Tuesday, August 28, 2012

THE MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT
















(Peeps, I don't know why the font changes. I didn't do it. But regardless, PLEASE READ THIS)

That's Oliver "Buck" Revell, a former high official in the FBI and, more importantly, a former Marine Officer. He's written an essay, "The Manchurian President", with his thoughts on the upcoming presidential election, and what it means for our country: the ultimate campaign issue is whether we will continue as a democratic society with free market economics or become a socialist society guided, directed and to a large degree controlled by an overriding Federal Bureaucracy with a Messianic leader guiding the nation towards his vision of “Hope and Change”. A society where all good things come from the government and those who have done well are duty bound to spread the wealth more “fairly”.

It's hard to believe such a public statement came from a former FBI Official. He must have been speaking as a former Marine Officer. The entire essay is reproduced below.

JULY 24, 2012

THE MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT
Oliver “Buck” Revell

As we prepare to elect a president of the United States in November of this year it has become starkly evident that this will be one of the most important elections in the history of our Republic. For the ultimate campaign issue is whether we will continue as a democratic society with free market economics or become a socialist society guided, directed and to a large degree controlled by an overriding Federal Bureaucracy with a Messianic leader guiding the nation towards his vision of “Hope and Change”. A society where all good things come from the government and those who have done well are duty bound to spread the wealth more “fairly”.


I had a particular insight into what an Obama Administration might bring to the American people due to experience that I gained as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge then as the Acting SAC of the FBI in Chicago in 1975 & 1976. The Mayor was Richard Daley and political corruption and organized crime were rampant. Although these problems were foremost on my priority list there was also a very recent history of New Left Radicalism as evidenced by the so called Chicago Seven Trial. Also active in the Chicago area were William “Bill” Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn leaders of the terrorist wing (the weather underground) of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

Ayers and Dohrn represented a sizeable number of radicalized youth during the Viet Nam war and personally carried out acts of terrorism to demonstrate their total opposition to U.S. involvement in Viet Nam and South East Asia. They espoused communist doctrine, and also carried on much of the legacy of the most infamous Chicago radical Saul Alinsky.

If one thinks that Ayers and Dohrn, both now respected members of academia, have reformed and support American Democracy, their recent interviews give a different picture. There is ample evidence that Ayers is as radical now as he was then. On September 11, 2011 (a day that makes this interview very ironic). Ayers was profiled by the New York Times in a piece with Ayers saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel that we didn’t do enough.”


In 2010 Ayers wife Bernadine Dohrn said that she and Bill, “…are radicals today, and we think the real terrorist is the American government”; Ayers is further quoted as saying, “I get up every morning thinking today I’m going to end capitalism”.


Alinsky, a well-known socialist radical, had become famous for his defiant stands against both the U.S. Government and big business. He had led Union activities into an era of direct and often belligerent confrontation with industry, and was an avid opponent of capitalism. Shortly before his death Alinsky authored, in 1971 his seminal book, ‘Rules for Radicals’.


I read the book while in Chicago and it helped me understand the radicalization that was occurring in several segments of American society. Little did I realize that almost forty years later I would witness and be caught up in the rebirth of Alinsky’s philosophy.


Another movement that was very powerful in Chicago at the time was the Nation of Islam under its White hating founder Elijah Muhammad. Although founded in Detroit, the Nation of Islam (NOI) moved its headquarters to Chicago and Louis Farrakhan replaced Muhammad as leader of the militant quasi-military religious order claiming Islam as the true religion and ALLAH as the One God. The NOI was problematic, but not in open revolt against main stream society at the time, but once again the future would bring the NOI back into my life at a later date.


This background in the politics, and social movements of Chicago in the mid-seventies jumped into my consciousness when I first learned that a very junior Senator from Illinois named Barack Hussein Obama was running for the office of President of the United States. I started reading everything I could find on Obama and quickly found out that he was a man with an exceedingly thin resume and very left wing in his espoused political philosophy.


As the primary campaign continued I became more and more aware that Obama had no relevant experience to qualify him for the most difficult and demanding job in the world.


I had been in Washington during the time that Jimmy Carter was president and I knew very well the hazards that our nation would face if we foolishly elected a person to be president about whom we knew next to nothing. When I learned of Obama’s relationship with William Ayers it set off alarms in my mind; if Obama was taking advice and counsel from Bill Ayers then he was either naive or reckless. I also recognized that Obama’s rhetoric was straight out of the Saul Alinsky play book, namely, Rules for Radicals.


