Intellectualism to Intelligentsia

A nation’s intellectuals reflect the soul and reveal the spirit of a people in their time and place so that the quality of their character is not lost to history. America has had many notable intellectuals – from Jonathon Edwards, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and Benjamin Rush to Ralph Waldo Emerson, Fredrick Douglas, Samuel Clemons and Abraham Lincoln to W.E.B. DuBois, Jane Adams, John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr to William Faulkner, Eric Hoffer, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Lionel Trilling and William F. Buckley, Jr. – to name but a few.

A post-World War II intellectual revolt began with nefarious “intellectuals” (intellectual thugs/gangsters in many ways) in the elite universities, the refuge to which many New Deal “political intellectuals” and their acolytes had fled during the pogrom against real and imagined communist sympathizers of the early 1950s. Once there, they influenced the world view of generations of impressionable young minds to view America with cynicism and contempt for the apparent hypocrisy it demonstrated with respect to the rights of too many of its citizens … blacks, women, gays, migrant workers, the poor and the effect of a toxic environment on all – with virtually no context about how those issues were addressed, with some successes and some failures –  by America’s institutions.

 In addition, Edward R. Murrow’s “Harvest of Shame”, Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”, Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique” and Joseph Heller’s “Catch 22” all influenced popular culture to challenge the historic institutions and the historic means to change them – none advocating physical or intellectual violence. Various social “movements” soon became influential, most notably the “civil rights movement” and the “intellectual thugs” soon appeared – moving the discussion from the academic to the militant to the violent.

 The most successful of the radical intellectuals was a political and community organizer from Chicago named Saul Alinsky. While the New Dealers were influenced by Stalin, Alinsky was influenced by American mobsters like Al Capone’s right-hand man – Frank Nitti. A master of moral extortion (make insider targets feel shame – then allow them to buy their way out of it through money or favors), he influenced many who later would directly impact the nature and direction of America’s political history up to the present day. The success of his system depended upon a combination of massive illiteracy and stupidity because even he knew that an informed society would never accept the outrageous lies and distortions necessary to affect his changes.

 An arrogant, self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla tactics and civil disobedience to correct what he saw as an institutionalized power gap in poor communities. His philosophy divided the world into “haves” – middle class and wealthy people – and “have nots” – the poor. He took an ends-justify-the-means approach to power and the oxymoron – wealth redistribution, and developed the theoretical basis of what became known as “community organizing” – the centerpiece of the PLDC plan for America.

The central and essential characteristic of wealth, of course, is sustainability. One doesn’t redistribute wealth, since the recipient hasn’t the means to sustain it. What Alinsky meant was the stealing of money from wealthy individuals, those who had mastered the art of making sufficient money – employing discipline, hard-work, ingenuity, persistence, inquisitiveness, courage, conviction and a myriad of other characteristics – and handing it to others who haven’t the capacity to earn sufficient money themselves.

General illiteracy (not knowing or having access to appropriate facts) would be attained by the substitution of indoctrination and propaganda for critical thinking in the public schools and perpetuated by his acolytes in academia and the mainstream press/media.  Stupidity (knowing appropriate facts but choosing to ignore them on purpose or being incapable of processing them) would be exploited by true believers throughout society. He famously wrote in his most influential book, Rules for Radicals:

 “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

 Of course, that begs the question; What would they do with stolen power, having demonstrated that they were unable to gain it in the first place? The answer is that the have-nots would turn those duties over to the Radicals. How convenient! How communist.

 Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (both trained as Alinskyite style “community organizers”) are his most notable acolytes, even improving on Alinsky’s barbaric and grotesque moral-extortion model [perfected by “racial ambulance chasers” like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton] by perfecting their own brand of political extortion from within the governmental system itself.

 Hillary Clinton was especially smitten by Alinsky’s radical philosophy. Clinton described the organizer as “a man of exceptional charm,” but also objected to some of the conflicts he provoked as “unrealistic,” noting that his model could be difficult for others to replicate. “Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.

