Please read and Share. Our Culture and future is at stake! Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components but its goal is to destyroy the rest of the world.

Here's how Islam works to Infiltrate a Country:

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components.

THE SOONER REGULAR AMERICANS UNDERSTAND THIS THE BETTER CHANCE WE HAVE TO SURVIVE THIS FAST SPREADING DISASTER!

The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.

This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.
Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.

Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

In my opinion, Muslims should be expelled from all Western countries and isolated. It's the only way we can avoid the impending violence.

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most

radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me

against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against

my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world,

and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100%

Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in

ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by

Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such

situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children

attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an

infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain

nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national

average would indicate. Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their

birth rates are higher than the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists,

Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's

population by the end of this century.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse.
The wolves will be herding the sheep!

NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a

devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.

Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?
Doesn't this make you feel safer already??

That should make the United States much safer, huh!!
Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings only 10

years ago?  We must never forget this..

Was it not a Devout Muslim man who killed 13 at Fort Hood ? (He killed

"From within" -don't forget that).

Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish.

Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out

about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question

was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

The following is his reply:

Theologically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of

Arabia

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except

Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the

Quran.

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in

prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..

Politically - no.Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders),

who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat

and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since

it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.

Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the

Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation. ... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it's still the

truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we

know or understand.

Can a Muslim be a good soldier???

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a

good Muslim!!!


THINK ABOUT ALL THIS AND SHARE.... WE ARE GIVING UP OUR COUNTRY TO OUTSIDE FORCES AND WE WILL NEVER GET IT BACK!!

The Constitution is the rule of law, and it is the job of Good Patriots in Government to uphold the rule of law.

OBAMA SHREDS THE CONSTITUTION EVERYDAY..

No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints of power,”

“The Constitution is the rule of law, and it is the job of Good Patriots in Government to uphold the rule of law.”

THIS BUNCH OF POLITICIANS ARE MONEY GRUBBING SELF SERVING OPPORTUNISTS IN WASHINGTON. WE MUST READ AND BE EDUCATED IN OUR SYSTEM.

American political institutions presuppose certain convictions about human nature, the worth and prerogatives of persons, the meaning of life, the distinction between right and wrong, and the destiny of the individual. The Colonists came to their understanding of these matters as heirs of the intellectual and religious heritage of Christendom—the culture whose shaping forces sprang from ancient Israel, Greece, and Rome.

Given the consensus of two centuries ago—which regarded man as a sovereign person under God—it was only logical to structure government so as to expand opportunities for the exercise of personal freedom. The Constitution is clearly designed to maximize each individual’s equal right to pursue his own peaceful goals and enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of ownership.

The Declaration of Independence put into words what nearly everyone was thinking, that personal rights and immunities are ours because we are created beings, that is, we manifest a major purpose and intent of this universe. This implies a firm rejection of the alternative, which is to assume that we are the mere end products of natural and social forces, adrift in a meaningless cosmos. For if the universe is meaningless, then no way of life is any more meaningful than any other; in which case Power has no limits.

Our forebears had firm convictions about the purpose of life, and knew that in order to achieve life’s transcendent end Power must be limited: "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God," they declared. If life is viewed in these terms, how shall we conceive the proper scope and competence of government? What is its role in society? What functions should we assign to it?

Government is the power structure of a society. This is the first and most important fact about the political agency, that it has the legal authority to coerce. The second thing is to inquire whether the power wielded by government is self-sprung, or delegated by a more comprehensive authority than the merely political. Does government rule autonomously or by divine right; or is the real power located elsewhere and merely loaned to government? The Constitution is clear on this point; the power is in the people to lay down the laws which Power must obey. They set it up; they tell it what to do.

"We, the People of the United States," reads the Preamble, "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Specific Limitations

The people empower an agency to do certain things for them as a nation, but if we isolate the provisions they laid down to limit government the prevailing intent or consensus which made the Constitution its political tool becomes clearer.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Amendment X.

The people, furthermore, possess a body of rights by native endowment above and beyond those mentioned in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment IX

These sovereign people shall be free to worship, speak, and publish freely.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press. Amendment I

Voluntary association is the corollary of individual liberty, and this is emphasized, as well as the right of petition.

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.         Amendment I

The old world divisions of mankind into castes and orders of rank are to be no more.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. Article I, 9

Every citizen shall have a right to participate in the processes by which the nation is governed; and, should he desire to run for public office he shall not be put to a creedal test.

The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged. . . . Amendments XV and XIX

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Article VI

Freedom to Trade; No Special Privilege

Commerce makes for a free and prosperous people, so restraints on trade shall be removed.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State. . . . Article!, 9

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.        Article I, 9

Progressive taxation violates the principle of equal treatment under the law—penalizes ability, and lowers productivity, so it is forbidden.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census. . . .   Article I, 9

The public treasury shall be inviolate; government shall not confer economic privilege on some at the expense of others.

