COMMUNISTS KNEW IN 1992 that BARACK WOULD BE PRESIDENT

[vector7]

The First Time I Heard of Barack

by Tom Fife

During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.

V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause - a cause she obviously was not abandoning.

One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.'s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.

As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge - one her husband tried to quietly rein in.

The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:

"You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven't you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn't do it."

The general response went something along the lines that you don't vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don't vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.

"Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon."

The consensus we expressed was that we didn't think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.

"What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?"

The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, "Well, you will; and he will be a Communist."

It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, "It sounds like you know something we don't know."

"Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call "Ivy League". You don't believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That's right, a chocolate baby! And he's going to be your President."

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. "It's all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America."

We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he'd be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.

She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.

She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. "Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet."

At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn't understand what the point was and don't recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.

Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: "If I remember correctly, 'Barack' comes from the Arabic word for 'Blessing.' That seems to be an odd name for an American." She replied quickly, "Yes. It is 'African'", she insisted, "and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world."

She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way.

So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove?

Well, it's definitely anecdotal. It doesn't prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed.

Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.

Tom Fife

http://discuss.americasrevival.com/s...ead.php?t=1729

[vector7]

“Transcript of Norman Dodd Interview”

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm

1982 A.D.
with
G. Edward Griffin

Alan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me when I found it convenient to be in New York, asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did. On arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, "Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves." Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement,

Mr. Gaither then went on to say, "Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which is, that we use our grant-making power so as to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."


Warning! You are about to enter the Reality Zone -- a place were truth is stranger than fiction -- where knowledge is king -- where myths are shattered and deception exposed. It is a place where the lessons of history are found, and where true-life adventures reveal the hidden nature of man.

If you proceed, you will not be able to return to the twilight zone from which you came.

You have five seconds remaining to escape.

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5.

Welcome to the Reality Zone. I am Ed Griffin. The story we are about to hear represents a missing piece in the puzzle of modern history. We are about to hear a man tell us that the major tax-exempt foundations of America, since at least 1945, have been operating to promote a hidden agenda. That agenda has nothing to do with the surface appearance of charity, good works or philanthropy.

This man will tell you that the real objective has been to influence American educational institutions and to control foreign policy agencies of the Federal government. The purpose of the control has been to condition Americans to accept the creation of world government. That government is to be based on the principle of collectivism, which is another way of saying socialism; and, it is to be ruled from behind the scenes by those same interests which control the tax-exempt foundations.

Is this a believable scenario?

Well, the man who tells this story is none other than Mr. Norman Dodd who, in the year 1954, was the staff director of the Congressional Special Committee to investigate tax-exempt foundations -- sometimes referred to as the Reece committee, in recognition of its chairman, Congressman Carroll Reece. I conducted the interview we are about to hear, in 1982. I had no immediate use for the material at that time, but I realized that Mr. Dodd's story was of great importance.

Since he was advanced in age and not in good health, I wanted to capture his recollections on videotape while he was still with us. It was a wise decision, because Mr. Dodd did pass away just a short time afterwards.

In later years there was a resurgence of interest in Mr. Dodd's story, and we released the videotape to the public in 1991. And so, what now follows is the sound track taken from the full, unedited interview, broken occasionally only for a tape change, or to omit the sound of a passing airplane. It stands on its own as an important piece in the puzzle of modern history.


[begin interview]

Griffin: Mr. Dodd, let's begin this interview by a brief statement, for the record, telling us who you are, what your background is, and your qualifications to speak on the subject.

Dodd: Well, Mr. Griffin, as for who I am, I am just as the name implies -- an individual born in New Jersey and educated in private schools, eventually in a school called Andover, Massachusetts, and then Yale University.

And, running through my whole period of being brought up, growing up, I have been an emphaticable [sic] reader, and I have had one major interest and that was this country, as I was led to believe that it was originally founded.

I entered the world of business knowing absolutely nothing about how that world operated. And, I realized that the only way to find out what that world was, and consisted of, would be to become part of it. And I then acquired some experience in the manufacturing world, and in the world of international communications, and finally chose banking as the field I wished to devote my life to.

I was fortunate enough, to secure a position in one of the important banks in New York. I lived there. I lived through the conditions which led up to what is known as the crash of 1929. I witnessed what is tantamount to a collapse of the structure of the United States as a whole.

Much to my surprise, my superiors, in the middle of the panic in which they were immersed, confronted me. I was confronted with the question, "Norm, what do we do now?"

I was thirty at the time, and I had no more right to have an answer to that question than the man in the moon. However, I did manage to say to my superiors, "Gentlemen, you take this experience as proof of something that you do not know about banking." And you better go find out what that something is, and act accordingly.

Four days later, I was confronted by these same superiors, with a statement to the effect that, “Norm, you go find out.” And I really was fool enough to accept that assignment, because it meant that you were going out to search for something, and nobody could tell you what you were looking for. I felt so strongly on the subject that I consented to it.

I was relieved of all normal duties inside the bank and, two and a half years later, I felt that it was possible to report back to those who had given me this assignment. So, I rendered such a report and, as a result of the report I rendered, I was told the following: "Norm, what you are saying is, we should return to sound banking." And I said, “Yes, in essence, that's exactly what it is that I am saying.”

Whereupon, I got my first shock, which was a statement from them to this effect: "We will never see sound banking in the United States again." And they cited chapter and verse, to support that statement.

What they cited was as follows: since the end of WWI, we have been responsible for what they call the institutionalizing of conflicting interests. And they are so prevalent inside this country, that they can never be resolved.

This came to me as an extraordinary shock because the men who made this statement were men who were deemed as the most prominent bankers in the country. The bank of which I was a part was spoken of a Morgan bank. Coming from men of that caliber, a statement of that kind made a tremendous impression on me.

The type of impression that it made on me was this: I wondered if I, as an individual, as what they call a junior officer of the bank, could with the same enthusiasm foster the progress and the policies of the bank. I spent about a year trying to think this out, and came to the conclusion that I would have to resign.

I did resign. As a consequence of that, I had this experience. When my letter of resignation reached the desk of the president of the bank, he sent for me. I came to visit with him and he stated to me, "Norm, I have your letter, but I do not believe you understand what has happened in the last ten days." I said, “No, Mr. Cochran, I have no idea what's happened.”

“Well,” he says, "the directors have never been able to get your report to them out of their minds and, as a result, they have decided that you, as an individual, must begin at once, and you must re-organize this bank in keeping with your own ideas." He then said, "Now, can I tear up your letter?”

And inasmuch as what had been said to me, what he was offering me, at the age of (by then) thirty-three, was about as fine an opportunity for service to the country as I could imagine. I said, “Yes.” And they said they wished me to begin at once, and I did.

Suddenly, in a span of about six weeks, I was not permitted to do another piece of work. And, every time I brought the subject up, I was kind of patted on the back and told, "Stop worrying about it, Norm. Pretty soon you will be a vice-president and you will have quite a handsome salary, and ultimately be able to retire on a very worthwhile pension and, in the meantime, you can play golf and tennis to your hearts content on weekends."

Well, Mr. Griffin, I found I could not do it. I spent a year, figuratively, with my feet on the desk, doing nothing. I just couldn't adjust to it. So I did resign. This time my resignation stuck.

Then, I got my second shock, which was the discovery that the doors of every bank in the United States were closed to me and I never could get a job, as it were, in the bank. So I found myself for the first time since I graduated from college, out of a job.

From then on, I followed various branches of the financial world, ranging from investment counsel, to membership in the stock exchange. I finally ended up as an advisor to a few individuals who had capital funds to look after.

In the meantime, my major interest became very specific, which was to endeavor, by some means, to get the educational world to actually, you might say, teach the subject of economics realistically, and move it away from the support of various speculative activities that characterized our country.

I have had that interest and you know how it is, if you generate a specific interest, you find yourself gravitating toward persons with similar interests. Ultimately, I found myself kind of at the center of the world of dissatisfaction with the direction in which this country was headed. And, I found myself in contact with many individuals who, on their own, had done a vast amount of studying and research in areas which were part of the problem.

Griffin: What point in your career did you become connected with the Reece Committee?

Dodd: Nineteen hundred and fifty-three (1953).

Griffin: 1953. And what was that capacity, Sir?

Dodd: That was in the capacity of what they called “Director of Research.”

Griffin: Can you tell us what the Reece Committee was attempting to do?

