us. They planned personal freedom, individual opportunity for success and achievement, and fulfillment of human aspirations. Words from her mouth suggest a different plan for America; a plan that supports Obama’s current agenda. It’s a plan guided by ‘rules for radicals’ as described by Saul Alinsky. Her words propose an all-powerful central government that would determine and limit personal dreams and aspirations. The plans, rules and laws she propose are to ‘take from the rich and redistribute to the poor.’ To the poor, this plan obviously sounds great. Isn’t it nice to be promised something without any attachments or requirement to earn it? Just relax and enjoy life and let the government do everything for you. Although the parts sound great to many uninspired people; the results are always destructive. The government takes over stronger and stronger until nothing can be done in a nation without the government’s approval or involvement. These goals of Hillary and Obama are those same goals of Socialists and Communists before them. These regimes, when achieved, never accomplish their proclaimed purpose. Almost always they result in despair, lost aspirations, opportunity destroyed; and often even death. This form of government they wish upon us began in Russia. The result was destruction of a nation and death of millions. Obama and Hillary charge ahead without warning citizens of these dangers that most often accompany their goals. Those promises of bliss and Heaven more often result is horrors of hell for those Useful Idiots who refuse to comprehend the deceptions.