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. Article I, 9

Personal privacy shall be respected and jealously guarded.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . . shall not be violated.

Amendment IV

Conflict is a built-in feature of human action, and when collisions of interest do occur in society, the rights of the individual must be maintained.

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.           Amendment V

Nor shall private property be taken for
public use without just compensation. Amendment V

Strings on the Military

In some nations, the civilian life is a mere appendage to the military. This will not happen here because civilians control the purse strings.

No appropriation of money (to raise and support military and naval forces) shall be for a longer term than two years.        Article I, 8

As a further safeguard against any future militarization of this nation, the civilian sector must have the means for defending itself.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment II

In some countries, criminal proceedings are used to entrap citizens, whose guilt is assumed; the burden of proof is on them to show their innocence. Here, the innocence of the accused is assumed, until his guilt is proved. The law shall not reach backward to designate as criminal an action which until then was innocent.

No … ex post facto law shall be passed. Article I, 9

There shall be no Star Chamber proceedings.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.  Amendment V

Protecting the Accused

The accused is protected against illegal imprisonment, and must be informed of the charges against him.

The privilege of the write of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Article I, 9

Punishment shall fit the crime; it shall not mean extinction of civil rights, forfeiture of property, or penalties against kin.

No bill of attainder . . . shall be passed. Article I, 9

The accused is entitled to be tried by his peers. . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.    Amendment VII

There is to be no – forced self-incrimination.

Nor shall [he] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.         Amendment V

The rights of the accused are summarized:

1.                   . . . a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury;

2.                    Within the district wherein the crime shall have been committed;

3.                    . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

4.                    . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

5.                    . . . to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor;

6.                    . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VI

Even when found guilty, the accused is protected.

1.                    Excessive bail shall not be required;

2.                    Nor excessive fines imposed;

3.                    Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment VIII

Treason

Treason is a crime against the nation, so serious that it must be defined with special care.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Article III, 3

The person judged guilty of treason is personally responsible for his crime, and therefore his family and kin shall not be punished.

No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood. Article III, 3

Impeachment is a special case.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments . . . and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.

Judgment . . . shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.      Article I, 3

A blind spot in the original Constitution is corrected.

Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime . . . Amendment XIII

No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment XIV

The separate states are not wholly sovereign.

No state shall enter into any treaty . . . coin money . . . pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. Article I, 10

The Method of Freedom

There is a strong penchant in human nature which impels people who feel strongly about something—a good cause, say—to group their forces and use the power of government to fasten their panacea on those they’ve been unable to persuade. The Constitution is a prime example of the limitations placed upon governmental power so that people with a cause to advance must resort to education, persuasion, and example only. This is the method of freedom, and a people committed to the method of freedom find the Constitution still an apt instrument for structuring a society which maximizes freedom and opportunity for all persons. It was designed to establish a national government internally controlled by checks and balances between the separate powers. And government was to be further limited by the federal structure itself, in which the centripetal power of Washington was to be offset by the centrifugal powers of the separate states. It was not a perfect document, but it carried the means of its own correction, and it did embody the consensus of the people for whom freedom was the prime political good. It was workable. And it will work again whenever a significant number of people have the force of intellect to comprehend sound ideas, and the force of character to make them prevail.

Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/constitutional-restraints-on-power#ixzz2SeGkwVJd

Hillary Clinton’s Senior Thesis was about SOCIALIST Radical Activist Saul Alinsky & Michele Obama’s Thesis was on Black Separatism

TIME FOR REVOLUTION:  WE CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH THESE KIND OF PEOPLE!! THEY DO NOT WANT OUR AMERICA.

 

THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STEALING OUR COUNTRY HAVE RADICALLY DIFFERENT IDEAS THAN OURS. THEY WANT US TO WORK TO MAKE THEIR DREAM A REALITY.

Hillary Clinton’s Senior Thesis was about Radical Activist Saul Alinsky:

Michele Obama’s Thesis was on Black Separatism

Not only did Saul Alinsky serve as a mentor for young Hillary he was so  favorably impressed he offered her a job at the Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago where he was Executive Director.  Letter may be seen at the bottom of the PDF file shown below. 
Hillary learned her lessons well and has been  a progressive/socialist/Marxist from the time she appeared on the political scene back in Arkansas.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message. 
The Hillary Clinton Quarterly
By Donna Schaper with Rake Morgan and Frank Marafiote contributing.
Edited by Frank Marafiote for the Internet.
(To read a PDF copy of the thesis, click here.)

