Below is a speech given by David Horowitz at the Kohler
conference of the Bradley Foundation. It
has been revised and edited for publication as an article.
I was born at the beginning of the Second World War into a
family of high school teachers who were members of the Communist Party, and
therefore were actually part of a vast conspiracy dedicated to the destruction
of this country, although they would never have looked at it that way, and
so-called liberals would be the first to deny it.
In those days, the schools were old fashioned enough that my
parents did not use their classrooms to indoctrinate students as tens of
thousands of university professors and even more K-12 teachers regularly do
today.
Barack Obama, and his closest advisors.
The president, his chief operative Valerie Jarrett and his
chief political strategist David Axelrod all came out of the same Communist
left and the same radical new left as I did, and all have remained heart and soul
a part of it.
As someone who turned his back on that destructive movement,
I can say with confidence that they have not. If a person belongs to an
organization or is the supporter of an idea that they come to see as
destructive or evil, the first thing they will want to do when they leave is to
warn others against it, to warn them of the dangers it represents. If a
person does not do this – that tells me that he or she hasn’t left the
destructive movement or abandoned the pernicious idea but has just put another
face on them. Instead of calling themselves communists or socialists they call
themselves liberals and progressives. This camouflage is very old. I never once
heard my parents and their party friends refer to themselves as Communists. They
were progressives – and registered Democrats.
This is why – to take one disturbing example, I know that
Hillary Clinton’s right hand, Huma Abedin, the former deputy secretary of
state, and chief foreign policy adviser on Muslim Affairs is a Muslim
Brotherhood operative.
Huma Abedin’s late father was a Muslim Brotherhood leader,
and her mother and brother still are. For 12 years until the moment she was
hired by Hillary, Huma Abedin worked for Abdullah Omar Naseef, one of the top
three funders of Osama Bin Laden who is still wanted by our government for his
role in the 9/11 attacks.
Huma Abedin has never to my knowledge uttered a word of
disapproval about the Muslim Brotherhood’s desire to rid the world of
Christians and Jews or to bring all infidels under the heel of totalitarian
Islamic law.
Her spiritual adviser Yusef al-Qaradawi is the spiritual
leader of the Brotherhood. Qaradawi has publicly said that the Holocaust of the
Jews was God’s punishment for their corruption, and that it would come again, and
when it did, “Allah willing it will be at the hands of the believers.”
Huma Abedin has not broken her relations with this evil man
or dissociated herself from his genocidal remarks. Nor has she opposed the
policies enacted by Obama and Hillary, which have supported the Muslim
Brotherhood at home and in the Middle East.
On the contrary. when
the Obama administration supported the Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt,
Huma Abedin was our government’s key adviser on Muslim affairs. She was at Hillary’s
side when security was not provided to our diplomatic complex in Benghazi and
when al-Qaeda fanatics murdered our Ambassador. The murder of Ambassador
Stevens led to the most shameful presidential act in our history when the
President turned his back on the cries for help of three American heroes who
served him and who were in a desperate fight for their lives. It is a time
honored American code never to abandon our warriors on the field of battle. But America’s commander-in-chief
turned his back on these brave fighting men and left them to die; and then lied
to the American people to cover up his crime.
Ever since Barack Obama was elected and began his radical
course, American conservatives have been in a state of shock, as though they
couldn’t quite believe what was happening. Until then there had been a general
collusion in the practiced deceptions of the left as commentators on all sides would refer to unrepentant radicals, and
dedicated socialists as “liberals,” and turn half blind eyes to their
anti-American agendas.
Today the Obama juggernaut is systematically bankrupting our
country, and undoing our constitutional arrangements. Its contempt for
consultative and representative government is relentlessly on display.
This week Senate Majority leader Harry Reid defended his
refusal to negotiate with Republicans over Obamacare and the debt in these
words: “We are here to support the federal government. That’s our job.” End
quote. Forget about representing the people whom our Founders made sovereign.
Forget what America is about.