 The letters obtained by the Free Beacon suggest that Clinton experimented more with radical politics during her law school years than she has publicly acknowledged. In Living History, she describes her views during that time as far more pragmatic than left-wing. Truth however, has a way of persisting. How inconvenient.

In the late 1960’s, Hillary Clinton had become known to Alinsky and corresponded with him about her plans. “Letters between the two also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known. The twenty-something Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included [the violent] Black Panthers and other militants.

 On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.” “Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out – or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.

Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path. However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”

“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead – if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.

[One wonders what Clinton meant by the words “free and open”. They certainly weren’t reflected in her later work as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State – not to mention her two campaigns for President of the United States. Persistent as always, the truth about her secret plans to focus on denying freedoms to large swaths of Americans (the religious, the gun owners, the unborn, the wealthy, the sick, etc.) finally came out and destroyed her political career.]

According to this letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism. “If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.

She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California. “I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”

Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines. But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.

“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you, I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.” Harper told Clinton that Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals had been released. She enclosed several reviews of the book.

“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.” It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.

Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when her alma mater, Wellesley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years.  Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed “the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.”

The paper was opened to the public in 2001. While the thesis is largely sympathetic to Alinsky, it is also critical of some of his tactics. She “agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” Clinton wrote in her first memoir, but the two had a “fundamental disagreement” over his anti-establishment tactics.

She described how this disagreement led to her parting ways with Alinsky in the summer before law school in 1969. “He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote. “Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”

The recently released correspondence shows that her biographical version of “parting ways” is far from the truth. In fact, it is apparent that it is a lie – a deliberate attempt to deceive the People about her true affection for Alinsky and his principles.

While Barack Obama focused on perfecting his community organizer skills to get himself elected President – as the greatest flim-flam man in history and then dedicating himself to denigrating American power around the world at the same time he centralized an immense amount of political power in the Executive branch of the federal government – for the next twenty years, Hillary Clinton worked in the cabal apparatus, first serving the Watergate Commission as a legal functionary, only to be fired for unethical behavior, then marrying  Bill Clinton, to whom she hitched her political wagon.

 Attorney Jerry Zeifman said he supervised Hillary Rodham as she worked on the team that supported the Watergate impeachment inquiry, and that during the investigation Hillary Clinton had “…engaged in a variety of self-serving, unethical practices in violation of House rules.” That proclivity would continue.

 Specifically, Jerry Zeifman said Hillary Rodham and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office so Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy would have a better chance of being elected president. Zeifman said a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him in August of 1974 to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “…her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.

 Jerry Zeifman also said that Hillary Rodham regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, which was a violation of House rules. Zeifman said in addition to helping Ted Kennedy win the presidency, Democrats also didn’t want Nixon to face an impeachment trial because they feared he might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy as part of his defense.

 But while Jerry Zeifman has been consistent in his criticism of Hillary Rodham’s work on the Watergate investigation, circumstances surrounding her termination are less clear. In a 1999 interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, Zeifman said he didn’t have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have: “Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham’s work on the committee. ‘If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,’ he said.

 Zeifman said Rodham sparked a bitter battle among Democrats by recommending the Judiciary Committee deny Nixon’s lawyers the right to attend the closed-door meetings. ‘Can you imagine that? This was a committee of lawyers and members of the bar, and she was saying the committee should deny the President representation,’ he said. After a lengthy behind-the-scenes debate, Zeifman said the committee decided Nixon’s lawyers could attend.”

 In an interview on the Neal Boortz Show in 2008, Jerry Zeifman altered his claim about Hillary’s termination from the Watergate investigation: “Well, let me put it this way: I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — were no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not — recommend her for any further positions.

 When pressed, Zeifman said he couldn’t recommend Hillary Rodham Clinton for future positions, “… because of her unethical conduct.” In a 2008 column Zeifman wrote, “My own reaction was of regret, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.”

 But, during the Clintons’ two terms in the White House, Hillary burnished her political bona fides and then, when they left office, the Clintons went another step beyond the Alinsky model by perfecting political extortion of foreign governments and individuals from within the American governmental system itself – specifically, from the Department of State.

 Hillary Clinton eventually sat astride the PLDC through single-minded purpose – the ferocious accumulation of power and influence – and had no rivals as a colossus of corruption and the greatest single threat to constitutional America in history. Only the most improbable – some say miraculous – event in American history prevented this colossus from gaining ultimate power.

 Hillary Clinton says that when she and her husband moved out of the White House, they were “dead broke.” As of 2016,  they were personally worth more than $150 million and their charitable foundation, The Clinton Foundation, had accumulated donations totaling more than $3 billion – yes, that’s billion – for their use in political causes and campaigns. In the book and documentary “Clinton Cash” by former Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer, it becomes all too clear how the former first couple went from “rags” to filthy rich — with the emphasis on filthy.

 Schweizer’s research withstood a year of intense scrutiny from critics because it is fact, not fiction. And the facts are compelling. The book and film whisk the reader around the globe, retracing how the Clintons personally pocketed six-figure speaking fees and collected billions of dollars for their family foundation. How? By trading on Hillary’s position as secretary of state and possible future president.

She and her ex-president husband sold out to titans, dictators and shady characters in Russia, Nigeria, Congo, Kazakhstan and the United Arab Emirates, not to mention at Goldman Sachs and TD Bank. Along the way, the Clintons betrayed the values they profess on the campaign trail: human rights, environmentalism and democracy and used and abused their liberal principles to amass a fortune.

The Clintons earned the bulk of their personal money from speaking fees. It was simple: Bill’s fees skyrocketed when Hillary became secretary of state in 2009, suggesting that countries and companies hiring him counted on getting more than just Bill — they also expected to land what his wife had to offer.

For example, a Nigerian newspaper publisher tied to the ruling People’s Democratic Party — which is anything but democratic — paid Bill a whopping $1.4 million to deliver two speeches in 2011 and 2012. The Clintons closed their eyes to the human-rights abuses by Nigeria’s brutal president, Goodluck Jonathan, as they collected their checks. Secretary Clinton even made an official visit to Nigeria in 2012, congratulating Jonathan on his non-existent “reform efforts.” It was American legitimacy bestowed at a bargain price. And just the opposite of what Human Rights Watch had implored her to do. It also lays out unsavory dealings in South Sudan, the Democratic of the Congo, and Haiti, as it constructs a thesis that regimes and companies ingratiated themselves with the Clintons through charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation and by offering hefty speaking fees to the Clintons.

Here’s another example of the pair’s lucrative shenanigans. TD Bank never engaged Bill Clinton to speak during his first eight years out of the White House. But in 2009, four days after Hillary was nominated as secretary of state, Bill made the first of a string of speeches for which TD paid almost $2 million. An astounding amount. And guess what? TD Bank was the single largest shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline, which required State Department approval. Lo and behold, Hillary Clinton decided to support the pipeline — a heresy to environmentalists — and delayed the Obama administration’s rejection of it.

Coincidence? There’s no smoking gun proving the Clintons’ speaking fees came with promises in return. But Schweizer says the evidence points to a pattern of conduct that other politicians would never get away with. They’ve been sent to jail for less. Just look at the McDonnells – the former first-family of Virginia. Their lawyers argue that they are innocent because they merely opened doors. They never expressly said, “Pay me, and I’ll do what you want.” Chief Justice John Roberts has suggested that politicians shouldn’t be convicted of corruption unless there’s proof of a quid pro quo. That might be a good rule for courts. But voters can smell the corruption in pay-to-play politics.

 Among the more damaging revelations in the film: out of 13 speeches ex-president Bill Clinton gave that earned more than $500,000 on the speaking circuit, 11 of them were during his wife’s reign as secretary of state. The book and film don’t present hard evidence of an illegal quid pro quo, but it lays out a torrent of information for viewers to consider, and throws in images of blood-stained cash to drive the point home.

 ‘Cronyism and self-enrichment are a bipartisan affair, and Hillary and Bill Clinton have perfected them on a global scale,’ Schweizer says in the film.

 When New England’s WMUR local TV host Josh McElveen asked Hillary Clinton why her State Department greenlit the transfer of 20 percent of all US uranium to the Russian government, Clinton claimed she had not been involved in her own State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium One to Russia.

 “I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the Secretary of State did,” said Clinton. The transfer of 20 percent of US uranium — the stuff used to build nuclear weapons — to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s time and attention? Beyond being an admission of extreme executive negligence on an issue of utmost national security, Hillary’s statement strains credulity to the breaking point for at least three other reasons.

 First, nine investors who profited from the uranium deal collectively donated $145 million to Hillary’s family foundation, including Clinton Foundation mega-donor and Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra, who pledged $100 million.

Since 2005, Giustra and Bill Clinton have frequently globetrotted together, and there’s even a Clinton Foundation initiative named the Clinton-Giustra initiative.

But Hillary expects Americans to believe she had no knowledge that a man who made a nine-figure donation to her foundation was deeply involved in the deal? Nor eight other mining executives, all of whom also donated to her foundation?

Second, during her 2016 interview, Clinton was asked about the Kremlin-backed bank that paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech delivered in Moscow. Hillary’s response? She dodged the question completely and instead offered this blurry evasion. “The timing doesn’t work,” said Clinton. “It happened in terms of the support for the foundation before I was Secretary of State.” Hillary added that such “allegations” are being “made by people who are wielding the partisan ax.

The real reason (not the lie) Hillary ignored addressing the $500,000 direct payment from the Kremlin-backed bank to her husband is because that payment occurred, as the New York Times confirms, “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One.” And as for her comment that the timing of the uranium investors’ donations “doesn’t work” as a damning revelation: In fact, the timing works perfectly.

As “Clinton Cash” revealed and others have confirmed, Uranium One’s then-chief, Ian Telfer, made donations totaling $2.35 million that Hillary Clinton’s foundation kept hidden. Telfer’s donations occurred as Hillary’s State Department was considering the Uranium One deal.

Third, Clinton correctly notes in the interview that “there were nine government agencies who had to sign off on that deal.” What she leaves out, of course, is that her State Department was one of them, and the only agency whose chief received $145 million in donations from shareholders in the deal.

So, according to Saul Alinsky’s protégé, in the critical moment of global leadership, with the Russians poised to seize 20 percent of US uranium, she was simply out to lunch?

Perhaps a review of her emails would settle the accuracy of her claim. But, of course, she erased her emails and wiped clean the secret server housed in her Chappaqua, NY home. To be sure, like those emails, Hillary Clinton wishes questions about her role in the transfer of US uranium to the Russian government would simply vanish. But that’s unlikely.

In the absence of such answers, Americans are left to believe only one of two potentialities regarding her involvement in the transfer of 20 percent of US uranium to Vladimir Putin: She was either dangerously incompetent or remains deeply dishonest.

Yet as media outlets across the ideological spectrum have confirmed and verified the book’s explosive revelations about Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and the influx of billions (yes, billions) of dollars from foreign sources into the Clinton Foundation, the nation has learned much it did not know. Subsequent reporting by national news outlets has expanded on the book’s findings using its investigative methodology.

Early on, as Clinton Cash bombshells began appearing in the New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, Bloomberg, and elsewhere, Hillary Clinton’s campaign sought to calm nervous campaign donors by announcing the creation of a special “rapid response” War Room aimed at combating a book, an unprecedented move in the annals of modern presidential campaigning. The Clinton campaign team built a website called “The Briefing”, issued memos, and tasked an eight-person team to create videos featuring embattled Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon as he awkwardly and unsuccessfully   attempted to smear Peter Schweizer. Team Clinton’s message: all of Clinton Cash’s revelations are incorrect or merely “coincidences.”

Yet as the nation’s largest news organizations, amazingly, began to confirm finding after finding, the Clinton campaign did the only thing it could: it gave up in its attempts to refute the swelling avalanche of now well-established facts. The result: according to a CNN poll, the “Clinton Cash Effect” has rendered Hillary Clinton historic new lows in her favorability with American voters.

Next time: “Clinton Cash”: the case for the prosecution.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s