Dodd: Yes, I can tell you. It was operating and carrying out instructions embodied in a Resolution passed by the House of Representatives, which was to investigate the activities of foundations as to whether or not these activities could justifiably be labeled “un-American” -- without, I might add, defining what they meant by “un-American.” That was the Resolution and the committee had, then, the task of selecting a counsel, and the counsel, in turn, had the task of selecting a staff; and, he had to have somebody who would direct the work of that staff, and that was what they meant by the “Director of Research. “

Griffin: What were some of the details, the specifics, of what you told the committee at that time?

Dodd: Well, Mr. Griffin, in that report, I specifically -- number one -- defined what was, to us, meant by the phrase “un-American.” And, we defined that, in our way, as being a determination to effect changes in the country by un-Constitutional means.

We have plenty of Constitutional procedures, assuming that we wished to effect a change in the form of government, and that sort of thing. And therefore, any effort in that direction, which did not avail itself of the procedures authorized by the Constitution, could be justifiably called “un-American.” That was the start of educating them, up to that particular point. The next thing was to educate them as to the effect on the country, as a whole, of the activities of large, endowed foundations over the then past forty years.

Griffin: What was that effect, Sir?

Dodd: That affect was to orient our educational system away from support of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and implemented in the Constitution; and to educate them over to the idea that the task now was to effect an orientation of education away from these briefly stated principles and self-evident truths.

And, that’s what had been the effect of the wealth which constituted the endowments of those foundations -– foundations that had been in existence over the largest portion of the span of fifty years -- and holding them responsible for this change. What we were able to bring forward was -- what we had uncovered was -- the determination of these large endowed foundations, through their trustees, actually to get control over the content of American education.

Griffin: There is quite a bit of publicity given to your conversation with Rowan Gaither. Will you please tell us who he was, and what was that conversation you had with him?

Dodd: Rowan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me, when I found it convenient to be in New York. He asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did.

Upon arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, "Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today, because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves."

And, before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on, and voluntarily stated, "Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience either with the OSS during the war, or with European economic administration after the war. We have had experience operating under directives. The directives emanate, and did emanate, from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?"

I said, “Yes, Mr. Gaither, I would like very much to know.” Whereupon, he made this statement to me, "Mr. Dodd, we are here to operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States, that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."

Well, parenthetically, Mr. Griffin, I nearly fell off the chair. I, of course, didn't, but my response to Mr. Gaither then was, “Oh, Mr. Gaither, I can now answer your first question. You've forced the Congress of the United States to spend a hundred and fifty thousand dollars to find our what you have just told me.” I said, “Of course, legally, you're entitled to make grants for this purpose. But, I don't think you're entitled to withhold that information from the People of this country, to whom you're indebted for your tax exemption. So why don't you tell the People of the country just what you told me?” And his answer was, “We would not think of doing any such thing." So, then I said, “Well, Mr. Gaither, obviously, you forced the Congress to spend this money, in order to find out what you just told me.”

Griffin: Mr. Dodd, you have spoken, before, about some interesting things that were discovered by Kathryn Casey at the Carnegie Endowment. Would you tell us that story, please?

Dodd: Sure, glad to, Mr. Griffin. This experience you just referred to, came about in response to a letter which I had written to the Carnegie Endowment Center, National Peace, asking certain questions and gathering certain information.

On the arrival of that letter, Dr. Johnson, who was then President of the Carnegie Endowment, telephoned me and said, "Did you ever come up to New York?" I said, “Yes, I did, more or less each weekend.” And he said, "When you are next here, will you drop in and see us?” Which I did.

And again, on arrival, at the office of the Endowment, I found myself in the presence of Dr. Joseph Johnson, the President, who was the successor to Alger Hess, two vice-presidents and their own counsel, a partner in the firm -- a fellow by the name of Cromwell. And Dr. Johnson said (again after amenities), "Mr. Dodd, we have your letter. We can answer all those questions, but it would be a great deal of trouble. We have a counter-suggestion. Our counter-suggestion is that, if you can spare a member of your staff for two weeks, and send that member up to New York, we will give to that member a room in the library, and the minute books of this Foundation since its inception. And we think that, whatever you want to find out or that the Congress wants to find out, will be obvious from those minutes."

Well, my first reaction was they had lost their minds. I had a pretty good idea of what those minutes would contain, but I realized that Dr. Johnson had only been in office two years, and the vice-presidents were relatively young men, and counsel also seemed to be a young man. I guessed that, probably, they had never read the minutes themselves.

And so, I said that I had somebody and I would accept their offer. I went back to Washington, and I selected the member of my staff who had been a practicing attorney in Washington. She was on my staff to ensure I did not break any Congressional procedures or rules. In addition to that, she was unsympathetic to the purpose of the investigation. She was a level-headed and very reasonably brilliant, capable lady, and her attitude toward the investigation was this: “What could possibly be wrong with foundations? They do so much good.”

[Start of side 2]

Well, in the face of that sincere conviction of Kathryn's, I went out of my way not to prejudice her in any way, but I did explain to her that she couldn't possibly cover fifty years of handwritten minutes in two weeks. So, she would have to do what we call “spot reading.” I blocked out certain periods of time to concentrate on. Off she went -- to New York. She came back at the end of two weeks, with the following recorded on dictaphone belts.

We are now at the year nineteen hundred and eight, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?

Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the People of this country, than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. And finally, they answer that question as follows: we must control the State Department.

And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective. Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly. And finally, of course, the war is over.

At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out. At that point, they come to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, we must control education in the United States. And they realize that is a pretty big task. To them it is too big for them alone.

So they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with a suggestion: that portion of education which could be considered domestic should be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation, and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment.

They then decide that the key to the success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American History. So, they approach four of the then most prominent teachers of American History in the country -- people like Charles and Mary Byrd. Their suggestion to them is this, “Will they alter the manner in which they present their subject”” And, they get turned down, flatly.

So, they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, i.e. “build our own stable of historians." Then, they approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say” “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American History, and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so? And the answer is, “Yes.”

So, under that condition, eventually they assemble twenty (20), and they take these twenty potential teachers of American History to London. There, they are briefed in what is expected of them -- when, as, and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned.

That group of twenty historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association. And then, toward the end of the 1920's, the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for a study of our history in a manner which points to what this country look forward to, in the future.

That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence, a summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the last volume is this: the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency.

That is the story that ultimately grew out of, and of course, was what could have been presented by the members of, this Congressional Committee, and the Congress as a whole, for just exactly what it said. But, they never got to that point!

Griffin: This is the story that emerged from the minutes at the Carnegie Foundation?

Dodd: That's right.

Griffin: And so?

Dodd: It was official to that extent.

Griffin: And Kathryn Casey brought all of these back, in the form of dictated notes, or verbatim readings, of the minutes?

Dodd: On dictaphone belts.

Griffin: Are those in existence today?

Dodd: I don't know. If they are, they're somewhere in the archives, under the control of the Congress, the House of Representatives.

Griffin: How many people actually heard those? Or, were they typed up, transcripts made?

Dodd: No.

Griffin: How many people actually heard those recordings?

Dodd: Three maybe. Myself, my top assistant, and Kathryn. Yeah, I might tell you this experience, as far as its impact on Kathryn Casey is concerned. Well, she was never able to return to her law practice. If it hadn't been for Carroll Reece's ability to tuck her away in a job with the Federal Trade Commission, I don't know what would have happened to Kathryn. Ultimately, she lost her mind as a result of it. It was a terrible shock to her. It is a very rough experience for her to encounter proof of this kind.

Griffin: Mr. Dodd, can you summarize the opposition to the Committee, the Reece Committee, and particularly the efforts to sabotage the Committee?

Dodd: Well, it began right at the start of the week of the operating staff, Mr. Griffin. It began on the day on which the Committee met for the purpose of consenting to, or confirming, my appointment to the position of Director of Research. Thanks to the abstention by the minority members of the Committee from voting, that is, the two Democratic members – that is why, technically, I was unanimously appointed.

Griffin: Wasn't the White House involved in opposition?

Dodd: Not at this particular point, Sir. Mr. Reece ordered Counsel and myself to visit Wayne Hayes. Wayne Hayes was the ranking minority member of the Committee, as a Democrat. So, we -- Kathryn and I -- had to go down to Mr. Hayes’ office, which we did. Mr. Hayes greeted us with the flat statement, directed primarily to me, “I am opposed to this investigation. I regard it as nothing but an effort on the part of Carroll Reece to gain a little prominence. So, I'll do everything I can to see that it fails.” Well, I have a strange personality, in the sense that a challenge of that nature interests me.