The fact that I had a radical past allowed me to see much of
this coming. But even I never thought we would be looking so soon at the
prospect of a one-party state. Those words may sound hyperbolic, but take a
moment to think about it. If you have transformed the taxing agency of the state
into a political weapon – and Obama has; if you are setting up a massive
government program to gather the financial and health information of every
citizen, and control their access to care; and if you have a spy agency that
can read the mail and listen to the communications of every individual in the country,
you don’t really need a secret police to destroy your political opponents. Once
you have silenced them, you can proceed with your plans to remake the world in
your image.
The good news is that the bad five years we have just been
through have aroused a sleeping giant among Americans who didn’t see it coming
and couldn’t imagine that it would. For the first time since the Cold War, people
with a public voice are calling socialists by their right name; conservatives
are finally organizing at the grassroots to defend their freedom; and at last
we have leaders who are willing to stand up to the thuggery of the left and who
have the spine not to back down.
As a sometime Jonah freed from the whale let me offer some
intelligence about the political forces arrayed against us. Do not make the
mistake of thinking that progressives and conservatives are people who merely differ
about practical agendas. There are four defining features of the left, which
distinguish it as a movement of individuals who approach politics quite
differently from pragmatically-minded conservatives.
The first of these features is their alienation from
country: If you ask progressives about their patriotic feeling, they will tell
you that they don’t think of themselves first as Americans but as “citizens of
the world.”
That even has a Harvard imprimatur. They are, in fact, so
profoundly alienated from their country as to be in some sense foreigners to
it. They are hostile to its history and to its core values, which they see as reflections
of a society that has been guilty of racism and oppression on an epic scale.
And they are fundamentally opposed to its constitutional arrangements which the
framers specifically designed to thwart what they deemed “wicked projects” to
redistribute income and share individual wealth.
This is perhaps the hardest feature of their progressive
adversaries for conservatives to comprehend. It is difficult to imagine that
people as privileged by America’s generosity as Barack Obama and his entourage
of despoilers should be so alienated from their country as to feel themselves in
it but not of it. And there is no more shocking example of this than Benghazi.
No matter what your politics, or what solutions you propose to the problems
that confront this nation, ask yourself this: Could you have done what Barack
Obama did that night? Could you as commander-in-chief abandon three Americans
fighting for their lives under your command? These men had served their country
for more than a decade. For seven hours they cried out for help from their
government, but you refused to give it.
How, as a fellow American, could Obama have just left these
men to die? No one with an ounce of patriotic feeling could. But he did. Even
Alexei Kosygin, the Soviet premier of a Communist dictatorship, maintained
contact with his astronaut as he burned up in space. But not our president.
When the attack on our embassy in Benghazi began, he hung up the phone and went
to bed, and then on to a fundraiser with Beyonce and Jay-Z in Las Vegas in the
morning. This, with four Americans including our ambassador dead.
As a nation we are now confronted by mortal enemies in Iran
and Syria, in Hizbollah and Hamas – enemies who have openly declared that we
are the devil’s party and should be erased from the face of the earth.
How could an American president deliberately set out to
appease such enemies? How in the face of such threats could he reduce our
country to an international laughing stock, no longer respected by our friends,
no longer feared by our foes? How could he be so cavalier about having failed, so miserably
to have defended his country’s security and uphold its honor ? How could an
American commander-in-chief then put
himself in a position to be snubbed by the Iranian Hitlerites, which is what
they are, and which is what Obama did? How could he snub our Israeli allies and at the same time grovel before our Islamic enemies? But he
did.
How could he create a vacuum in the Middle East allowing
Russia to become the new regional power? How could he make himself an ally of
the Muslim Brotherhood, which slaughters Christians, and promises the
extermination of the Jews and spawns terrorist armies like al-Qaeda and Hamas?
The answer to all these questions is that Obama doesn’t
identify with our country. He sees himself as a “citizen of the world,” and a
redresser of grievances for the suffering he imagines America has inflicted on
our adversaries, including Hitlerite Iran.
The second feature of the progressive left that is key to
understanding it is its instinctive, practiced, and indispensable dishonesty.
As I previously noted, the Communists in the circles I frequented in my youth never identified themselves as Communists but always as
“progressives” and “Jeffersonian democrats” (which is the last thing they
were). When I was a young man and Stalin was alive, the goal of the Communist
Party U.S.A. was a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and a “Soviet America.”