With Hillary Clinton poised to win the Democratic nomination for president, questions about her intellectual and moral education abound. One of the major intellectual influences – perhaps an emotional one was well – was radical social philosopher and activist Saul Alinsky. As this story shows, Alinsky was both the ladder Hillary climbed to gain new perspectives on society – specifically the poor – and then, once there, a ladder she tossed aside when she no longer needed it.

Poor little  Wellesley  Rich Girl

Americans who graduated from high school in 1965 and college in 1969 were not just part of a population bubble — the “baby boomers” — but a cultural one as well. The children of the Sixties combined the typical young adult developmental cycle with a unique cycle in the life of this nation. They were not only trying to learn about dating, but also about foreign policy, ethics, and racism.
Hillary Clinton was quintessentially one of these people — a Sixties person, although we would hardly have recognized her as such. That she didn’t buy her wedding dress until the night before her wedding is not just a coincidence. It was also commonplace. Her generation was mixing private rites of passage with public ones, and it seemed right to do so. Hillary Clinton was a conformist to the extent that she mixed these personal and political levels early, at a time when most of the people did likewise.
One need look no further than the thesis written by Michele Obama while at Princeton on “Racial Divide.”  Michele Obama like her husband his a racist, and from its reading it is understandable why she could have uttered, “For the first time in my life, I’m proud to be an American.”  It’s troubling having a black separatist as POTUS and FLOTUS.
Suggestion to the reader: Unless you are of the same ilk as these people educate yourselves before the next election.  If you are to ignorant to vote why bother?

