Accuracy in Media

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s speech that launched his presidential campaign on Monday noted that Hillary Clinton’s “progressive agenda” includes the admonition that traditional religious beliefs “have to be changed.” Mrs. Clinton’s entire quote, in talking about opposition to her version of feminism and demands for abortion, was that “…deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Bush also said of the Democrats, “They have offered a progressive agenda that includes everything but progress.”

But it’s never been the case that the progressive agenda offers real progress, as ordinary people understand the term. Instead, the “progressives” offer what Professor Paul Kengor calls cultural Marxism. This is the planned disintegration of the traditional family structure that has been the basis of Western civilization. Kengor, author of the new book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, told me in an interview that the progressives are guided by the belief that “new rights are coming all the time and that everything is in a state of evolution.” He added, “There are no absolutes for them.” Hence, the gay rights movement has now morphed into rights for so-called transgenders, as we see in the relentless media propaganda that is designed to convince the public that men can, and perhaps should, become women. Kengor says the next step is for “progress” or “evolution” to a new level that includes such concepts and arrangements as multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.

It’s no secret that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s family structure exists in name only. Bill, the disgraced former president impeached by the House, betrayed Hillary and had sex with a White House intern. He is a serial adulterer. But the Clintons have stayed together for political reasons, so that Hillary can pursue her political career. Together, along with daughter Chelsea, this arrangement has generated nearly $2 billion in donations to a family foundation that now finds itself embroiled in financial scandals over where the money went, and what it paid for.

Looking back on Mrs. Clinton’s career, I continue to be struck by the wisdom of Barbara Olson, the author of the 1999 book Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Olson was the lawyer and conservative commentator who was murdered by Islamic terrorists when the aircraft she was on, American Airlines Flight 77, was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon in the September 11, 2001, attacks. The crash killed 125 people on the ground and another 64 passengers and crew.

I interviewed Olson on December 8, 2000, when I hosted a radio show in the Washington, D.C. area. What follows is an edited transcript of that interview.

Q: Do you believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Marxist?

A:  I believe she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism. In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology…But when you look at her ideas on health and education, you see more government and less individual control. You see very little regard for families…

Q: Do you see Hillary as in favor of Socialist-style thinking at the global level?

A: We saw that with her activities as First Lady. She traveled more than any other First Lady. She had a global view. She spoke at the Beijing conference on women. She was very active in organizations and conferences  that seem to be concerned about human rights but which are also directed toward a centralized governmental view. That is, one world. I looked at her travels and saw what she was doing. I always assumed Hillary was going to run for president. And I assumed that these international travels and her work with the Beijing women’s conference and the U.N. were going to be her way into the White House; that she was going to have a foreign policy platform that not many women have…

Q: So you do believe that she will run for president?

A: I do. She believes her ideology to the core. She’s worked for it behind Bill Clinton for years. I have thought that Hillary was going to run for the White House since 1993 when I started investigating the Clintons. She doesn’t compromise. She doesn’t come to the center. She believes in a true leftist, Socialist kind of government.

Q: She portrays her causes such as children’s rights and women’s rights in such an attractive manner. She has put conservatives on the defensive once again.

A: She has. That’s the central focus of her public relations campaign…But her ideas about health care and education have very little to do with women and children. They are the lever she uses to bring the government into the family. 

Q: She’s been pushing treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Isn’t she promoting global government?

A: Yes.  We all know about her book, It Takes a Village. She says the future is not family but the larger village of teachers, pediatricians and social workers. She talks about raising children as less of a parental task than a social one…You have the destruction of the family unit. That’s very basic when you study socialism and Marxism.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech to the Women in the World Summit, where she spoke on how religious beliefs have to be changed, was significant for several reasons. The event was sponsored by Tina Brown, who launched The Daily Beast and later became editor-in-chief of Newsweek. The event was conducted in association with The New York Times, and included actress Meryl Streep and comedian Jon Stewart. These were the elites of the progressive media and Hollywood.

Typically, Mrs. Clinton talked about families at the event. “We know that when women are strong, families are strong,” she said. “When families are strong, countries are strong.” It’s important to understand this comment in light of her own failed marriage, which she has held together for political purposes, and how she has adopted the entire progressive agenda regarding how traditional families have to be changed to accommodate new sexual rights and new “family” structures. Olson’s book is still important in order to understand what Mrs. Clinton means by families, and how Marxists use family-friendly jargon to confuse and mislead. Kengor’s book is absolutely essential to understand how the progressive agenda would continue to transform the nation under a President Hillary Clinton.

Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign announcement demonstrated that he is aware of the political and semantic games that the modern-day progressives are playing on the American people. If he focuses on this Marxist strain in the Democratic Party in order to identify the forces that are rotting America to the core, he will find many conservatives receptive to his message. At the same time, if he pursues this course, the progressives in the media who gathered around Hillary Clinton during that April feminist summit will come down on the former Florida governor like a ton of bricks.

Will Bush follow up with a full frontal assault on the progressive forces destroying America? Or will he wilt under pressure and make nice with those prepared to destroy the country he wants to lead?

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Excellent article, Cliff. Whenever Hillary speaks of what “can be,” an existing “is” is under attack. Hillary and her fellow comrades work to effect “constant change,” or paradigm shift.

  • 1984_XXXI

    Great. Some one is finally starting to connect the “dots”. Vladimir Lenin touted his Communist government as the only “Progressive” government in the world.

  • John Cunningham

    Under the word “Wrath” in the dictionary, it should have Hillary Clinton’s picture. That is one scorned woman and I wouldn’t want her nipping at my coattails. She has been scorned from one end of the spectrum to the other.

    Bill, he went after every skirt he could and she stood by him. Then she ran for president in 2008 and had the nomination sewed up and along came Barack Obama. The press and every Liberal in America, turned her down.

    That alone put her over. She is an embittered old woman that if she doesn’t win next year will most likely implode. If Elizabeth Warren should suddenly throw her hat in the ring, Hillary may commit murder.

  • Mesa Mike

    There’s no doubt about it: she’s Stalin-in-a-pantsuit. While Obama is a lamentable sad sack lacking in judgement and intellect and someone who has sociopath tendencies, his traits are largely inculcated by early influences; yet, we see that he is a very dangerous person. Hillarious, though, is much, much worse because she is a psychopath by nature, an innate hatemonger. She will convert Alaska to the New Siberia where dissident U.S. citizens (i.e., slave labor) will mine and harvest every natural resource in that state so as to enrich herself and others like her, such as John Kerry and most of the people now in Moscow-on-the-Potomac. During her reign of terror, hubby-in-name, B.J. Clinton, will be kept drugged and incoherent, which isn’t too far a trip for that goofball idiot.

  • Maria-Erlinda Martinez

    Excellent piece by Kincaid; he does an outstanding work educating non-leftists in general, and grassroots-conservatives, in particular.

    Yes, she is a Marxist….but, worse, a Marxist of one of the worst angles of Marxism: a cultural-communist.

    That is, an adherent to Cultural-Communism (deceivingly aka Western Marxism or accurately aka Western Leninism), which stems from Antonio Gramsci’s revision of Leninism for its adaptation –without outright Russian-Bolshevism (i.e., original Leninism– to the realities and idiosyncrasy of the developed and semi-developed nations in the West targeted for takeover. In circa 1926, Gramsci (an Italian, and originally a Bolshevik and personally friends with Lenin) came up with the eureka that outright Russian-Bolshevism –with its brutal systemic and systematic use of terror and utter violence– would never work in those societies, so, he set out on outfoxing the dominant system in such societies:

    First, he identified what he named CULTURAL Hegemony, i.e., the orchestrated use in non-socialist and non-communist developed and semi-developed nations of some “societal control tools” to make the “masses” accept and even root for free-entrepreneurism (i.e., capitalism).

    Second, he identified such societal-control tools: 1- well established traditional political parties; 2- the media; 3- academia; 4-the intelligentsia; 5- the arts and entertainment; and, 6- organized religion (he deemed organized labor as practically in the hands of the hardcore-Left). I was with those six tools of societal control that Gramsci said the masses are co-opted in non-socialist and non-communist societies.

    Third, he told the Western followers of Lenin to abandon Russian Bolshevism, and to snatch from the Right those six “tools of societal control”.

    Fourth, he told them to boost the use of those “tools of societal control” –this time for the furtherance of the hardcore-Left’s agenda– by the systemic and systematic use of the gradualism advocated by Eduard Bernstein (a German and originally a consummate Marxist, having –though– become the first seriously-prominent revisionist of Marxism) and the Fabians (England).

    That’s why Cultural Communism is called as such, and not because Western intellectuals (e.g., the “Frankfurt School”, who agreed with Lenin’s ulterior aims, but kept distant from Leninism for its savagery and brutality) gave Gramsci’s ideas an aura of intellectualism. Gramsci’s strategy fit them perfectly well, it gave them the cover they needed.

    Outright Bolsheviks are easy to identify for their brazen and sheer savagery and brutality (e.g. in the USA: Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Black Panthers, etc.).

    But cultural communists are insidious; they are stealthy, using to such effect, the tools inherent to democracy to bamboozle the masses. That’s how the Democrat Party has gradually, stealthily come to control must of government at all levels throughout the U.S.A. That’s how they finagled placing Bill Clinton first, and now, Obama, in the White House.

    The remark must be made that once in –or when close to– full control of society, cultural communists return to their Bolshevik roots, but not to an outright Russian Bolshevist style, but to a Bolshevism adapted to the realities and idiosyncrasy of the society targeted for takeover. Hence you see Obama using “executive action” rather than “mass-execution action” as Lenin and Stalin did. That’s why Obama unleashes the IRS, OSHA, the FDA, the ATF, the DOJ, the FBI, the DHS, etc. to terrorize dissidents rather than a Cheka or a GRU or a NKVD or a KGB as done in the former Soviet Union, where the population became accustomed to abuse and terror from a 300 year old czarist system.

    Cultural communists are “suave”…beguilingly lethal.

    Hillary Clinton is much more dangerous than a simple Marxist, for she is a cultural-communist…as the vast majority of the ideological nucleus of the Democrat Party is.

    So, to understand Hillary (and the ideological nucleus of the Democrat Party) studying Marxism is necessary for conservatives and, particularly for grassroots conservatives, but mainly only from the point of view of ideology and economics.

    However, from the point of view of “praxis” (i.e., “standard-operations-procedure” shenanigans, trickery, beguiling, conniving) and to thoroughly understand Hillary (and the ideological nucleus of the Democrat Party), cultural-communism must be studied as well; that is, Lenin and Gramsci have to be read as much as possible.

  • emag

    She will sell Alaska to the Russians and the money will go in the Clinton Cr ime Family Foundation. Billions of it.
    Its a definite possibility.

  • Peter

    I just wish Hilary Clinton had have been aborted

  • Peter

    Well explained mutant fascism/nazism/communism. Is that why the Roman bundles of rods called ‘Fasces’ are so prominent in the Capitol building? Fasces are symbolic of corporal punishment – a flogging with birch wood called ‘birching’. The way is being led with seeming kindness, but are Americans looking forward to the flogging that follows. Beware of Marxists bearing gifts.
    The Jews boarded trains having been promised by Hitler they were going to work camps with better conditions. Happily they went to what turned out to be the gas chambers. Now look here Americans: “Hilary is counting on your gullibility.”

  • Colorado Conservative

    I do not care what Jeb Bush does. If the GOP establishment foists him upon us we plan to vote for a write in. Enough of the progressive GOP’s infecting America, it is bad enough we have the Marxist democrats to fight.

  • ItsJo

    Excellent article and it fits Hillary to a T. Her mentor- Marxist, Saul Alinsky whom she wrote her thesis on Hillary did not take his offer to work for him, but opted instead to join the team to take down Nixon. Even her Supervisor fired her for being “a Liar, and Not following the Constitution.”

    She has Always been an Alinsky Radical-straight out of his “Rules For Radicals” and the 13 Rules she follows exclusively-Just as Obama, who taught Alinsky’s methods to Acorn Thugs. Hillary pretends to care about women and ‘the children'(another ploy to seduce followers), and like Obama They BOTH carry on their charade of “beguiling the public, but it is really more of what one of the posters called: “Cultural Communism” and they as Elitists, believe ONLY in Total Control/Power/Money….which IS Hillary, through and through.

    She and Bill found a way to capitalize on raking in ALL the money they can, through their faux global charity and library, although it should be called:
    “THE CLINTON LAUNDROMAT”-where Money is Washed, Rinsed and then they SPIN (lie) IT AT FULL SPEED, as money flows in from ANY Nation, ANY Person who wants to “Pay to Play”…..Corruption Personified=Clinton.

    Barbara Olson’s, “Hell To Pay” gives an inside look at Hillary, her methods and her lust for Power/Money/Control. Still available at Amazon.

  • Janet Williams

    They figure if they can destroy the culture and the institutions, we won’t bother to fight for them? Why bother? Men are women. Illegals can drive and vote.