A recently published book on Alinsky and Obama, The Evil Genius Behind Obama, by historian and political commentator Dr. Jerome R. Corsi makes very clear the influence that Alinsky’s radical ideology has on Obama. An honest review of Alinsky’s life and his writing makes clear that Barack Obama has lifted his divisive power-politics tactics from Saul Alinsky so completely that the class warfare themes Obama articulates in his speeches running for reelection in 2012 come almost word for word from the Saul Alinsky ‘rules for radicals’ playbook.

Another very troubling aspect of Obama’s adult life was his long time association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In opening his speeches to black church groups Obama would state, “I bring you greetings from my pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright”. Until Obama married Michelle Robinson in 1991, when he was thirty years old, his most significant adult relationship was with Jeremiah Wright. His connection to Wright ran long and deep, and went back further than has been generally reported. It started well before Obama joined Wright’s congregation, Trinity United Church of Christ, where the pastor’s sermons on Black Liberation Theology encouraged a victimization mentality among his black parishioners.


Among all of the controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language ‘economic parity’ and references to ‘mal-distribution’ is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx.


“Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethic framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks). Echoes of Wright’s Marxist ideology can be found in many of Obama’s remarks. For instance, when Obama says, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” he is channeling Rev. Wright. This should come as no surprise, since Wright’s influence on Obama was unrivaled for more than twenty years. And those were Obama’s formative years when his core beliefs took shape.


“Not even Michelle Obama held such intellectual sway over her husband. It was Wright that encouraged Obama to make a career of politics and offered to hook up Obama with members of the Trinity United Church of Christ who had money and important connections. The church was an integral part of Barack’s politics because he needed that black base.” (The Amateur: Edward Klein, 2012).

It was also reported that Obama had a friendly relationship with Louis Farrakhan and that the Nation of Islam was working very diligently in Black communities across the country to get out the vote for Obama. I have no recollection of the NOI ever supporting any other candidate for President of the United States.

An additional area of concern for me was the apparent close business and personal relationship between Obama and his neighbor Tony Rezko. Rezko is alleged to have assisted Obama in obtaining property at an extremely discounted price and to have introduced Obama to many of his friends as potential campaign contributors. Rezko was a member of Obama’s State Senate Campaign committee and is credited with raising approximately $250,000 for Obama, his largest single contributor. Rezko is currently serving a 10 year term in prison for fraud and bribery.

Former Governor Rod Blagojevich was a friend and business associate of Tony Rezko and Rezko was one of the Governor’s largest contributors and fund raisers. The impeachment and trial of Governor Blagojevich again raised the specter of rampant corruption in Chicago politics. Particularly disturbing was Obama’s insistence that he hardly knew Blagojevich and had only met him a few times. Evidence of many meeting and consultations has shown this statement to be false.


It has also been determined that Obama lobbied Blagojevich to appoint his friend and close confident, Valerie Jarrett, to be his (Obama’s) successor as a U.S. Senator for Illinois. Blagojevich was discovered to be attempting to obtain something of value, either a Federal appointment or cash donations in return for nominating Jarrett. Jarrett did not get the appointment largely due to the revelations in the Blagojevich investigation. Jarrett currently serves as a top advisor to President Obama and his wife Michele.


Last December, former Governor Rod Blagojevich was sentenced to fourteen years in Federal prison, thereby ending one of the most bizarre episodes in Chicago corruption annals.

Perhaps one of the most telling pre-election disclosures that disturbed me was the revelation that Obama had earmarked an appropriations bill for $1,000,000 soon after he took office for construction of a pavilion at the University Of Chicago Hospital, a private institution. It was also determined that Mrs. Obama worked at this facility and shortly after this earmark was passed she was promoted and given a $200,000 raise to a salary of $316,962. Reports were also received that she only ‘worked at this job’ on a part time basis. If I had still been in the Bureau I would have opened an investigation of the University of Chicago for bribery. I couldn’t have opened a case against Senator Obama because Senators and Representatives are immune from investigation and prosecution for legislative actions, but the University is not.


With the background information I had at this time it was not difficult for me to answer an inquiry from a representative of a national news organization. The inquiry was simple: based upon what I knew or had learned up to that time would Senator Obama be able to get a top secret clearance from the FBI.


I had to explain to the caller that neither the FBI nor any other Federal agency does background investigations on candidates for the offices of President, Vice President or members of Congress. The caller was somewhat incredulous and asked, “well how do they get clearances”, my response was that it was the responsibility of the American public and the news media to determine the qualifications of candidates running for these offices.