As we search for social influences on the First Lady, we have to begin in this context, in the unique mix of the public and private that served as her environment as a young woman. She was as marked by her chronological age and the Age of Aquarius as most Sixties people were — and she is probably where she is today because she was even more influenced by it than the rest of us.
It is no accident that she chose to write about Saul Alinsky for her senior thesis at Wellesley College . As a social activist, Alinsky was as much a part of the Sixties as was Kennedy and King. He was in the background creating the foreground of interpretation:
“Power to the people” is a phrase coined by him as much as by Stokeley Carmichael. Like the headband, Hillary abandoned much of what influenced her back then. But still this heavy identification with her age and THE age continued in bold form right after she completed her senior thesis.
That people stood to applaud Hillary Clinton’s commencement speech — the first one given by a student at Wellesley — is another mark of her generation that she wears in her psyche. It had to matter to her that the classes before 1960 remained in their seats, not quite sure of what had just happened. Classes before 1930 didn’t even clap. From ‘60 on people were on their feet clapping.
This literal order of approval is important to our understanding of Hillary Clinton. And surely it is one of the reasons she’s shifted from her Sixties image to a more up-to-date one. She learned early on that people interpret things by their age. No one needs the tag of the Sixties any more. Her repudiation of the tag is one of the reasons that Wellesley College , at her request, does not release her senior thesis to the public. She doesn’t want to be identified with Alinsky or the Sixties any more than is absolutely necessary. Hillary is socially and personally based in the Sixties, not in its cultural but in its political dimension.
Probably because she had enough ballast psychologically and religiously from her family and church, she did not “drug out” during the Sixties. She was not one of the period’s casualties. But most Americans, including the younger ones, don’t understand this distinction yet about the Sixties. Say Sixties, and people today think, “drugged out.” Say Sixties, they think unshowered. Perpetual bad hair days. Hillary can’t afford the negative image of the Sixties. Thus she needed to leave as much of the Sixties behind her as possible. This repudiation of the Sixties began early in her life.
It’s the confusion in the public’s mind — not hers — that accounts for the distance she’s put between herself and her formative period. Alinsky’s thought has been badgered at the image level since the sixties. Say Alinsky and people think radical, that American word that now has a bad reputation.
Alinsky thought of himself as a radical in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, Thomas Payne. He personified the American theory of pragmatism in his commitment to power. “Whatever works to get power to the people, use it.” That didn’t mean violence but rather serious attention to matters of power. Pact the meeting. Fill the streets. Flood the office with post cards. If that doesn’t work, find something that does, including humor.
At one point to gain attention from the Chicago city council, Alinsky threatened to flush all the toilets at O’Hare airport at once. Before the toilet flushing escapade ever had a chance to happen, the city council gave in and granted some demands. Another time, in Rochester , New York , Alinsky had a fart-in at the Eastman Kodak Board meeting. A baked bean supper had been organized for participants. Alinsky was irreverent, but that was his only real bow in the counter-cultural direction. Hillary acquired Alinsky’s pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
Hillary met Alinsky through the pastor at her high school church, the Park Ridge Methodist Church . Rev. Don Jones, then youth minister at the parish and running a youth program called “ University of Life ,” took his youth group to Chicago to meet not only Alinsky but also King and many of the other leaders of the Civil Rights movement.
To understand how Hillary developed her skills as an activist we have to first understand her religious back ground. One of 110 young people confirmed at the church at age 11, she had an unusually rigorous religious preparation. It was public instead of personal. That simple shift in perspective was the key foundation for her, as a Goldwater activist throughout high school and the daughter of a Republican. It allowed her to have an open heart to the suffering she saw in Chicago . Very few youth groups traveled as far as the South Side of Chicago to find God or religious formation.
Hillary acquired Alinsky ‘S pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
That she did, under the auspices of Rev. Jones, made not only the introduction to Alinsky possible, it also meant that she could hear firsthand what he had to say in a context that probably spoke louder than his words.
The poverty she saw in Chicago surely became part of the source of this person who is now running for president. Alinsky interpreted poverty with one point of view — that it is due to the lack of power of the poor. Hillary probably doesn’t believe that as much as a less sinister interpretation — that the poor are poor because of bad government policies. This tension became the tension of her senior thesis, the tension of her genuine suffering about the poor, and probably will remain the tension of her life.
In a sense, she’s still in a conversation with Alinsky, who believed that the poor could be organized on their own behalf. Hillary Clinton still seems to believe that the middle classes can do things to make life easier for the poor, and that is the lever she pulls most often. Her decision about the best way to create change ultimately led her down a path that made her a senator; had she made the other decision — to organize the poor — she would not be in government, but rather in that place where she learned so much — the “streets.”
Religion moderated the decisions she made, particularly since it was based in the suburban world of Park Ridge . Alinsky himself was not a religious man, though he depended heavily on organized religious constituencies. In Sanford Horwitt’s biography of Alinsky, Let Them Call Me A Rebel, Horwitt suggests that at many different levels Alinsky “used” religious constituencies like the Park Ridge church to legitimize serious political action. In this way, Hillary — even as a girl — was used by the movement. She added her consent later.
Alinsky’s manipulation of both the poor and the church is the most often repeated accusation against him. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton’s exposure to his ideas took place in a relatively open setting, as a by product of the University of Life . Rev. Jones arranged a trip to a Chicago ghetto so that his youth could meet with a group of black youths who hung around at a recreation center. There the program consisted of teenagers describing their reactions to Picasso’s Guernica . The youths met several times and also read Catcher in the Rye together. For the young, Republican Hillary, the difference in reaction between suburban and city youth was a major eye opener. Once eyes like hers were opened, it wouldn’t take them long in the Chicago of that day to find Alinsky.
Alinsky frequently used similar methods of experiential education — what Paolo Friere calls the”pedago – guey” of the oppressed. Here the oppressed were the teachers of those who were not oppressed. It was vintage Alinsky, borrowed by a young seminarian. Here we see the reason she eventually left behind both Alinsky and the Sixties. Her experience taught her to go other places. That the Sixties, Alinsky and religious faith taught her to learn from experience is the deeper and more enduring social source of her behavior.
Rev. Jones told Donnie Radcliffe in Hillary Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time that his goal with the youth group was “not just about personal salvation and pious escapism, but also about an authentic and deep quest for God and life’s meaning in the midst of worldly existence.” Thanks to Jones’ emphasis on the public aspect of religion, Hillary had the chance to meet Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as Alinsky. Jones made arrangements for his group to meet King after King preached at the Sunday Evening Club in Chicago . With 2,500 other people at Orchestra Hall in Chicago , April 15, 1962, 15 year-old Hillary heard King preach a sermon entitled “Remaining Awake Through a Revolution.” To accuse her of taking this message literally would not be going too far. She has remained steadily fixed on a simple public theology and an alertness about political experience.
We unfortunately know very little about Jones’ cohort at the church, Rosalie Benziger, the Christian Education director. Surely she had prepared even deeper ground for the encounter with Chicago, Alinsky, King and poverty in the curriculum used during Sunday School. What we do know about Benziger is that she was concerned about the students’ reaction to the Kennedy assassination, and that she sent a letter to the entire 3,000 member congregation hoping that they wouldn’t begin finding Communists under every rock. “We knew that the children would be traumatized….” she had said. Benziger was right. These children were traumatized for longer than a generation. What’s significant in terms of Hillary Clinton’s development is that few Christian Education directors at the time reacted in this way, with a both political point to protect and a pastoral concern for children. The childrens’ safe world had been invaded by a larger life, and it would continue to be throughout the Sixties.
Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary ‘s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. The University of Life focused on living and on under standing experience as it came. As we know, this emphasis on experience did not mean that Sixties people shared a single viewpoint. There were serious splits among political and cultural activists. Alinsky’s own pragmatism caused him to express great disdain for the Dionysian aspects of the Sixties. He made his organizers wear ties. He kept enormous distance from the politically flamboyant aspects of the flower child movement. He was widely known as a drinker and thought of drugs as counter-culture in a ridiculous way. Alinsky was very patriotic, very pro-culture, and never really did oppose the Vietnam War. He stuck to local and domestic issues like glue and had nothing but derision for those who did not.
Any Sixties person can see some of these tendencies in Hillary. Back then she would have been considered very serious, a “straight arrow.” Alinsky would have excited these serious tendencies with his own equally serious attention to matters of strategy and tactics, and by his own serious streak, which was a red hot concern for the poor. “Poverty is an embarrassment to the American soul,” he said over and over again. That was probably his only religious statement and it was enough to make him serious allies with the church in Chicago and beyond. Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary’s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. Still, their fundamental antipathy to poverty would connect them, and finally cause him to be the topic she chose for her senior thesis.
Hillary Clinton and Alinsky disagreed over the issue of localism. She did not believe the local was a large enough context for political action. For a suburban girl who already had a national candidate (Goldwater), that viewpoint was not surprising. For the poor that Alinsky loved, even a few blocks was too much. There were aspects of her middle class up bring that shaped her under standing of Slinky and his ideas.
According to Allan Schuster, professor of Political Science at Wellesley , she chose her senior thesis topic because she had met Alinsky in high school and had heard him speak at a meeting she had attended in Boston . That meeting resulted in her organizing a demonstration in the town of Wellesley — something slinky himself would have done. He thought campus issues, which Hillary had been working on for some time, were silly. They were about the middle class, not about the poor. Hillary responded to this guidance positively. But eventually she found the town of Wellesley and the city of Boston too ”small” to matter to the poor as sites for change.
Clifford Green, then professor of biblical history at Wellesley College and now a professor at Hartford Theological Seminary in Connecticut , taught the bible course she was required to take in her sophomore year. His classes confirmed for Hillary the religious view point inaugurated by Jones — that faith had to do with life, not just with personal matters. Green remembers the surprise of the Wellesley girls that religion could be so public in its real meaning.
Weighing the two major influences on Hillary — religion and community organizing — her biographer Donnie Radcliff has it about right: religion probably meant more to Hillary than organizing. It was public religion that integrated the Sixties context and Alinsky’s focus on the poor and their suffering. The principle of public religion was also ratified by the Wellesley motto: Non ministrar sed ministrare (we are not here to be ministered to, but to minister unto). Taught early by Don Jones, sustained by Benziger, excited by King, challenged by Alinsky, Hillary Clinton was nursed by the Sixties city and the Sixties college to become a political activist with enduring power.
Schecter says that Alinsky recognized her talents as an organizer during the Wellesley period and offered her a significant position after college. He didn’t offer these jobs to many women, nor did he offer them without a serious, often disturbing assessment of the person’s abilities. Caesar Chavez is a well-known example of an Alinsky disciple, chosen and hewn by the master. But whereas Chavez bought the localism of the Alinsky method, Hillary did not.
Schecter also confirms Donnie Radcliffe’s belief that Hillary turned Alinsky down because her senior thesis convinced her that his methods were not “large” enough. She believed, according to Schecter’s interpretation of the thesis, that Alinsky’s tactics and strategies were useful at the local level, but that even if an activist were successful in local organizing, systemic policy matters on the national level would prevent actual power from going to people. She chose to work at the macro-level of law rather than the micro-level of community because of this analysis. Many Alinsky disciples acknowledge that this is a serious and frequent argument made against him.
Hillary Clinton went to law school in order to have an influence on these larger and more difficult issues. Her motivation may have been religious in that uniquely public way that Jones taught her. She was not satisfied with the “right personal faith” and was far more serious about finding a way to put that faith into action. The University of Life approach is what has remained. This way of learning from the street was also a fundamental aspect of Alinsky’s teaching. In this way, we can see that Hillary was influenced by a powerful mixture of experience and theory. Then the credentializing began. She may not have known just how much Alinsky hated lawyers, but he hated them with a severity that makes her career choice all the more interesting.
For a young woman to turn down this extremely macho man, and to stand against him in theory as well as in practice, is astonishing, particularly given the times and her young age. Her assertion to Alinsky that confrontational tactics would upset the kind of people she grew up with in Park Ridge , thus creating a backlash, was either naive or brilliant. He surely told her what he is reported to have said — “that won’t change anything.” It couldn’t have been said with respect. She apparently countered, “Well, Mr. Alinsky, I see a different way than you.”
Perhaps this exchange explains why so many people find Hillary too assertive and aloof. She emulates Alinsky in the seriousness with which she accepts her mission — thus embodying his best teaching — and at the same time she distinguishes herself with her own point of view. As Schecter pointed out, she understood early on that poor people needed not just participation, but also structure and leadership. That she thought Alinsky could not provide that is surprising, but that is what she thought at that time. To have much more political sophistication in an 18 year- old would have been scary. Her thesis concluded that “organizing the poor for community actions to improve their own lives may have, in certain circumstances, short-term benefits for the poor but would never solve their major problems. You need much more than that. You need leadership, programs, constitutional doctrines.”
That analysis ultimately led to law school and not back to the University of Life or to Alinsky’s streets. In extensive correspondence with Rev. Jones during college, she began the shift from Goldwater conservatism to a more liberal viewpoint. “Can one be a mental conservative but a heart liberal?” she asked him at one point.
One example in a real political context shows her legal and activist mind at work. Marshall Goldman, a Wellesley professor of Russian economics, suggested that students had mixed up tactics in boycotting classes. He wanted them to skip weekends because that was sacrificial. Hillary responded quickly in The Wellesley News, “I’ll give up my date Saturday night, Mr. Goldman, but I don’t think that’s the point. Individual consciences are fine, but individual con sciences have to be made manifest.” Not only do we see her rational and argumentative mind here, but also the nearly literal interpretation of public religion that has integrated her political action and her life.
In the speech she made at her Wellesley commencement, she quoted a poem by a fellow student, Nancy Scheibner, called ”The Art of Making Possible.” Hillary Clinton and Alinsky are fellow travelers here. The pragmatism of a politician joins the fundamentalism of a certain kind of true believer: this marriage is what has taken Hillary beyond her senior thesis. She does exactly what Alinsky would have taught her to do — to read, continuously, from experience. She also stays very close to what Jones and Wellesley would have her do — to express her faith in public action. Both politics and religion keep her safely in the Sixties realm and do so in unusual, personally appropriated ways. She moves beyond her senior thesis, but continues to put much of what she learned during that period into practice today.

Michelle Obama’s Black Separatist Background: What Does It Mean for All Americans?

The senior thesis that Michelle Obama (or as she then was, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson) submitted to Princeton University in 1985 for completion of her bachelor’s degree in Sociology, has been made available to the public on Politico.com (part one, part two, part three and part four) and other websites. There are two things that are of public interest about this thesis: a) the fact that public access to it was restricted for some six-eight weeks during the Presidential campaign; and b) its contents.

The following are the facts about Michelle Obama’s, and the Barack Obama campaign’s, efforts to prevent public access to her thesis, as best as I have been able to reconstruct them from reliable media organs and web sites. Jonah Goldberg’s blog on National Review Online for February 19th of this year reported “that a reader in the know informs me that Michelle Obama's thesis, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," is unavailable until November 5, 2008 at the Princeton library. I wonder why?”A more detailed report was published by Politico.com a few days later, which stated that the thesis “has been ‘temporarily withdrawn’ until after this year’s presidential election in November” (Numerous other web reporters have confirmed that November 5th, one day after the Presidential election, had been listed on the Mudd Library web site as the date on which public access to the thesis would be restored.). 

 

According to Politico.com, “Attempts to retrieve the document through Princeton proved unsuccessful, with school librarians having been pestered so much for access to the thesis that they have resorted to reading from a script when callers inquire about it. Media officers at the prestigious university were similarly unhelpful, claiming it is ‘not unusual’ for a thesis to be restricted and refusing to discuss ‘the academic work of alumni.’ Politico.com also reported on February 23rd that “the Obama campaign, however, quickly responded to a request for the thesis by Politico,” which placed it on its web site. It is still there in PDF format, and has been placed on other sites as well. However, Princeton University did not resume making copies of the thesis available to the public again until March 25th, a month after the Politico web posting. I have still not been able to determine when the block was placed on the thesis in the first place by Princeton.

 

When I called Princeton University on June 23rd and again on June 25th to inquire about the availability of the thesis, and the previous restrictions on it, I found that even after the passage of more than four months ”media officers at the prestigious university” were just as “similarly unhelpful” as they had been four months earlier. I was told by “Communications” officer Emily Aronson, to whom Princeton’s Mudd Library referred me, that the block on public access to the thesis had been placed “for a credible reason,” which she declined to give, and for “a limited period of time,” which she declined to specify. She also declined to say whether or not the ban had originally been placed with a termination date immediately after the November election. Ms. Aronson said that the block on public access to the thesis had been requested by “the Obama campaign,” but declined to answer whether or not it had been requested by Michele Obama herself (another Princeton employee, however. told me that restrictions on public access to a Princeton theses can normally be placed only by the author of the thesis, or someone legally authorized to act on his/her behalf). She directed me to Michelle Obama’s spokesperson, Ms. Katie McCormick Lelyveld, for any further information. In short, this “Communications” officer was singularly uncommunicative.

 

Ms. McCormick Lelyveld proved equally unhelpful. She also refused to say when the block had been placed or when it had been withdrawn, and whether or not November 5th was the day to which the block originally was to have continued. She would say only that the block had been in place “for a very short period of time.” She attributed the block to a joint decision of the Obama campaign and Princeton, but like the Princeton “Communications” office declined to say what Michelle Obama’s role had been in this decision. She said that the reason for the block placed on the thesis was the desire of both the Obama campaign and Princeton to “sort out” and “filter” the large number of requests for it. She gave no indication as to which requests the Obama camp wished to “filter” or “sort”, nor any explanation as to why this process would need to take until precisely November 5, 2008! Ms. McCormick Lelyveld complained that the story was “old news,” asked why I had not inquired with her about it in January “when the story broke,” and asked why I considered it news at all.

 

To answer Ms. McCormick-Lelyveld’s question: obviously, a ban on public access set to expire immediately after the presidential election could only have one purpose - to prevent information that Michelle Obama and or others in the Obama campaign thought could lose their candidate votes. The attempt to prevent the public from reading Ms. Robinson-Obama’s thesis is also significant to the extent that it indicates that the Obama campaign has no scruples about hiding documents that it considers unhelpful to his candidacy, even those normally available to the public such as college senior theses. So much for the transparency and openness of the Obama campaign.

 

But the contents of the paper are of greater interest. They shed some light on the ideological background of the woman who may soon be the principal advisor to the next President of the United States.

 

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson’s thesis is obsessed with the distinction between “Blacks” and “Whites.” The words ““American” and “Americans” appear rarely in it, - seven times by my count; the expression “U.S.A.” occurs once, and “ U.S. ” once. The word “America ” does not appear in it at all. But the words “Black” and “White,” always capitalized, and always referring to racial groups, appear by my count 475 times and 181 times, respectively - in every case, judging from the context, referring to Blacks and Whites in the United States. There are no references at all to Hispanic, Asian or Amerindian Americans! It would be hard to find a more dramatic way for the author to indicate that her feeling that the United States consists of two nations, not one, and that the 20-30 million Americans who are not a part of either the “Black” or the “White” nation do not exist at all.

 

The thesis paper consists of 64 pages in the main body of the text, plus seven pages of prefatory material and an appendix of 27 pages. Despite occasional grammatical lapses and ambiguous language, for the most part the composition shows an impressive command both of the English language and of sociological terminology for a college senior. The thesis is organized around a questionnaire that Michelle Robinson sent to 400 Black graduates of Princeton, of whom 89 sent replies (no Whites or other non-Blacks were polled), and Robinson’s analysis of the results. Its stated goal is to discover the correlation between the “time” that the graduates “spent” with other Blacks “as opposed” (and the word “opposed” is used), to the time they spent with Whites, as well as the “ideology” of the graduates on the one hand, and their commitment to “benefit the Black community”, and “help the Black lower class” on the other. Her initial “hypothesis,” was that Blacks who spent more time with other Blacks than with Whites, and who adhered to a “separatist/pluralist” ideology, would be more eager to benefit the Black community and help the Black lower class than those who spent more time with Whites and supported an “integrationist/assimilations” philosophy. Not surprisingly, her analysis of her poll data results confirms her initial hypothesis.

 

The thesis implies that Black college graduates who wish to “benefit the Black community” and to help the Black “lower class” should spend more time with Blacks than with Whites, whether in their professional work, family life or recreational activities, and adhere to a “separatist/pluralist” ideology as opposed to an “integrationist/assimilations” philosophy. This amounts to a rationale for Black separatism.

 

Michelle Robinson-Obama argues that when Black people “spend time” with Whites, they lose their commitment to “benefiting” the Black community and “lower class Blacks.” She describes Blacks who have integrated into the larger society as “ignorant” of and “unmotivated” to help the Black underclass. Ironically, the only evidence from her survey of Black Princeton graduates that she cites to support her conclusion that “integrationist/assimilations” Blacks lack motivation to help the Black lower class is that they reported feeling less “helpless” about the plight of this group of Black Americans than did Black separationists! 

 

Even the involvement of Black Princeton graduates with their professions is seen as detracting from their commitment to the black community. The author posits a zero sum game - any time spent with Whites means less time spent with, and hence less commitment to help, Blacks. The commitment of some Princeton graduates to benefit “the American community at large” is mentioned only once in the thesis, and is promptly dismissed with the remark,” which is, of course predominantly White.” The author by implication rejects the idea that Black Princeton graduates have any obligation to help “the American community at large,” and even implies that such a commitment amounts to a sell-out to Whites.

 

The future Mrs. Obama does not present any evidence to support her claims that “Predominantly White universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the White students comprising the bulk of their enrollments,” and “Activities organized by University groups such as Student Government rarely, if ever, take into account the diverse interests which exist at a University that is not 100% White.” She immediately undercuts her own complaint that “there is only one major University recognized organization on campus designed specifically for the intellectual interests of Black and other Third World students.” (a heavily qualified “only”) by referring in the next paragraph to four other Black organizations that were active on campus - at least one of which, the “Princeton University Thoughts Table,” certainly seems to have been aimed specifically at addressing the “intellectual needs” of Black students (Were these organizations “recognized” [whatever that means by this word] by Princeton or not? The author does not tell us). She complains that “presently Blacks comprise only about 10% of total enrollment,” at Princeton, without mentioning that this is “about” the percentage of Black Americans in the American population as a whole!

 

Since Princeton and other major American Universities, at the time that the thesis was written (1985) were making energetic efforts to recruit Black students, and were admitting large numbers of Black students who did not meet the academic standards required for admission of White students (Robinson-Obama herself was one such student), her complaints of discrimination against Black students at Princeton and other “Ivy League” colleges don’t ring true. Rather, they sound like the fashionable whining of a privileged young woman.

 

Robinson-Obama asserts that “there is a distinctive Black culture very different from White culture. Elements of Black culture which make it unique from White culture such as its music, its language, the struggles and a ‘consciousness’ shared by its people may be attributed to the injustices and oppressions suffered by this race of people which are not comparable to the experiences of any other race of people through this country’s history [not even American Indians?]. However, with the increasing integration of Blacks into the mainstream society, many ‘integrated Blacks’ have lost touch with Black culture in their attempts to become adjusted and comfortable in their new culture - the White culture. Some of these Blacks are no longer able to enjoy the qualities which make Black culture so unique or are unable to openly share their culture with other Blacks because they have become so far removed from these experiences and, in some instances, ashamed of them as a result of their integration [p54].” Surely, she exaggerates the cultural differences separating Americans. After all, White Americans have enthusiastically embraced numerous musical styles that originated in the Black American community - spirituals, gospel, the blues, ragtime, jazz, big band, rock and hip-hop, to name only a few. The active participation of White musicians in some of these styles, most notably jazz and rock, has also greatly narrowed the cultural gap between these two American communities. For the most part, Black and White Americans eat the same foods (even allowing for Black ethnic specialties), watch the same movies and television shows, and play the same music videos and computer games. And they speak the same English language - albeit sometimes with different accents. A distinctively American culture that comprises, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, American Indians and members of other groups does exist. And there is no evidence at all that Black Americans who successfully integrate into the larger society lose their interest in Black culture or are ashamed of it. For that matter, millions of White Americans enjoy the cultural productions of Black Americans, and feel no shame in doing so.

 

Robinson Obama’s thesis was written 23 years ago, and of course the views of a 21-year-old college senior are not necessarily those of a 44-year-old professional such as Michelle Obama is today. However, there are disturbing indications that her view of the United States and Black-White relations in our country has not changed all that much in 23 years. Her remark during a campaign speech as recently as February 2008 that “… for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback,” suggests underlying negative feelings about American society that have remained unchanged since her “adult life” began. And is it a pure coincidence that this “adult life” began around 1985, when her senior thesis was written?

 

There are also indications that Barack as well as Michelle Obama have continued to adhere to the two-American-nations-and-peoples doctrine of Michelle’s thesis until quite recently, if not until the present moment. Jeremiah Wright, who was Barack Obama’s pastor for 20 years, and Michelle Obama’s for at least 15, and who married the couple in October 1992, has on numerous occasions expressed views similar to those found in the Robinson-Obama thesis. Barack Obama has praised Wright and described him as his “spiritual advisor” on numerous occasions, and even borrowed the title of his book The Audacity of Hope from one of Wright’s sermons; he only disassociated himself from Wright in May 2008, under enormous pressure from the media.

 

The Trinity United Church of Christ, of which Wright was the pastor for 37 years, has published an advertising video that describes it as a “Black church,” (implicitly discouraging Whites, Hispanics and other non-Blacks from joining), and that identifies  the “country” of its members as “Africa,” not America. Barack and Michelle Obama did not resign as members of the church, “with some sadness,” until May 31, 2008 - two months after Wright stepped down as its pastor.

 

Instead of dismissing the Princeton thesis as “old news’” while saying nothing of its contents, Michelle and Barack Obama should candidly discuss these contents with the American people, and explain just how their present views differ from those Michelle expressed in 1985. I see no reason why Barack Obama should be entrusted with the most powerful office in the United States if he and his “ears” (as her spokesperson Ms.McCormick-Lelyveld characterizes Michelle Obama) are unwilling to do so.

 

A First Lady who believes, to paraphrase Rudyard Kipling, that Black is Black and White is White, and never the twain shall meet, does not bode well for America’s future.

 

 

TIME FOR REVOLUTION:  WE CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH THESE KIND OF PEOPLE!!