Our Counsel withdrew. He went over and sat on the couch in Mr. Reece's office, and pouted. I, sort of, took up this statement by Mr. Hayes as a challenge, and set myself a goal of winning him over to our point of view.

I started by noticing that, on his desk, there was a book. The book was of the type – and there were many in those days -- that would be complaining about the spread of communism, and Hungary. That type of book.

This meant to me that, at least Hayes had read the book. So, I brought up the subject of the spread of the influence of the Soviet World. For two hours, I discussed this with Hayes and, finally, he ended up by rising from his desk and saying, "Norm, if you will carry this investigation toward the goal that you have outlined to me, I will be your biggest supporter."

I said, “Mr. Hayes, I can assure you. I will not double-cross you. Subsequently, Mr. Hayes sent word to me that he was in Bethesda Naval Hospital, with an attack of ulcers. He asked if would I come and see him. Which I did. He then said, "Norm, the only reason I've asked you to come out here is that I just want to hear you say, again you will not double-cross me." I gave him that assurance, and that was the basis of our relationship.

Meanwhile, Counsel took the attitude expressed in these words, “Norm, if you want to waste your time with 'this guy' (as he called him), then you can go ahead and do it, but don't ever ask me to say anything to him, under any conditions, on any subject.”

So, in a sense, that created a deck for me to operate in relation to Hayes, on my own.

As time passed, Hayes offered friendship, which I hesitated to accept because of his vulgarity. I didn't want to get mixed up with him socially, under any conditions.

Well, that was our relationship for about three months. Eventually, I had occasion to add to my staff. As a result of adding to my staff a top-flight intelligence officer, both the Republican National Committee and the White House resorted to stopping me from continuing this investigation in the direction Carroll Reece had personally asked me to go.

Mr. Griffin, that direction was to utilize this investigation to uncover the fact that this country had been the victim of a conspiracy. That was Mr. Reece's conviction. I eventually agreed to carry out that direction.

I explained to Mr. Reece that his own Counsel wouldn't go in that direction. He gave me permission to disregard our own Counsel and to set up an aspect of the investigation outside of our office -- more or less secretly. The Republican National Committee got wind of what I was doing, and they did everything they could to stop me. They appealed to Counsel to stop me. Finally, they resorted to the White House.

Griffin: Was their objection because of what you were doing, or because of the fact that you were doing it outside of the official auspices of the Committee?

Dodd: No. The objection was, as they put it, my devotion to what they called "anti-Semitism." That was a cooked-up idea. In other words, it wasn't true at all. But, any way, that's the way they expressed it.

Griffin: Excuse me. Why?

Dodd: Then they made it stick.

Griffin: Why did they do that? How could they say that?

Dodd: Well, they could say it, Mr. Griffin. But, they had to have something in the way of a rationalization of their decision to do everything they could to stop completion of this investigation, given the direction that it was moving. That direction would have been exposure of this Carnegie Endowment story, and the Ford Foundation, and the Guggenheim, and the Rockefeller Foundation -- all working in harmony toward the control of education in the United States.

Well, to secure the help of the White House in the picture, they got the White House to cause the liaison between the White and the Hill -- a major person -- to go up to Hayes and try to get him, as it were, actively to oppose what the investigation was engaged in.

Hayes, then, very kindly, would listen to this visit from this major person. Then he would call me and say, “Norm, come up to my office. I have a good deal to tell you.”

I would go up. He would tell me he just had a visit from this major person, and he wants me to break up this investigation. So then I said, “Wayne, what did you do? What did you say to him?” He said, “I just told him to get the hell out.” And he did that three times. I got pretty proud of him, in the sense that he was, as it were, backing me up. We finally embarked upon hearings at Hayes’ request. Hayes wanted to get them out of the way, before he went abroad in the summer.

Griffin: Why were the hearings finally terminated? What happened to the Committee?

Dodd: What happened to the Committee, or to the hearings?

Griffin: The hearings.

Dodd: The hearings were terminated. Carroll Reece was up against such a furor in Hayes, through the activity of our own Counsel. Hayes became convinced that he was being double-crossed; and he put on a show in the public hearing room, Mr. Griffin, that was an absolute disgrace. He called Carroll Reece publicly every name in the book.

Mr. Reece took this as proof that he couldn't continue the hearings. He actually invited me to accompany him when he went down to Hayes’ office and, in my presence, with the tears rolling down his face, Hayes apologized to Carroll Reece for all he'd done, and his conduct. He apologized to me. I thought that would be enough, and Carroll would resume. He never did.

Griffin: This charge of anti-Semitism is kind of intriguing to me. What was the basis of that charge? Was there any basis for it at all?

Dodd: The basis used by the Republican National Committee was that the intelligence officer I had taken on my staff -- when I oriented this investigation to the exposure of, and proof of, a conspiracy -- was known to have a book, and that book was deemed to be anti-Semitic. It was childish, but it's what the second-in-command at the Republican National Committee said, and he told me I'd have to dismiss this person from my staff.

Griffin: Who was that person?

Dodd: A Colonel Lee Loraine.

Griffin: Lee Loraine. And what was his book? Do you recall?

Dodd: The book they referred to was called Waters Flowing Eastward. It was a very strong castigation of the Jewish influence in the world.

Griffin: What were some of the other charges made by Mr. Hayes, against Mr. Reece?

Dodd: Just that Mr. Reece was utilizing this investigation for his own prominence inside the House of Representatives. That was the only charge Hayes could think up.

Griffin: How would you describe the motivation of the people who created the foundations -- the big foundations -- in the very beginning? What was their motivation?

Dodd: Their motivation was, well, let's take Mr. Carnegie, as an example. His publicly declared and steadfast interest was to counteract the departure of the colonies from Great Britain. He was devoted just to putting the pieces back together again.

Griffin: Would that have required the collectivism to which they were dedicated?

Dodd: No. No. No. These policies are the foundations' allegiance to these un-American concepts; these policies are all traceable to the transfer of the funds over into the hands of Trustees, Mr. Griffin. Those Trustees were not the men who had a hand in the creation of the wealth that led to the endowment, or the use of that wealth for what we would call public purposes.

Griffin: It was a subversion of the original intent, then?

Dodd: Oh, yes! Completely so. We got into the worlds, traditionally, of bankers and lawyers.

Griffin: How have the purpose and direction of the major foundations changed, over the years, up to the present? What are their purposes and directions today?

Dodd: 100% behind meeting the cost of education, such as it is presented through the schools and colleges of this United States, on the subject of our history -– to prove that our original ideas are no longer practical. The future belongs to collectivistic concepts. There is just no disagreement on this.

Griffin: Why do the foundations generously support communist causes in the United States?

Dodd: Well, because, to them, communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly -- as the organization, we'll say, of large-scale industry into an administrable unit.

Griffin: Do they think that they will?

Dodd: They will be the beneficiary of it, yes.

[end interview]


Video of the Interview at Google Here;
Illuminati: The Hidden Agenda for World Government

[vector7]

Here's one:

Even an MP3, right click and save:

[samizdat]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/02/11/porter_fife/
By Alex Koppelman
Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2009 10:15 EST
Breaking news: Barack Obama, Soviet mole


Janet Porter's latest column for the conservative/conspiracist Web site World Net Daily is just too good not to share. Porter, who was the c0-chair of Mike Huckabee's Faith and Values Coalition during his run for the presidency, writes:

Brace yourself for what I'm about to say next. Last fall, prior to the presidential election, a friend of mine... sent me an e-mail on which I didn't report. It just seemed too extreme. It was from a software developer he met named Tom Fife who told of how he first heard of the name "Barack."
I can't prove whether it's true or not, but in light of all that is happening, it just doesn't seem that far-fetched anymore. All I know is that Tom Fife is a real guy – not some e-mail scam. I've talked to him.

Re: The Russians knew about Obama in the 1990s???
Reply #13 - Feb 28^th, 2009, 5:48pm

Sorry for raising this thread from the dead, however, when I read the original essay I forwarded it on to some friends, a few of which were in the military and others that had connections to the military. Anyway, I got this response from one of them today. (Note, the 'Jim' mentioned is a retired Colonel)

Make of it what you will, because I'm just posting what I got (As an interesting sidenote, the original essay appears to have been pulled down):


Confirmation of Obama-Russia story

Dear friends:

The below message is from a friend and concerns the story about the Russian lady in 1992 and her knowledge of Obama being groomed as a communist President of the U.S., as told by a man named Tom Fife. Good detective work.
__________________________________________________ _________


>Jim,

I have been guilty too many times of forwarding emails that are later proven to be rumors or just blatantly false info, so before forwarding the story about BHO by Tom Fife, I decided to try and prove if it was true or false.

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate this Tom Fife. I located only six different Tom Fife's across the US and spoke to 4 of the 6, all >of whom were not THE Tom Fife. The fifth was way too old and I could never reach the sixth one in Idaho. But I DID spend 27 minutes speaking with Dr. Wiley Drake, who sent the original email to Janet Porter.

Dr. Drake is a delightful man, and absolutely knows THE Tom Fife, and can vouch for the truth of this email. He met face-to-face with Tom Fife, who had been a listener to Dr. Drake's internet radio program, and wanted to share his story. Dr. Drake had been the vice-presidential candidate on the ticket with Alan Keyes, and as they were trying to learn as much as possible about the little-known Barack Obama, Tom Fife decided to tell Dr. Drake what he knew.

Dr. Drake told me the story is true, that Tom Fife was in Russia in the early 1990s and when he first learned the info about this "Barack", that he wrote it all down back then to have a record of it. Some have wondered why the Russian communist woman who revealed all this would have done so, but because there were many toasts throughout the evening, accompanied by some cold Russian vodka, perhaps her tongue was loosened a bit.

This news is chilling, but because we know that God is sovereign, He has a reason for everything that He allows. If it is for judgement, so be it. If it is to wake up the sleepers, so be it. I, for one, am not fearful, because I KNOW that the Sovereign God of the Universe is in control. Learning what the truth is enables us as believers to be able to pray specifically. Thanks for sharing this info with us.

You may use this info in a follow-up article if you like, but you may want to omit my name...

http://www.conservativesforum.com/cgi-bin/conservatives-forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234275106/13

[samizdat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley_S._Drake

[vector7]

Here is a more recent interview with Tom Fife.

Tom Fife and Anne Leary Interviews

Friday, November 20, 2009 6:50 PM

Jeff Nyquist interviews American physicist and business man Tom Fife about his experiences in Moscow during the 1990s, and Jeff interviews Anne Leary of Backyardconservativeblogspot.com about her encounter with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.

FifeLeary_Int-1.mp3 (MP3 Audio, 10.3 MB)

[Beetle]

ummm, what does this say about Obozo's BC?

If this is true, I guess this means he was born here then.

[zenbudda]

you know it's weird. my grandparents and great grandparents on my dad's side had a huge anti-bank sentiment. they were all farmers as well (immigrant farmers from germany). so far, everything i've ever researched about the history of the US seems to indicate that "something"" did happen with banking that not only affected the USA but also the world. i am still open to the idea that this "something" could be a positive thing, but at the moment, all my understanding is negative in nature.

i'm curious. is the norman dodd interview a piece of fiction? are any of his statements verifyable?

just finished reading it. tried listening to the video but the guy speaks too slow. very intriguing story. i'm still back to how much of this is verifiable?

[vector7]

ummm, what does this say about Obozo's BC?

If this is true, I guess this means he was born here then.

KGB activities and their agent identities are carefully guarded secrets. They have penetrated much of our institutions to command and control their plans for America. Just watch the socialists on our main stream media spinning Socialists policies coming out of Washington for decades.

It's no secret Russia has infiltrated this country and have been actively recruiting and grooming many of our youths on campuses across America. There is a lot of obscurity about 0's past his handlers are keeping sealed from the public's view.

Notice they name 3 major areas of influence with the US; New York, Chicago and San Francisco as hubs of influence.

[samizdat]

Jeff Nyquist interviews American physicist and business man Tom Fife about his experiences in Moscow during the 1990s, and Jeff interviews Anne Leary of

Backyardconservativeblogspot.com

Bill ayers wrote dreams of my father?... for Michelle?

Backyardconservativeblogspot.com

about her encounter with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.

FifeLeary_Int-1.mp3 (MP3 Audio, 10.3 MB)


http://www.americantownmeeting.com/

[vector7]

FBI destroyed file on Obama's grandfather

Dunham befriended communist Frank Marshall Davis, mentor of future president

Posted: April 12, 2010
4:51 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Frank Marshall Davis
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the FBI has formally acknowledged a file existed on President Barack Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, that was destroyed May 1, 1997.

The FBI previously released some 600 pages of the FBI file of Frank Marshall Davis, the Chicago-based journalist and poet who as a member of the Communist Party USA retired in Hawaii and befriended Dunham.

Obama frequently sought advice from Davis during the future president's elementary and high school years.

Until the FBI's response to the FOIA request, there was no public disclosure of the existence of a file on Obama's grandfather.

The file raises the question whether the FBI considered Dunham to be a national security risk, possibly because of his association with Davis.

WND previously reported Davis, frequently accompanied by young Obama and his grandfather, sold marijuana and cocaine from a Chicago-style hot dog cart Davis operated near his home on Kuhio Avenue in Waikiki in the early 1970s.

Cliff Kincaid, president of American Survival, filed the FOIA request, only to be informed by David M. Hardy, FBI section chief for record/information dissemination in the records management division, that no information was available on Dunham's file because it had been destroyed. Kincaid is also editor of Accuracy in Media's AIM Report.

WND contacted the FBI but received no response to a request for comment on this story.

Grandpa introduced Obama to Davis

London Telegraph Washington correspondent Toby Harnden reported in an Aug. 22, 2008, article that Dunham first introduced Obama to Davis when Obama was only 10 years old.

As WND previously reported, the Obama 2008 campaign admitted in a published response to the New York Times No. 1 best-selling book "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" that Davis was the "Frank" that Obama mentioned in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father."

The 2008 Obama campaign's published reply to "The Obama Nation," titled "Unfit for Publication," objected that Davis was not a "mentor" to the future president, arguing "Dreams from My Father" characterized Davis "as a figure from his youth who 'fell short' and whose view of race was 'incurable.'"

However, in "Dreams from My Father," Obama himself tells readers he was listening to Davis' advice right up until the time Obama left Hawaii to attend college in California.

Davis told Obama college was "an advanced degree in compromise," insisting that if he went to college, he would be "trained" into a white middle class world of "corner offices" and "fancy dinners."

"Until you want to actually start running things, and then [white people will] yank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid n-gger, but you're a n-gger just the same," Obama reports Davis saying regarding whether or not to attend college.

Obama said Davis ultimately relented, agreeing Obama should attend but advising him to "keep your eyes open" and to "stay awake."

Obama consulted Davis after the shock over learning his grandmother had been frightened not because a panhandler approached her, but because the panhandler was black.

Obama, on page 91 of "Dreams," shares with readers some of Davis' wisdom.

"She understands that black people have a reason to hate," Obama quotes Davis as saying. "For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it's not. So you might as well get used to it."

Communist ties

The 600-page FBI file on Davis documents his membership in the Hawaiian Communist Party dating back to the early 1950s.

On Dec. 5, 1956, Davis appeared in executive session before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee investigating "the scope of Soviet activity in the United States," one of the McCarthy-era committees seeking to expose communists considered to be a security threat.

Invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, Davis refused to answer a direct question asking if he was then a communist. A year earlier, in 1955, a Commission on Subversive Activities organized by the government of the Territory of Hawaii identified Davis as a member of the Communist Party USA.

The committee singled out several articles Davis published in the Communist Honolulu Record that were critical of the commission.

The commission also found objectionable a 1951 story Davis published, "Hawaii's Plain People Fight White Supremacy," in the November 1951 issue of a New York City communist tabloid.

[vector7]

FBI Destroyed File on Obama’s Grandfather, Journalist Discloses

FBI says the file was destroyed in 1997

The FBI destroyed a file on Barack Obama’s grandfather, the man who selected Communist Frank Marshall Davis to be the future president’s mentor during his growing-up years in Hawaii.

“The FBI confirms that a file was maintained on Obama’s grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham,” states Cliff Kincaid, the journalist who runs the public policy group, America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI). “This is a troubling development in the effort to understand the Marxism that drives Obama’s policies as president today.”

In correspondence with Kincaid, available at usasurvival.org, the FBI says the file was destroyed in 1997. The FBI made the admission after Kincaid complied with a request to verify the identity of Dunham and the fact that he was deceased.

Dubbed “Gramps” by Obama, Dunham has been depicted in news reports as a patriot who served in the U.S. Army in World War II. But he had a close relationship with Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, who reportedly drank and smoke pot with Dunham.

Davis was not only a communist but a pornographer who wrote a semi-biographical novel about having sex with a 13-year-old girl. He mentored Obama for as many as nine years of his young life in Hawaii.

Dunham, who was white, had picked Davis as a mentor for Obama because he thought the youngster, whose father had abandoned the family, needed a black role model. Davis, who was black, fit the bill. “It was a terrible decision,” Kincaid commented. “He turned over the young Obama to a communist sex pervert for moral guidance.”

While the exact nature of the Dunham file will be a topic for speculation, Kincaid said that is likely that some of the information was related to Dunham’s relationship with Davis. Kincaid’s ASI had previously obtained the 600-page FBI file on Davis and posted it at usasurvival.org It shows that Davis was a key high-level operative in a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii.

Obama had referred to Davis in his memoir as merely “Frank,” a poet filled with knowledge and advice. The real identity as that of Frank Marshall Davis was disclosed by a writer for a CPUSA publication, who said it would prove to be historically significant, and then publicized by anti-communist New Zealand blogger Trevor Loudon. Kincaid confirmed the identity of “Frank” with a source in Hawaii and then obtained and posted the Davis FBI file.

However, most media, anxious to see Obama elected president, preferred to identify Davis as a “civil rights activist” and ignore his communist affiliations.

---

Communist Party support in Obama's 2004 Senate race

The Communist Party USA was supportive of several candidates in the 2004 election cycle including Frank Barbaro, Cynthia McKinney, Barack Obama, Betty Castor, Nancy Farmer and Inez Tenenbaum[4];

It would be helpful for each district to single out House seats that can be swung from Republican to Democrat to develop our list of key races, which includes progressive Frank Barbaro in New York and Cynthia McKinney in Georgia.

A number of exciting candidates are emerging in the Senate, in the first place Barak Obama in Illinois, and also several progressive women including Betty Castor seeking to retain retiring Bob Graham's seat as Democrat; Nancy Farmer seeking to defeat Kit Bond in Missouri; Inez Tenenbaum seeking to retain retiring Fritz Hollings seat as Democrat.

The Communist Party USA actively campaigned for Obama during his successful 2004 Illinois Senate race[5].

Activists from Illinois were immersed in the campaign to elect Barak Obama to the U.S. Senate. Obama won a landslide victory in the March 16 Democratic primary. If Obama wins in November, he would be only the third African American senator since Reconstruction.

“This was a historic victory. It was a victory for political independence and grassroots, coalition, and issue oriented politics over the machine and money,” said John Bachtell, Illinois CP district organizer.

From a November 21 2004 report to the Communist Party USA National Committee - "The Communist Party USA and the 2004 Elections: Build the Party, Build the Coalitions".[6]

MO: State Rep. During the campaign to elect a worker as State Representative: A new club in St. Louis, with another in formation. A new YCL club and another by the end of the year. A total of 19 new members in the YCL and Party. An increase from 2 to 12 bundles of PWW/NM a week. MI: A new club in Saginaw emerged from a national/district team that helped on a local campaign which elected a township trustee. A new club in the Upper Peninsula formed after a visit by Sam. New clubs in Lansing and Ann Arbor will be formed by the end of the year. ILL: 27 new members and an increase in PWW/NM bundles to 2500 a week. This in the process of participating in the movement from Illinois to Wisconsin to put that state over the top for Kerry, participating in the historic election of Barak Obama to the US Senate, and the successful campaign of Melissa Bean, defeating incumbent Republican Congressman Philip Crane.

In an October 23 2007 report to a Chicago Special District Meeting on African American Equality, Communist Party USA National Board member John Bachtell wrote:[7]

The historic election of {Harold} Washington was the culmination of many years of struggle. It reflected a high degree of unity of the African American community and the alliance with a section of labor, the Latino community and progressive minded whites. This legacy of political independence also endures...

This was also reflected in the historic election of Barack Obama. Our Party actively supported Obama during the primary election. Once again Obama’s campaign reflected the electoral voting unity of the African American community, but also the alliances built with several key trade unions, and forces in the Latino and white communities.

It also reflected a breakthrough among white voters. In the primary, Obama won 35% of the white vote and 7 north side wards, in a crowded field. During the general election he won every ward in the city and all the collar counties. This appeal has continued in his presidential run.

Young Communist League backing
According to a November 20 2004, election report[8] from Young Communist League USA national coordinator Jessica Marshall confirms Young Communist League USA support for Obama's campaign through Youth for Obama.

In New York YCLers were delegates and founders of the local organizing committees of the National Hip Hop Political Convention. In Providence, Miami and Chicago YCLers helped head up the League of Pissed Off Voters efforts. YCLers staffed Democratic Party operations and headed up precincts in Ohio and Florida. A YCLer from Virginia was a canvas director for a progressive young candidate in a tight race in Ohio. In Miami, the newly formed club helped ACT organizing efforts at Miami Dade Community College.

In Chicago YCL members were very active in the Youth for Obama efforts and one member worked with the United States Student Association and his student government to register over 1,000 new voters.

From a 2006 Young Communist League USA report by Jessica Marshall.[9]

Young people are up to the challenge. In 2004 youth-run organizations helped to organize and register 4.6 million new young people to get out and vote… the majority of them voted against Bush and more than half were young people of color. The YCL was there and present for those experiences - we learned alongside them through our Midwest Project.

The YCL has to be at the table this fall too. Every club and every member needs to be out there and involved. And we need to bring everyone we work with out too! This is a national campaign to change the Congress and we are gonna be a part of that!


We don’t have to be millions to have an impact! Just think about what a small group of YCLers have done in less than four years since our last convention!

We organized dozens of young people to head to the battleground states in 2004


In Ohio our YCLers were asked to lead up get out the vote teams because of our experience and hard work.
In Cincinatti we helped defeat an anti-gay ballot initiative.
In New York we worked on a campaign to elect Frank Barbaro defeat a Bush Republican and elect a real progressive
In Chicago we helped to form a youth vote operation to elect Barak Obama.
In St. Louis we were instrumental in electing John L. Bowman a progressive state representative. Bowman publicly acknowledged the key role the YCL and Communist Party played in his election.

"Revolutionary mole" letter
Frank Chapman is a long time Communist Party USA supporter. In the early 1980s he chaired a party front National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression. In the mid '80s he served on the board of another communist front, the U.S. Peace Council, alongside two future Obama colleagues and supporters Alice Palmer and Barbara Lee.
Just after Obama won the pivotal Iowa primary Chapman wrote a letter to the January 12, 2008 edition of the CPUSA's Peoples Weekly World;[10]

Now, beyond all the optimism I was capable of mustering, Mr. Obama won Iowa! He won in a political arena 95 percent white. It was a resounding defeat for the manipulations of the ultra-right and their right-liberal fellow travelers. Also it was a hard lesson for liberals who underestimated the political fury of the masses in these troubled times.

Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary “mole,” not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.

The old pattern of politics as usual has been broken. It may not have happened as we expected it to happen but what matters is that it happened. The message is clear: we can and must defeat the ultra-right, by uniting the broadest possible coalition that will represent an overwhelming majority of the people in a new political dynamic. We must quickly shed yesterday’s political perspective and get in step with the march of events.

Message of support to a Communist Party "front"
In March 2008, Barack Obama sent a message of support to the Communist Party USA controlled Cesar E. Chavez National Holiday organization.
April 1, 2008 Washington DC--Evelina Alarcon, Executive Director of Cesar E. Chavez National Holiday welcomed the backing for a Cesar Chavez national holiday from Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama who issued a statement on Cesar Chavez’s birthday Monday, March 31, 2008. “We at Cesar E. Chavez National Holiday appreciate the backing of a national holiday for Cesar Chavez from presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. That support is crucial because it takes the signature of a President to establish the holiday along with the Congress’s approval,” stated Evelina Alarcon. “It is also encouraging that Senator Hillary Clinton who is a great admirer of Cesar Chavez acknowledged him on his birthday. We hope that she too will soon state her support for a Cesar Chavez national holiday.”

