Tag Archives: DOJ

The Obama Doctrine of Control Through Dissension

boOriginally posted at American Thinker

The president has more than proven that he is not a uniter.  He is a committed divider.  Jesus said, “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”  Hence, try as we might, it’s getting harder to ignore what appears to be a burning desire on Obama’s part to destroy the great and glorious house called America.

With an eye toward stepping in and reorganizing everything from our social and economic structure to the U.S. Constitution, it appears that Obama’s plan to gain control involves stirring up discord and agitating every area of society to the point of near-collapse.

Barack Obama has managed to undermine the nation’s unanimity through the deliberate fostering of racial, political, religious, and class-based conflict.  In other words, the President of the United States is actively endeavoring to community-organize America to death.

Chicago-style troublemaker Barack Obama acquired his skill set while nestled close to the pedagogical breast of Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky.  It was there that the president was schooled in the fine art of community organizing, and excelled as a top student.

Alinsky taught that in order to ‘disorganize the old and organize the new’ one must “stir up dissatisfaction and discontent” and “agitate to the point of conflict.” Unfortunately, Alinsky’s instructions are alarmingly similar to the president’s leadership style.

Undoubtedly, Obama understands the Alinsky principle that teaches that in order “To organize a community you must understand that … the word ‘community’ means community of interests, not physical community.”  That’s why the president subtly stirs dissension in diverse places.  His method is to “Pick…freeze…personalize… and polarize” a wide variety of groups, individuals, and philosophies.

Therefore, in his unending quest to “fundamentally transform” America, Barack Obama has stealthily managed to expose many a raw nerve.  Still, rather than make a blatant attempt to further divide Americans, the president cunningly pokes his finger into past grievances in hopes of creating festering sores he seems committed to exacerbating.

Proficient community organizer that he is, Obama inflames old hurts with veiled suggestions that incite hostility among factions, and then uses silence to offer tacit approval of the hate speech spouted by his allies. Those tried-and-true Alinsky polarizing tactics alienate those who disagree with Obama’s agenda by portraying whole swathes of Americans as menaces to a national unity he purports to desire, but continues to undermine.

Yet even while employing doublespeak, blithe disregard for the facts, subterfuge, and occasional impulsivity, the president has been able to project the image to some of unifier as he carefully manipulates the tools of divisiveness to the benefit of his long-term agenda.

Obama darkly suggests that the Catholic Church is the arch enemy of women; Americans who just want immigration laws to be enforced and the border secured are dream-destroying xenophobes; excluding Democrat donors, rich people are portrayed as selfish parasites; pro-traditional marriage advocates are homophobes; gun owners are a threat to the safety of every American child, and the antagonistic beat goes on.

Now, in what appears to be the next phase, macro acrimony is being perpetrated on an increasingly micro level.

Based on his public response, it’s apparent that Barack Obama, just as he did with Henry Gates, Jr. and Officer Crowley, must have felt that George Zimmerman, an Hispanic man originally assumed to be white, “acted stupidly” when defending himself against Trayvon Martin, a black teenager whom Zimmerman claims was trying to kill him.

America already knows that Obama believes that “if [he] had a son he’d look like Trayvon Martin.” That fatherly declaration may have been a foreshadowing of the president’s attempt to purposely foment racial unrest by dispatching the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service to descend on Florida to “work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”

And if that’s not bad enough, the Obama Administration’s “Insider Threat Program” is now promoting suspicion among federal co-workers by asking colleagues to spy on and report one another based on criteria that can only be described as wholly subjective.

Organized divisiveness masked as an attempt to keep America safe, the program asks federal employees and contractors to pay “particular attention to the lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors – like financial troubles, odd working hours or unexplained travel.”  The stated hope is that co-workers can predict whether “suspicious action” might indicate that the guy they’ve worked side-by-side with for the last 20 years has plans to do “harm to the United States.”

As a result, federal workers have officially been added to a list of potential threats that already includes pro-life advocates, ex-military, Christians of all denominations, Tea Party activists, Conservatives, and just about any group on the planet that is perceived to pose problems for Barack Obama’s progressive vision for an Alinsky-inspired “world not as it is,” but as he thinks “it should be.”

At the rate the Obama-instigated dissension is progressing, before long, American neighborhoods will devolve into combat zones and children will turn in parents for being enemies of the state. In the meantime, instead of asking the president about his favorite food, some journalist, kid or otherwise, should inquire of him how his constant fostering of disunity helps drive home the point that the state of our union is in need of stronger alliances?

Nevertheless, the Bible emphatically states that “A troublemaker plants seeds of strife.” From the first day he was elected, the president has consistently sown seeds of strife, and, as a result, it has become clear that Barack Obama is indeed implementing Alinsky’s strategy on a national level.  Apparently the president hopes that if he stirs up enough dissension, America’s great and glorious house will be unable to stand.  Then, it will be on to the coup de grâce, when Barack Obama finally gets to implement the type of control he so fervidly desires.