But under Stalin’s inspiration the official slogan of the Communist Party was
“Peace, Jobs, and Democracy.”
The lesson ? People on the left may be delusional but they
are not stupid. They know what they can say and get away with, and what they
can’t. Barack Obama is a born and bred
member of the left and not coincidentally is the most brazen and compulsive
liar ever to occupy the American White House. What other politician could have
successfully explained away the fact that two of his closest political
confidantes over a twenty-year period were an anti-American racist, Jeremiah
Wright and an anti-American terrorist William Ayers?
There is a marked difference between the radicals of the
Sixties and the radical movement Obama is part of. In the Sixties, as radicals
we said what we thought and blurted out what we wanted. We wanted a revolution,
and we wanted it now. It was actually very decent of us to warn others as to what
we intended. But because we blurted out our goal, we didn’t get very far. Americans
were onto us. Those who remained on the left when the Sixties were over,
learned from their experience. They learned to lie. The strategy of the lie is
progressives’ new gospel. It is what the progressive bible — Saul Alinsky’s Rules
for Radicals — (dedicated to LUCIFER I might add) Victoria is all about.
Alinsky is the acknowledged political mentor to Obama and Hillary, to the
service and teacher unions, and to the progressive rank and file. Alinsky
understood the mistake Sixties’ radicals had made.
His message to this generation is easily summed up: Don’t
telegraph your goals; infiltrate their institutions and subvert them; moral
principles are disposable fictions; the end justifies the means; and never
forget that your political goal is always power.
An SDS radical wrote in the Sixties: “The issue is never the
issue. The issue is always the revolution.” The Alinsky version is this: The
issue is never the issue; the issue is always power: How to wring power out of
the democratic process, how turn the process into an instrument of progressive
control. How to use it to fundamentally transform the United States of America
— which is exactly what Barack Obama warned he would do on the eve of his
election. (WE ARE FIVE DAYS AWAY…he said
to be exact)
The chosen legislative instrument to begin this
transformation was Obamacare. It was presented as an act of charity, a plan to
cover the uninsured. That was the “issue” as they presented it. But the actual
goal of Obamacare’s socialist sponsors was a “single payer system” – government
healthcare — which would put the state in control of the lives of every American,
man, woman and child. That is the reason that none of the promises made about
Obamacare was true, beginning with his campaign lie that Obamacare government health
care was not a program he would support. Obamacare will not cover 30 million uninsured
Americans, as Obama and the Democrats said it would; Obamacare will not lower
costs, as they promised it would; Obamacare will deprive many Americans of their
doctors and healthcare plans, as they assured everyone it would not; Obamacare
is a new tax, as they swore it wouldn’t be. All these promises Obama and the
Democrats made were false because they were only a camouflage for their real
goal actual goal, which was universal control.
A third feature of progressives that defines their politics
is that they regard the past, which is real, with contempt, and are focused
exclusively on a future, which is imaginary.
To understand why this is important, think of progressives
as a species of religious fundamentalists planning a redemption. Like
fundamentalists they look at the world as fallen – a place corrupted by racism,
sexism and class division. But the truly religious understand that we are the source of corruption and that redemption is only
possible through the work of a Divinity. In contrast, progressives see
themselves as the redeemers, which is why they are so dangerous. Because they
regard those who oppose them as the eternally damned. Progressives are on a
mission to create the kingdom of heaven on earth by redistributing income and
using the state to enforce politically correct attitudes and practices in
everyone’s life. They want to control what you do, and who you are, and even
what you eat. For your own good, of course.
The fact that they see themselves as saving the world – or
“saving the planet” as they would prefer — results in a fourth key
characteristic of their politics, which is that they regard politics as a
religious war.
This explains why they are so rude and nasty when you
disagree with them or resist their panaceas (and of course if they had the
power, the punishments would be more severe); that is why the politics of
personal destruction is their favorite variety, why they are verbal assassins
and go directly for the
jugular, and why they think nothing of destroying the reputations of their
opponents and burying them permanently.
And that is why they can perform their character
assassinations without regrets – or did I miss Obama’s apology to Romney for accusing him of killing a woman
with cancer during the campaign?
Why apologize when you did it for the good of a world
transforming cause?
To sum this up: Progressives see themselves as an army of
the saints, and their opponents as the party of Satan; and that will justify
almost anything you can get away with.
An appalling episode of their Machiavellian politics has
shaped the international conflict in which we find ourselves currently impotent
in the Middle East. The root of that impotence lies in the way Democrats turned
the issue of the Iraq war against the Republican president George Bush. The
Democrats’ case against Bush was that he acted unilaterally, deceptively and in
haste.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The policy to
remove Iraq’s government by force was put in place by a Democratic president,
Bill Clinton, when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act and fired 450 cruise
missiles into that sovereign country. He did it, by the way, not only
unilaterally but without consulting anyone.
That was in 1998, which is five years before Bush sent
American troops into Iraq. Ten months before Bush did that he warned Iraq’s dictator,
Saddam Hussein, to obey the Gulf War truce he had signed in 1991 and then
repeatedly violated over the next ten years. Seven months before sending our
troops into Iraq Bush went personally to the UN and got a unanimous Security
Council ultimatum to Saddam. UN Resolution 1447 said: Obey the terms of the
Gulf War truce by December 7, 2002 – or else.
Two months before that deadline Bush went to Congress and
requested an authorization to use force in the event that Saddam did not
voluntarily observe the terms of the UN Resolution, and the Gulf War truce he
had signed and then violated. Both
houses of Congress including a majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted to
authorize Bush to use force in Iraq. He also got an authorization from NATO and he also formed a coalition of 40 nations, including America’s
oldest allies, the Brits, to enforce the UN Security Council ultimatum.
Not only was the decision not made in haste, and not made
without consultation, as the Democrats claimed. The truth was just the
opposite. The process of making the decision to go to war took 10 months and
every significant authority was consulted. But once U.S. troops entered Iraq on
March 19, 2003, it took only three months for the Democrats to betray them and
their president, to turn their backs on the war they had authorized and supported, and claim it was – to use
the words of former Vice President Al Gore, “unnecessary, immoral and illegal.”
Or in the words of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, “the wrong
war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.”
Why did the Democrats betray the war they had supported? It
was not because of any fact on the ground in Iraq, or any principles Bush had
allegedly violated. They betrayed our troops and turned on their commander-in-chief for one reason and one reason
alone: to gain political power at home.
At the very moment of their treachery a Democratic primary
was in progress. An anti-war Democrat – a Sixties leftist named Howard Dean —
was on the verge of winning their presidential nomination, burying other
candidates like John Kerry and John Edwards in the polls. Until then, Kerry and
Edwards were full-throated supporters of the war.
Kerry made a speech on the floor of the Senate in support of the bill
authorizing the use of force. He explained why the forcible removal of Saddam
was necessary to defend the country and secure the peace.
But that was before the anti-war candidate Howard Dean had
surged ahead in the polls. When that happened, and Kerry saw that he was going
to lose the party nomination, he decided to switch sides.
He turned his back on everything he had said in defense of
the war, and the necessity of using force, and he turned his back on our troops
in the field, and attacked their commander-in-chief. He did it for one reason,
and one reason only. He did it because he saw it as the only way to win the Democratic nomination and have a chance of
winning the presidency in 2004.
Kerry and the Democrats betrayed the war they had authorized;
they betrayed the young Americans they sent into harms’ way; they betrayed the
country they had sworn to serve. They did it to win the political power they
were going to use to change the world. No conservative in his right mind would
behave like this. No conservative would regard a political administration in
Washington as a stepping stone on the way to a brave new world, and therefore
something to justify opposing a war they had authorized and supported.
What were the issues the Democrats used to make their case
against the president and the war in Iraq? It didn’t really matter, because the
issues were never the issue. The Democrats opposed Bush and the war because
both stood in the way of their quest for power.
The Democrats attacked Bush for acting in haste and acting
unilaterally. Both charges were false. Worse, the Democrats claimed that the
war was about weapons of mass destruction, ignoring the fact that Saddam had
violated the Gulf War truce and had failed to comply with sixteen Security
Council resolutions attempting to bring him into line, including the ultimatum
of December 7. To make their case they claimed that Bush falsified the
intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction and lied in order to
fool them into supporting the war. This was the biggest lie of the entire war.
CIA chief George Tenet was a Clinton appointee.
John Kerry sat on the intelligence committees with other
Democrats like Feinstein and Rockefeller. The Democrats had access to all the
intelligence information that Bush did. Bush could not have persuaded them to support
the war by lying about the data, even if he had wanted to. REREAD THAT SENTENCE!!!
Why did they accuse him of lying? Because they could not
admit the actual reason they had betrayed the war and the young men and women
they sent to battle. They did it for partisan political gain. Unfortunately neither
the White House nor any Republican had the political courage to hold them to
account, and we are all paying the price for that.
For five years the Democrats conducted a scorched earth
campaign against their country and its commander in the midst of a war. The
harm they did is irreparable. Their sabotage of the war crippled our efforts to
prosecute it – for example to follow Saddam’s weapons and generals into
Syria, where they had fled; to take the war to Iran which
supplied the IEDs which killed most of our troops; to close the border with
Syria across which jihadists entered Iraq to fight our troops. The Democrats’ sabotage
of the war created the power vacuum in the Middle East, which the terrorists
and the Russians have now filled. And it most certainly inflicted casualties on
our troops, though no one has had the political courage to say so.
The Democrats sabotaged the war in Iraq for the worst of
reasons. They claimed it was for principle, but it was really – and only — to
save their political skins.
Once the Democrats recaptured the presidency, it took no
time at all for events to expose this destructive farce. Unlike the majority of
his Democratic colleagues, Senator Barack Obama had always opposed the war in
Iraq. He was against American interventions in sovereign countries, and he was against presidents who acted unilaterally, and in
haste. Or so he said.
But when Obama became president and had the power to do so,
he invaded Libya: unilaterally, and without authorization, and with no national
security interest at stake. And he lied about the cause. There was no prospect of
massacres as he claimed, and it was not a human rights intervention. If it
were, Libya would not now be in chaos with al-Qaeda resurgent, and in a worse
state than before.
Obama’s invasion of Libya was not merely unilateral. It was
egomaniacal. Obama consulted no one outside his White House inner circle, not
his own party, not the Congress, not the United Nations.
Unlike Bush, he acted without constitutional authority and
he acted alone. Yet there was not one Democratic leader who stood up for the
principles they had all invoked to cripple America’s war against the jihadists
in Iraq. Not one Democratic leader opposed the Democratic president, or
criticized his aggression. They abandoned the principles of multilaterialism,
consultation with Congress, and support from the U.N. because it would have been
bad for their leader if they didn’t; it would have jeopardized their power.
The political consequences of the differences between
conservatives and progressives is not only not small, it affects the way both
sides conduct their political battles. Progressives focus on an impossible
future, a utopia of promises, and this justifies for them their unscrupulous
means. Issues for them are merely instruments for accumulating political power.
Conservatives look to the past as a guide to what is
possible and humanly practical, and what is not. Issues for them are problems
that need to be fixed, and they take seriously the policies they devise to
address them. This puts conservatives at a huge political disadvantage.
It causes them to argue policy as though they were debating
a party with whom they shared goals and only differed on the means to get
there. But that is far from the case.
Take the present debate about a government shutdown. A
statement from Boehner’s office explains, “The entire government is shut down
right now because Washington Democrats refuse to even talk about fairness for
all Americans under ObamaCare.” This is a proposal for
Compromise and is
designed to portray Republicans as reasonable. We’re all part of the same
social contract, and we need to give on both sides to resolve the impasse.
We’re all interested in fairness, when all is said and done. If individuals
were to be given a year’s extension under Obamacare, as corporations already have been, that would be
fair.
But since when is Obamacare about fairness? That’s a
Democratic façade and talking point, courtesy of the Republican Speaker. By way
of contrast, this is how the Democrats make their argument:
“Republicans are trying to shut down the government so they
can prevent us from providing all Americans with affordable healthcare.” In
other words, Democrats are standing up for fairness and ordinary Americans, against
the selfish Republicans who want deny them affordable care and shut down their government. This is three lies in one sentence.
But who do you think wins that vote?
If you want to fight the left you have to fight fire with
fire. That means first and foremost you have to hold them to account for hurting
the people they are pretending to help. Whose opportunities are going to be wrecked
by Obamacare ? Health care taxes will go up for those who pay taxes – the middle class — while their incomes will go down. Already
Obamacare is cutting the workweek to 30 hours. Whose pocket books do you think
that is hitting?
They claim conservatives are conducting a war against
minorities; we need to throw the truth back in their faces. We need to tell the
people that progressives are the principal oppressors and exploiters of
minorities and the poor in this country. Progressives control the inner cities,
which are teeming with the nations’ minorities and poor; and they run the broken public school systems that have become dumping grounds for
those who cannot afford a private education.
The city of Milwaukee has been run by liberals and
progressives without interruption for more than 100 years. What is the consequence
of this progressive rule? Milwaukee’s median household income is forty percent
below the rest of the country. The black unemployment rate is 27%, three times the national average for everyone.
Milwaukee’s population is majority black and Hispanic, and 30% of it lives
below the poverty line. A third of Milwaukee’s public school children drop out
before they graduate; those who do are barely literate. That’s what progressive
policies achieve. Don’t let them forget it.
Conservatives need to put the human disasters of progressive
policies in front of people every chance they get. We need to confront
progressives with the misery they have created in America’s bankrupt cities,
Detroit and Chicago, Philadelphia and Cincinnati, St. Louis,
and the nations capital, and every city they have controlled for 25, 50 and 100
years, without interruption.
Conservatives need to talk less to the voters’ heads and
more to their hearts. Government debt is not just an accountant’s nightmare.
Debt is a form of economic slavery. If you add up all the taxes Americans pay federal,
state, local, income, sales — Americans already work half the year for
government rather than for themselves. Like Obamacare and the political use of the
I.R.S., debt is a threat to individual freedom.
Freedom is what our cause is about not just fiscal
responsibility. Fiscal responsibility has no emotional appeal except to people
who already understand what it means. Fiscal responsibility is a means to an
end.
The end is freedom, and that is what inspires commitment and
sacrifice and the passion necessary to win. Because it speaks to the heart.
Conservatives need to speak up as champions of the little
guys, the underdogs, whose lives are being steadily constricted made less free
by the ongoing destruction of a system that once afforded more opportunity for
more people than any other in the history of the world.
Conservatives need to speak up for the young whose future
horizons are being rapidly diminished as the trillion dollar Obama deficits pile
higher and higher. Conservatives need to speak for all Americans whose security
under Obama has been degraded to the most dangerous levels since the end of the
Cold War.
This is the threat we face, and the sooner we grapple with
it the greater our chances to survive it.
The most important battle in the world today is not being
waged in the Middle East but here at home in the United States. If we lose this
battle, everything is lost. But if we will take the measure of the enemies of
freedom and prepare ourselves to fight them, we have a better than even chance
to win.
Source: Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz, Freedom Center
<http://frontpagemag.com/tag/communists/> communists,
<http://frontpagemag.com/tag/horowitz/> Horowitz,<http://frontpagemag.com/tag/huma-abedin/> Huma Abedin,
<http://frontpagemag.com/tag/obama/> Obama,
<http://frontpagemag.com/tag/socialism/> Socialism,
<http://frontpagemag.com/tag/threat/> threat,
<http://frontpagemag.com/tag/valerie-jarrett/> Valerie Jarrett
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/the-threat-we-face-2/ 1.2K
About David Horowitz <http://frontpagemag.com/author/david-horowitz/>
David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in
the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author,
with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The
Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream
(1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their
days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a
chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to
Whittaker
Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a
break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in
Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to
conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography
of his generation.”
<http://frontpagemag.com/author/david-horowitz/> David
Horowitz
<http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/the-threat-we-face-2/#comments><http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/the-threat-we-face-2/> 1.2K
<http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/the-threat-we-face-2/print/>
<http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/the-threat-we-face-2/print/>
<http://frontpagemag.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/obama33.jpg> obama33
Comments:
If this is too much for you to handle, you need to go to the web and see the movie AGENDA: Grinding down America. It explains how the US has been breeding Communists thru out our school system. This covers it all. http://vimeo.com/63749370
No comments:
Post a Comment