Alarcon’s remarks were part of a statement made at a press conference at our nation’s Capitol on April 1st called by Chair of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) in support of HR 76, a resolution he authored with 62 Co-Sponsors that encourages the establishment of a Cesar Chavez national holiday by the Congress[11].
Barack Obama’s statement for a Cesar Chavez national holiday:

"Chavez left a legacy as an educator, environmentalist, and a civil rights leader. And his cause lives on. As farmworkers and laborers across America continue to struggle for fair treatment and fair wages, we find strength in what Cesar Chavez accomplished so many years ago. And we should honor him for what he's taught us about making America a stronger, more just, and more prosperous nation. That's why I support the call to make Cesar Chavez's birthday a national holiday. It's time to recognize the contributions of this American icon to the ongoing efforts to perfect our union."

Senator Barack Obama March 31, 2008.

Obama's sister given communist "front" award
standing Evelina Alarcon left, Maya Soetoro-Ng, right
standing Evelina Alarcon left, Maya Soetoro-Ng, right
In June 2008, Communist Party USA leader and Executive Director of Cesar E. Chavez National Holiday, Evelina Alarcon presented an award from the organization to Barack Obama's younger sister Maya Soetoro-Ng at a gathering in East Los Angeles[12].

Addressing a largely Latino audience in East Los Angeles yesterday, Dr. Maya Soetoro-Ng shared stories about her childhood with her older brother, Barack Obama, and the effect he has had on her life. Held in El Sereno’s Hecho en Mexico restaurant, the event drew more than a hundred enthusiastic community activists, local elected officials, and regular citizens...

Evelina Alarcon, a notable Obama supporter and the sister of long-time Los Angeles politician Richard Alarcon, presented a poster to Obama’s sister commemorating the life of Cesar Chavez.

Alarcon recounted the accomplishments of the late Chicano leader and argued persuasively for honoring his accomplishments with a national holiday. Reminding those in attendance that Barack Obama supports the call to make Cesar Chavez’s birthday a national holiday. Alarcon trusts that if Obama is elected president the holiday will become a reality.

Obama has been quoted recently to say:“As farmworkers and laborers across America continue to struggle for fair treatment and fair wages, we find strength in what Cesar Chavez accomplished so many years ago and we should honor him for what he’s taught us about making America a stronger, more just, and more prosperous nation. That’s why I support the call to make Cesar Chavez’s birthday a national holiday. It’s time to recognize the contributions of this American icon to the ongoing efforts to perfect our union.”

Communist support in '08
The Communist Party USA and the Young Communist League USA, put in a huge effort to elect Barack Obama in 2008.
Individual party members who actively propagandized for Obama, or worked on the ground to get him elected include;

Terrie Albano
Jim Baldridge
Margaret Baldridge
Docia Buffington
Gary Dotterman
Gabe Falsetta
Joelle Fishman
Mark Froemke
Lee Gloster
Norman Markowitz
Scott Marshall
Esther Moroze
Rosalio Munoz
Rick Nagin
Libero Della Piana
Roger Rader
Erica Smiley
Betty Smith
Adam Tenney
Jarvis Tyner
Joel Wendland
Joyce Wheeler
Tim Wheeler
Sam Webb
Rev. Pierre L. Williams

Communists alter history to protect Obama
Screenshot of article as it appeared as at Dec. 30, 2007
Screenshot of article as it appeared as at Dec. 30, 2007
Screenshot of the article as it appeared as at Nov. 10, 2010
Screenshot of the article as it appeared as at Nov. 10, 2010
To the left is a screen shot an article entitled "Special District Meeting on African American Equality", taken as it appeared on the Communist Party USA website as at December 30, 2007. Note the reference to Communist Party support for Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate primaries.[13]
To the right is a screen shot of the same article taken on Nov. 10, 2010. Note that the statement, "Our Party actively supported Obama during the primary election" has been edited out.[14]

[vector7]

I have been sitting on this puzzle piece for awhile.

I'm going out on a limb here but this information is going in a thread in the Skeptics Corner.

I did not post every corroborating thing I could think of as it would be too much for one post.

The information just scratches the surface but highlights some of the more obvious troubling characteristics with this administration.

The Left Wing faction of this current administration is not just limited to one person but is a much larger machine that encompasses much of the Democratic Party and possibly some hidden progressives elsewhere.

I’ve been reluctant to share this because it is very outrageous and speculative to be considered a fact but in light of the following below it has me beginning to reconsider my opinion.

1. President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons.

2. The Obama Administration gives both Russia and China access to our nuclear sites.

3. Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms.

4. The Obama administration Declares Size of Nuclear Arsenal and Stops Counting New Missiles In Russia.

5. Obama and Gates on a path to Gut the Military.

6. The Obama Administration Obama Betrays Poland On 70th Anniversary Of Soviet Invasion.

7. Pro West Polish Government Leadership All Killed in Crash and not a question raised out of the Obama Administration.

8. One Month before the Gulf Oil Crisis Obama Surrenders Gulf Oil to Moscow.

9. Obama Administration Imposes Seven-year Drilling Moratorium.

10. Obama surrenders Oil off US coastline and Texas to Russia

11. Obama shuts down NASA, transfers technology to Russia while redirecting their focus to make Muslims 'feel good'.

12. Obama allows Russia to take over Uranium Mines in Wyoming - 50% of US production.

13. Obama opens the door for Russia to join NATO.

14. Obama says U.S. will support Russia's WTO bid.

15. Obama allows Russian Varyag aircraft carrier killers to arrive in San Fransisco for it's sailors to get acquainted with the City.

16. Obama upens up Silicon Valley to Russia.

17. Obama Extends Russian Access to join NORAD Drill.


There is no mystery this administration considers Conservatives a threat.


This Administration has been carefully documenting who is in their sights for over a year. They have a huge Left wing socialist media doing the polling and cheer leading to help demonize and curb public opinion.

This administration has shown:

1. To be sympathetic to Radical Muslims possibly trained by KGB forces.

2. Top Obama aide invites head of terrorist-linked org to join administration task force.

3. Obama Bans Terms "Islam" and "Jihad" From National Security Strategy Document.

4. Attorney general to classify Pro-life, Pro-gun Americans as terrorists.

5. Any who speak out find themselves on The Growing List Allegedly Committing Sedition Against U.S. Government.

6. Demonetization of all Constitutionalists and the Tea Party Movement including Oath Keepers.


Some have said that Bill Ayers is more than just an acquaintance of Obama and has been in contact with him while in the White House and has been rumored to closer ties. Bill Ayers claims to have ghost wrote Obama’s book Dreams of My Father.

Larry Grathwohl an FBI undercover agent exposed what Bill Ayers and the Weathermen Underground intended to do after overthrowing government as we know it and allow both Russia, China and their allies to occupy parts of the United States. Their looming concern was how to deal with the Americans who refuse to embrace their version of government. Here is the audio clip outlining this.

Former under cover FBI agent Larry Grathwohl on Radical Marxist 'Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground's plan to divide and conquer America

In addition they also believe that their immediate focus would be to put down segments of the counter revolution, some segments of the population would need to be incarcerated and put in to re-education programs.


Which leads me to the puzzle piece I have been reluctant to share.

JRN found a recent article by a Russian General that stated "Moscow must be prepared to support President Obama in making certain changes within the United States." Here is the portion of that commentary of a recent audio clip from JR Nyquist. It happens at 6:40 in the clip.

This ties into the "Warning and Report from Moscow" below from January 2010.

Not to say this is a fact, but something to stay on the lookout for any corroborating and or developing information.

---

Thursday, January 28, 2010

A Warning And The Report From Moscow





[The warning was written by myself and the report from Moscow was emailed to me]

by Robert Jones

-SNIP-

Report From Moscow

This is the report on the briefing given to the political and military leaders of the Russian government 1-28-10 by a retired flag officer of the US Army in reference to Lt. Gen. Steven Blum Deputy commander NORTHCOM's request for 3 - 4 Brigades of Russian troops pursuint to an agreement between the US and Russia I refered to on the thread Striking Matches.

I had this all written and ready to post at 3:00pm local time 7:00am EST when my laptop CRASHED and I lost everything Grrrrrrr. Please excuse me for not rewriting this as quickly as I would have liked to I was more than a little frustrated.

My ride and escort arrived promptly at 9:00am, after passing through several layers of security and descending 4 stories under the Kremlin to a rather nondescript conference room which looked like it could seat about 30. With a little help from their IT people I was able to connect my laptop to their projector and test the sound system and placed the briefing packets I had brought with me in front of where people would be seated (I was not sure how many people would attend so I made up 30 packets). At 9:40am people started to filter in and the doors were closed at 10:00am, I found it interesting that even here in the depths of the Kremlin armed guards were stationed at both doors.

The briefing proceeded for 45 minutes and with a few exceptions you could have heard a pin drop for the entire presentation, I was a little concerned that is until I finished and asked if there were any questions. For the next 20 minutes the questions came fast and hard until Minister Lavrov asked “Knowing our capabilities as you do and how the American’s would react what would you expect our losses to be if we were to agree to send security forces to America as part of a larger international force?” I paused for a moment and told him that Russia should expect 75% to 80% causalities and that Russian/American relations would be seriously compromised for at least 2 generations.

And that was the end of the briefing, as the people left the room several came up to me before leaving to thank me for coming and making an “interesting and thought provoking” presentation. My wife’s cousin invited me to his office for some coffee and until I arrived I had no idea how far up the chain of command he was (he is a member of the Supreme High Command). We talked for about an hour concerning several aspects of the briefing when he handed me an unmarked file, I sat in total disbelief of what I saw. In my hands was a letter from Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano officially requesting that the Russian Federation contribute 4 brigades of “Advanced Security Forces” as part of a larger multinational force to assist in quelling domestic violence within the United States of America. The letter was dated September 14, 2009 and signed by Secretary Napolitano.

I think I am going to get drunk tonight.

end of message----

---

Does The Gulf Oil Spill Smell Like Ivan?

By Robert Jones

In a memorandum to the CIA in February of 1993, the most accurate analyst and Soviet defector wrote these words on a parting note:

'Ignore Russian and Chinese strategic designs against the United States at your peril'.

Respectfully,

ANATOLIY GOLITSYN

[pg. 162 of “The Perestroika Deception”]
There is entirely too much afoul in the Gulf of Mexico concerning the Deepwater Horizon disaster that seems to be consuming everybody’s focus and attention which makes me very suspect of who is really behind this. Considering what this is doing to everyone’s mind, I thought it would be a good opportunity to explore a contrarian point of view………………………………….

[Source]

The last month of peace, as in other wars, has an almost palpable air of crisis about it. Incidents, accidents, small disasters add to the tension.

Two trains collide on a railway bridge in Cologne because the signaling system is out of order. The bridge is seriously damaged and there can be no traffic over it for the next two months.

In the port of Rotterdam a Polish supertanker bursts into flames. Because of an error by the captain the tanker is far too close to the oil storage tanks on the shore, and the burning oil spreads around the harbor. For two weeks fire brigades summoned from practically the whole country fight a heroic battle with the flames.

The port suffers tremendous losses. The fire appears to have spread at a quite incredible speed, and some Experts are of the opinion that the Polish tanker was not the only cause of the fire that the fire broke out simultaneously in many places.

In the Panama Canal the Varna, a Bulgarian freighter loaded with heavy containers, rams the lock gates by mistake. Experts reckoned that the ship should have remained afloat, but for some reason she sinks there and then. To reopen the canal could well take many months. The Bulgarian government sends its apologies and declares it ready to pay for all the work involved.

In Washington, as the President’s helicopter is taking off, several shots are fired at it from sniper’s rifles. The helicopter is only slightly damaged and the crew succeed in bringing it down again safely. No one in the craft is hurt. Responsibility for the attack is claimed by a previously unknown organization calling itself `Revenge for Vietnam'.

There is a terrorist explosion at Vienna airport.

A group of unidentified men attack the territory of the British military base in Cyprus with mortars.

A serious accident takes place on the most important oil pipeline in Alaska. The pumping stations break down and the flow of oil falls to a trickle.

In West Germany there are several unsuccessful attempts on the lives of American generals.

In the North Sea the biggest of the British oil rigs tips over and sinks. The precise reason for this is not established, although experts believe that corrosion of main supports is the culprit.

In the United States an epidemic of some unidentified disease breaks out and spreads rapidly. It seems to affect port areas particularly, such as San Francisco, Boston, Charleston, Seattle, Norfolk and Philadelphia. There are explosions practically every day in Paris. The main targets are the government districts, communication centers and military headquarters.

At the same time terrible forest fires are raging in the South of France………….

All these operations -- because of course none of these events is an accident -- and others like them are known officially in the GRU as the`Preparatory Period', and unofficially as the `overture'. The overture is a series of large and small operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy’s morale, create an atmosphere of general suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert the attention of the enemy’s armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each of which may be the object of the next attack.

The overture is carried by agents of the secret services of the Soviet satellite countries and by mercenaries recruited by intermediaries. The principal method employed at this stage is `grey terror', that is, a kind of terror which is not conducted in the name of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Secret services do not at this stage leave their visiting cards, or leaveother people's cards. The terror is carried out in the name of alreadyexisting extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, orin the name of fictitious organizations.

The GRU reckons that in this period its operations should be regarded as natural disasters, actions by forces beyond human control, mistakes committed by people, or as terrorist acts by organizations not connected with the Soviet Union. The terrorist acts carried out in the course of the `overture' require Very few people, very few weapons and little equipment. In some cases all that may be needed is one man who has as a weapon nothing more than a screwdriver, a box of matches or a glass ampoule. Some of the operations can have catastrophic consequences.

For example, an epidemic of an infectious disease at seven of the most important naval bases in the West could have the effect of halving the combined naval might of the Soviet Union's enemies. The `overture’ could last from several weeks to several months, gradually gathering force and embracing fresh regions…………………………..

—VIKTOR SUVOROV, Chapter 15 of “Spetsnaz”

In my opinion, the Deepwater Horizon seems to have a Russian hand it somehow. The reason I come to this conclusion was by way of this article that came out in the Washington Times on March 18, 2010. When this article came out I was expecting something along lines of Russia announcing building oil platforms, drilling, etc…….approximately a month later; the Deepwater Horizon rig explodes and goes down. Something is definitely out of whack here………….

Does anyone remember this article?

EDITORIAL: Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow

The Obama administration is poised to ban offshore oil drilling on the outer continental shelf until 2012 or beyond. Meanwhile, Russia is making a bold strategic leap to begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. While the United States attempts to shift gears to alternative fuels to battle the purported evils of carbon emissions, Russia will erect oil derricks off the Cuban coast………….

…………….Russia more sensibly views energy primarily as a strategic resource.

Energy is critical to Russia's economy, as fuel and as a source of profit through export. Russia also has used energy as a coercive diplomatic tool, shutting off natural gas piped to Eastern Europe in the middle of winter to make a point about how dependent the countries are that do business with the Russians.

Now Russia is using oil exploration to establish a new presence in the Western Hemisphere. It recently concluded four contracts securing oil-exploration rights in Cuba's economic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. A Russian-Cuban joint partnership will exploit oil found in the deep waters of the Gulf………………………..

It seems that in my research of Russian long-range strategy for world domination that this would somehow makes since of being an effort of sabotage to disrupt the United States in an effort to exploit a financial depression that we are in and to make my point I will refer back to Anatoliy Golitsyn’s warnings when he gave this warning in his 1984 book ‘New Lies For Old’:

“The Final Phase”

Page 342
"………Liberalization" in Eastern Europe on the scale suggested could have a social and political impact on the United States itself, especially if it coincided with a severe economic depression. The communist strategists are on the lookout for such an opportunity. Soviet and other communist economists keep a careful watch on the American economic situation…………. it could well be intended to conceal preparation for the final phase of the policy and to induce the West to underestimate the potency of the bloc's economic weapons.

It is of note that Russia has exceeded the Saudi’s as the largest producer of oil in the world and as the editorial above correctly states—energy is surely a political weapon of the Russians. There have been some seriously ill-tides coming out of Russia since the beginning of April 2010 that have displayed some very serious strategic moves around the globe and have made continuous calls for a “new global order” and make proposals for replacing the United States Dollar with “a new world currency” along with their Chinese counterparts who are becoming the dominate world economic power at an alarming rate.

To further my point, I will refer again to Golitsyn’s writings to the CIA about the Sino-Soviet threat:

From “The Perestroika Deception”

Page 132
At that point, they will turn on the 'hated capitalist' and a new holocaust will result. The new holocaust will be based on class, not race. Its principal victims will be the western political, military, religious and managerial elites…….

Present Soviet-Western cooperation is only temporary: the East-West alliance is only tactical. Soviet-style democracy is 'cuckooegg democracy'. When the chick hatches, it will display its true antagonistic nature and seek to dominate the nest. Blind to Soviet strategy, the United States will find itself increasingly marginalised in world affairs. To paraphrase an expression used by Marx, the United States will be left stranded in isolation to contemplate its own destruction and demise……………

This point of view is entirely my speculation as what is behind the dilemma brewing in the Gulf of Mexico. However, it could turn out to be a valid one indeed considering all of the warnings from Soviet defectors that I have brought to attention. We very well could be in the “preparatory period” that Viktor Suvorov warned about in his writings so the Soviets can formulate “an atmosphere of general suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert the attention of the enemy’s armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each of which may be the object of the next attack”………….

Having within its sphere an organization like Spetsnaz, and having tested its potential on numerous exercises, the Soviet high command came to the conclusion that Spetsnaz could be used with success not only against tactical but also against strategic nuclear installations: submarine bases, weapon stockpiles, aircraft bases and missile launching sites.

Spetsnaz could be used too, they realized, against the heart and blood supply of the state: ie. its source and distribution of energy - power stations, transformer stations and power lines, as well as oil and gas pipelines and storage points, pumping station and oil refineries. Putting even a few of the enemy's more important power stations out of action could present him with a catastrophic situation.

Not only would there be no light: factories would be brought to a standstill, lifts would cease to work, the refrigeration installations would be useless, hospitals would find it almost impossible to function, blood stored in refrigerators would begin to coagulate, traffic lights, petrol pumps and trains would come to a halt, computers would cease to operate…………………………..

I admit upfront I could be entirely wrong in my suspicions of the origin of the Deepwater Horizon disaster; but then again, as Anatoly Golitsyn warned in his memorandum to the CIA: 'Ignore Russian and Chinese strategic designs against the United States at your peril'………………

Weekly Editorial By Robert Jones ™ exclusively at bluebattleflag.com

[American Patriot]

I have always found it frightening that Bill Ayers has access to the President. He actually caused bombs (now called Weapons of Mass destruction, by the way) to be set off against military personnel of the United States and now he is an ADVISOR to the man who controls the military.

Tell me what the HELL is wrong with that picture and tell me WHY they (the Democrats) are GETTING AWAY with this!?

[vector7]

Here is an interview with Tom Fife from 6/1/11 on his amazing story while visiting Moscow in 1992 and Axis plans to dismantle America and spread Global Communism

Tom Fife's amazing story while visiting Moscow in 1992 A.mp3

Tom Fife's amazing story while visiting Moscow in 1992 B.mp3

Tom Fife's amazing story while visiting Moscow in 1992 C.mp3

Tom Fife's amazing story while visiting Moscow in 1992 D.mp3

[catfish]

Wow!

[BRVoice]

vector7 I knew about this subject a long time ago, even before I join this forum and I believe this is something very, very serious.

May God protect the true patriot americans. I think that the true United States is what all the world need right now.

Unfortunately, my country (Brazil) is being dominated be the Left for at least since 1985 if not before.

If there wasn't for Internet many brazilians - and I believe americans too, however your country has much more education and information available for the public than my - would be in the darkness about the goals of these communists SOBs.

[American Patriot]

vector7 I knew about this subject a long time ago, even before I join this forum and I believe this is something very, very serious.

May God protect the true patriot americans. I think that the true United States is what all the world need right now.

Unfortunately, my country (Brazil) is being dominated be the Left for at least since 1985 if not before.

If there wasn't for Internet many brazilians - and I believe americans too, however your country has much more education and information available for the public than my - would be in the darkness about the goals of these communists SOBs.

I visited Brazil - Manaus around 1984 or 85 (I don't remember the year)... but when we arrived the money was changing rapidly. By the time I left one dollar was worth about 2500 of the local currency. When we arrived (and I was there just about a month) the price was about 1 usd to about 200 of the local currency.

I was amazed even back then at the rapid change in value.

I don't know what the political situation was then - or even now in Brazil - but I always wanted to go back to visit again. Now, perhaps not.

[vector7]

vector7 I knew about this subject a long time ago, even before I join this forum and I believe this is something very, very serious.

May God protect the true patriot americans. I think that the true United States is what all the world need right now.

Unfortunately, my country (Brazil) is being dominated be the Left for at least since 1985 if not before.

If there wasn't for Internet many brazilians - and I believe americans too, however your country has much more education and information available for the public than my - would be in the darkness about the goals of these communists SOBs.

BR you are more informed than the majority of Americans if you even know about this. Most brush this off as tinfoil information but listening to what Obama said before he was elected and his actions now shows what a Soviet Marxist he really is.

Here is another Weather Underground, Mark Rudd outlining exactly what Obama would do in his first 4 years just weeks after his election in 2008. There's a reason he just swapped out Robert Gates for a Communist.


Terrorist Mark Rudd’s Warning on the Destruction of America’s Defenses

Apr 14th, 2011 by TMH


By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal
President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies are using U.S. economic problems (which they partially created) to sell Americans on the need to cut defense spending.

This is what America’s enemies have wanted for decades. If America can be disarmed, Russia, China, Cuba and Iran will face little or no opposition to their plans for world domination.

More than two years ago, Cuban trained, former Weather Underground terrorist Mark Rudd, warned us that Obama’s game plan would be to exploit economic crises to push for defense cuts.



Mark Rudd, 1968

Rudd, an unrepentant Marxist to this day, works closely with at least three people who have been close to Obama in the recent past – Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Carl Davidson. He is in a unique position to understand Obama’s long term strategy.

Mark Rudd wrote this analysis just after the 2008 elections:

Obama is a very strategic thinker. He knew precisely what it would take to get elected and didn’t blow it. He used community organizing methods to mobilize a base consisting of many people who had never voted before or who regularly don’t vote….But he also knew that what he said had to basically play to the center to not be run over by the press, the Republicans, scare centrist and cross-over voters away. He made it.

So he has a narrow mandate for change, without any direction specified. What he’s doing now is moving on the most popular issues — the environment, health care, and the economy. He’ll be progressive on the environment because that has broad popular support; health care will be extended to children, then made universal, but the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance corporations will stay in place, perhaps yielding some power; the economic agenda will stress stimulation from the bottom sometimes and handouts to the top at other times. It will be pragmatic…

And I agree with this strategy. Anything else will court sure defeat. Move on the stuff you can to a small but significant extent, gain support and confidence. Leave the military alone because they’re way too powerful. For now, until enough momentum is raised. By the second or third year of this recession, when stimulus is needed at the bottom, people may begin to discuss cutting the military budget if security is being increased through diplomacy and application of nascent international law.

Obama plays basketball. I’m not much of an athlete, barely know the game, but one thing I do know is that you have to be able to look like you’re doing one thing but do another. That’s why all these conservative appointments are important: the strategy is feint to the right, move left. Any other strategy invites sure defeat. It would be stupid to do otherwise in this environment…

Read Obama’s first book, “Dreams from My Father.” The second section is the story of his three years doing community organizing in Chicago. It’s some of the best writing on organizing I’ve ever seen. That’s all it’s about, the core of the book. Obama learned many lessons of strategy and patience…

This is no stupid guy… Had any of the stupid Republicans read his books, they never could have said, “We don’t know who this guy is.” You know every thought he’s ever had.

This is as honest an evaluation of Obama’s strategy and tactics as you are likely to get.

Leave the military alone because they’re way too powerful. For now, until enough momentum is raised. By the second or third year of this recession, when stimulus is needed at the bottom, people may begin to discuss cutting the military budget if security is being increased through diplomacy and application of nascent international law.

That is the key phrase in Rudd’s essay.

The recession is three years in. Americans are war weary and worried about their jobs, their homes and their children’s future.

Obama has negotiated the New START disarmament treaty with Russia and invoked the United Nations’ Responsibility to Protect Doctrine in Libya.

Defense cuts are now on the agenda – supported by even some Republicans. Americans are being told the world is a place, reality notwithstanding.

In the most unstable period since World War 2, the U.S. is about to lower its defenses both globally and at home.

Wish I was a champagne merchant in Moscow right now.

[Ryan Ruck]

I saw Beck discussing this asshole on his show yesterday.

I really should be surprised but, at this point I'm not anymore.