The reporter then posed a difficult question that caused me some hesitation to answer; he asked if Obama was an applicant for a position in the FBI would he be able to get a Top Secret Clearance. I paused and thought for a minute pondering whether I should answer such a volatile question; then I decided that my responsibility was to tell the truth and not be concerned about possible negative reactions by others.


My honest answer was with what I had learned about Obama during the campaign and if these associations and allegations were determined to be true, in my opinion, Barack Obama would not be hired or given a security clearance by the FBI, at least not while I was in the Bureau.


Although the story of my comments was run it did not stir any particular controversy and apparently the American News Media and public were not concerned with Obama’s questionable background and associations.

Even now, some four years after many of the questions and allegations concerning Obama were first raised there are still major gaps in our knowledge of his background and accomplishments. “Researchers have discovered that Obama’s autobiographical books are little more than PR stunts, as they have little to do with the actual events of his life. The fact is we know less about President Obama than perhaps any other president in American history and much of this is due to actual efforts to hide his records.”


We have no access to his school records, passport documents, scholarship or financial support data, prior to his running for public office. Who supported his attendance at some of America’s most prestigious schools and universities?


Did he apply for a foreign student scholarship and if so, what did he claim as his native country?


Was his education paid for by foreign governments or officials, and if so by whom?


Where are the papers that he had to write to graduate from Columbia and Harvard Law School?


What about the various Social Security numbers that he is alleged to have utilized, and his Selective Service registration?


How did Obama go to Pakistan when no Americans were being issued visas for travel to that country and who paid for his trip?

There may be legitimate answers to these and the other questions that have been raised about President Obama, but until he is open and forthright with the American public we just won’t know what we need to know about our president.

There are many other issues about this president such as his use of Executive Orders to bypass the Congress, his economic policies which make no fiscal sense, and his Imperial style of governance.


But those will be the subject of another paper as we are likely to be discussing and debating President Barack Obama for some time to come.




5 comments:

russell.j.coller.jr said...

Lord knows, I love a good dust-up regarding the dregs of 1960's hissy-fits. But c'mon:
1) there never should have been a draft.
2) the disgusting era of rape & taxation & ripping-off of our fellow citizens and brothers of a different skin color was better settled in 1865 than 1965.
3) the FBI may as well be the Keystone cops given the ease of Weed/Coke/PCP/Oxy dealing 5 blocks from FBI HQ - believe me I KNOW.
4) be careful picking sides with the people who seem to favor various "wars" - but have NO BALLS to pick up a rifle or knife or thermonuclear warhead & do the right thing. (LBJ & Nixon GAVE OUT medals & cash & prizes for killin' Vietnamese - why was that again?)

Coffeypot said...

Russel, I'm glad you loved this, but it has nothing to do with the 60's. I lived through that era, high school, Navy, married with baby, etc. What this man is is nothing like the 60's. He is a fraud and a Socialist and a danger to this country. At least in the 60's we knew our enemies and how to combat them. This guy is a made up puppet.

russell.j.coller.jr said...

Wait a minute:

-The FBI dude is a fixture of the 1960's.

-The people Barry Dunham "was paling around with," were disturbed by the INCOMPETENCE of the National Command Authority of the 1960's & decided to remedy the situation via murder & mayhem.

-Barry Dunham is not ABSOLVED of his agitation for tax & spend & waste & bend over in the face of the enemy. He's worse than a puppet - read his book.

-finally: "...we knew our enemies..." That's my point: LBJ & Nixon & the leadership in the Senate & House FAILED in almost every respect to do what was right in the 1960's. All frauds, tax & spend weaklings of the highest order & cities burned to the ground because of them. IT IS ABOUT THE 60's & the incompetent FBI scribbler should slink away after plucking his eyes out - like Oedipus.

Who knows, maybe they were nice to children & kind to animals... I'd put a 9mm in the back of all of their heads, if the world worked that way.

russell.j.coller.jr said...

[---the above in no way suggests ACTUAL violence against any living person.]

Of course, taking a quick pee-pee break on the grave of any leftist P.O.S. or idiotic, and equally P.O.S., politician or FBI moron from that era should be encouraged.

We don't need the internet police to divert valuable resources. You're welcome.

And just because he was a Marine Officer -at one time- does not exempt him from being a douche - it's a big 'O'-club.

Coffeypot said...

Rssell, what you say about him may be true and what you said about LBJ and RMN is most definitely true. And is true today under Bush and Obama. We have men dying because of ROE that are ridiculous...more have died under BHO, too. But 'Buck' is talking about NOW, TODAY. And what he is saying is right on.