‘Fast and Furious’: What if Eric Holder is Telling the Truth?

Originally posted at BIG Government

In light of the “Fast and Furious” fiasco, the Obama administration is embarrassing itself whenever it tries to convince the public that on issues like healthcare and immigration reform, the government is well equipped to ensure the safety of the American people.

Presently, a scandal surrounding the White House alleges that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) purposely allowed Mexican drug cartel gang members to gain possession of illegal weaponry on the US side of the border. Despite his denials, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice are suspected of knowing about the effort whose intent was to track gunrunning kingpins by way of a “tactic known as ‘letting guns walk.’”

Gun walking involved the feds standing by and doing nothing while weapons such as “an antiaircraftmachine gun, a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher” were loaded into trunks by suspected Mexican straw purchasers.  The illegal acquisition of the weapons was overlooked, with the intent to use the guns as a pseudo-GPS system to track down and overtake dangerous Mexican drug cartels.

The problem is, those same guns eventually turned up at murder scenes alongside the bodies of two dead Border Patrol agents, Jamie Zapata and Brian Terry, not to mention the innumerable Mexicans killed in drug wars with guns smuggled in from Arizona.

In a letter to members of Congress, Eric Holder defended his lack of familiarity with the controversial undertaking, maintaining that he had “no recollection of knowing about the operation, called ‘Fast and Furious,’ or of hearing its name prior to the public controversy about it.”

Some members of Congress believe Eric Holder had prior knowledge of the gun-walking operation.  If the Attorney General continues to maintain he was unaware of the debacle, it must be because he believes that plausible deniability protects and benefits the political future of both himself and the President of the United States.

But Mr. Holder is misguided, because while it would be horrifying to find out he possessed foreknowledge of the failed operation, what would be even worse for big government progressives would be to find out that the Attorney General is actually telling the truth.

Holder not knowing about “Fast and Furious” proves that an Obama appointee’s poor administrative oversight cost the lives of two Americans who died in service to their country, which underscores the potential for massive bureaucratic failures now and in the future.

Both Obama’s and Holder’s attempts to deny complicity serve to verify that every endeavor this administration undertakes threatens more and more innocent people, either through outright incompetency or shameless disregard for human life.

Eric Holder’s actions and denials may be an attempt at feigning innocence, but such efforts undermine Obama’s unrelenting attempts to convince and reassure the nation to entrust government bureaucrats with even larger life-and-death decisions.

Think about it: How can an administration vow to be competent enough to handle the administrative oversight of health care reform for a population of 300 million people if it can’t monitor a small number of guns?

Whether the Attorney General gave his approbation or he didn’t, to track criminals by employing the harebrained idea that murderers could be traced when dead bodies float up in the Rio Grande ultimately affects the credibility of Obama’s future big government plans for America.

The felonious lunacy of “Fast and Furious” exposes the Obama administration’s pervasive impotence on every level. Regardless of how President Obama tries to give surety to the American public, it’s obvious that a group unable to tie their own shoes is in no position to run a health care program slated to cost trillions and affect hundreds of millions Americans over the next 10 years.

Add to the President’s refusal to address dangerous open borders; his favoritism toward illegal aliens living unlawfully in America; and the pursuit of repeated lawsuits against states trying to defend themselves against hostile invasion, and the situation gets still more precarious.

Holder and Obama testifying to being clueless about a poorly thought-out, relatively small-scale yet incredibly dangerous operation indicates that any Obama endeavor larger than “Fast and Furious” could eventually end up exponentially costing more lives.  So how can this administration vouch for immigration reform involving 13 million illegal aliens when they were unable to maintain control over 2,000 illegal guns?

Thus, as Darrell Issa (R-CA) presses Eric Holder to explain the tragedy of how two American border agents ended up in body bags, he may not realize he is doing the nation an even greater service. By getting to the bottom of the “Fast and Furious” controversy, Congressman Issa is reaffirming for a country under siege by an administration whose actions mimic those of armed enemies, that everything the Obama administration touches turns to disaster and one way or another ultimately ends up threatening our lives.

Judging by the numbers alone, “Fast and Furious” proves that an administration who failed to control a program that involved a couple of thousand guns should not be trusted with the healthcare oversight for 300 million Americans.  Nor should Obama continue to be allowed to falsely assure the American public that 13 million illegal aliens pose little or no danger to our nation or its people.  Lest we forget, gun walking was supposed to prevent crime, not cause it.

If the good intentions surrounding the giving of guns to criminals failed so miserably, it stands to reason that extending government largesse in the form of health care and immigration reform also carries with it the explosive potential to result in the “Fast and Furious” destruction of the entire nation.

%d bloggers like this: