Originally posted at CLASH Daily
The left is in the midst of a major temper tantrum. The reason? They cheated, connived, and manipulated a win for Hillary Clinton and she lost anyway.
It’s no wonder Clinton, the woman with the gleeful full-body-he’s-an-idiot shiver during one debate, nearly went ballistic on the night of the election after she realized she lost to a man liberals view as a clown with a canary-yellow pompadour.
So, rather than accept the results of a fair election, and rather than submit to the will of “We the people,” the “Love Trumps hate” crowd has formed a hateful resistance and is presently in the process of trying to drive Donald Trump from the White House.
How are they doing it? With the same playbook they’ve used to incite street-level chaos for 40+ years. Now, the left is hoping to undermine a free and fair election by employing Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which, for progressives like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, is the Bible.
Alinsky’s ground rules worked very well for Barack Obama the community organizer when he applied them to incite worldwide chaos for eight years. Therefore, it stands to reason that liberals believe using similar strategies should be able to send an outsider like Trump back to his gilded Tower in New York City — permanently.
Currently, the game plan the left is testing involves trusty Rule #12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”
Those instructions are exactly what are being inflicted on Donald Trump.
The left has TARGETED Trump for destruction. They are portraying him as a threat to America and have FROZEN his image as a cartoon-like inept, loose cannon, “pu**y-grabbing” rich, white guy, whose affection for Vladimir Putin outweighs his love for America.
What is being said about Trump is very PERSONAL. The media, Democrats and deep state Republicans have managed to either confirm prior opinions or have successfully defamed his character in the minds of many. The president is being portrayed as a liar and a threat to national security and world peace.
The hope is that via leaks and news stories that portray a frustrated White House staff the public will view Donald Trump as a man CUT OFF from a SUPPORT NETWORK, a man whose most ardent admirers are presently fed up and jumping ship.
Trump’s adversaries are hoping that the unrelenting pressure, and unsupported accusations from the media, Democrats, and deep-state Republicans will tire out the public and make those who once supported the populist president UNSYMPATHETIC and doubting their original choice.
As they threaten our representative republic by opposing the will of the people, the resistance movement is attempting to portray themselves as lovers of America who are against one man, not the INSTITUTION. The HURT they claim they are inflicting is not against the presidency, but, for the sake of freedom and America, against the singular person of Donald Trump.
These are classic Alinsky street thug, community activist tactics, these are the antics that worked for Obama on a national and global level for almost a decade. The left knows that if applied with passionate zeal, Rules for Radicals work just as well on a micro level against single individuals. The left also knows that these “rules” have the power to stir up the sort of chaos that demands someone end the madness by ushering in change most Americans would oppose under less chaotic circumstances.
In this case, the goal is impeachment.
There is a manipulative spirit at work here, and Americans, regardless of their political persuasion, should both recognize and fear it.
Moreover, even those Americans who oppose Trump’s politics and his presidency, need to acknowledge the tremendous danger our republic is in if political hooligans successfully employ the media and manipulate public officials to overturn a democratic election via violence, false accusation, and lies.
If the left succeeds — America is lost.
Trust me, disgruntled Americans should just take a break from hating Trump for one second and look behind the curtain, what they will see is the Machiavellian hands of Obama, and those like him, who, in hopes of vindicating a failed liberal legacy, are seeking the help of their demonically-inspired idol, the late Saul Alinsky.
Recently, when disrupters showed up at a Trump rally in Chicago, the first thing that came to mind was that America’s most notorious community organizer could be the wizard behind the curtain orchestrating what was being sold as an organic occurrence.
In Saul Alinsky’s 1971 book Rules for Radicals, the late author could have been describing Obama’s last seven years in office when he wrote that an efficacious organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.”
The father of community organizing taught that once people are “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” the agitated could be directed to participate in rowdy demonstrations. By employing those techniques on the international level, Alinsky’s star pupil, Barack Obama, has successfully managed to whip up global chaos.
Back in Chicago, in the early 1980’s, Greg Galluzzo taught student Barack Obama to avoid the spotlight because the fundamental goal of a grassroots activist is to lead “indigenous” communities to believe they were taking action independently.
As 2016 election protests continue to gather steam, it appears as if Galluzzo’s street-smart pupil is having trouble hiding his preoccupation with the Republican candidates.
Granted, thus far, Obama has not acknowledged Weather Underground bomber buddy Bill Ayers protesting Trump in Chicago. In addition, the president has been low key about Black Lives Matter Chicago leader Aislinn Pulley visiting the White House for Black History month a few weeks before #BLM shut Trump down in Chicago.
Obama has even managed to remain mum about his associations with Soros-financed MoveOn.org, Chicago’s Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the Communist Party USA, all of whom have also caused disruptions at recent Trump rallies.
In addition to some of the president’s dearest friends, the motley crew of community-organizing characters on the march also includes like-minded Bernie supporters who have promised that if Donald J. Trump wins the Republican nomination, mass civil disobedience is scheduled to take place that will make Chicago’s 1968 “Battle of Michigan Avenue” seem like a block party.
That’s why, despite a poor attempt at keeping a low profile, if Obama believes that Alinsky-style “direct action” possesses the power to keep a Republican billionaire populist or a “tea bagging” Constitutionalist out of the White House, it’s doubtful he will be able to sit back and let the skills he honed in Chicago go to waste.
After years of observing this president’s partisan bullying, one thing is certain, try as he might to hide it, over the last two terms, Barack Obama’s intrinsic dedication to Alinsky tactics has never wavered.
Remember when the New Black Panthers intimidated white voters with billy clubs at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 election? Then, remember how the Tea Party was targeted and harassed by the IRS prior to the 2012 election?
In 2008, Saul Alinsky’s son L. David Alinsky wrote the following about his father’s most dedicated former student:
Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
That’s why, if America is fundamentally transforming into an Alinsky playground, and if prior to a public demonstration Black Lives Matter Chicago just happens to suddenly drop in on the White House, Barack Obama is a suspect.
Think of it! Every time Obama disparages a Republican candidate, he’s merely exercising the Alinsky tactic of ridicule that served him well on the Southside of Chicago.
Recently, at a St. Patrick’s Day gathering Obama had this to say:
The longer that we allow the political rhetoric of late to continue, and the longer that we tacitly accept it, we create a permission structure that allows the animosity in one corner of our politics to infect our broader society. And animosity breeds animosity.
By choosing to forgo nibbling on Irish Soda bread and discussing his Moneygall roots, Obama turned a luncheon into an opportunity to fuel street-level strife. By doing what comes naturally, Alinsky’s charge purposely contributed to the “vicious atmosphere” he claims to reject.
And for those who tend to compartmentalize, those St. Patrick’s Day sentiments came from a verbally vindictive pol who, when not busy stirring up international turmoil, breeds domestic animosity by depicting white Americans as religious fanatic gunslingers looking to express “antipathy toward peoplewho aren’t like them.”
In keeping with that line of thinking, Barack Obama habitually panders to African Americans, Latinos, young voters, and women. By doing so, this president confirms that the principal objective of everything he says and does is directly related to organizing communities to take action on behalf of the left’s interests.
Yet despite those and other not-so-well-hidden attempts to practice street activism, Obama does seem somewhat uneasy.
Recently, at a DNC event in Austin, Texas, Barack expressed apprehension when he pointed out that “Change doesn’t happen overnight…we never get 100 percent of change.”
Apart from the personal satisfaction this subversive enjoys from the extensive damage he’s already done to America, if ever there were a reason to drag into the middle of the Oval Office the infamous chalkboard young Barry used when marshaling the Chicago multitudes, fear that “Hope and Change” will be toppled by someone like Trump would be that reason.
Unconvinced? Let’s remember that prior to the failed Arab Spring it was Obama that helped to organize the Arab street.
So, as the “largest civil disobedience action of the century” looms on the American street, there is little doubt that deep in the bowels of the White House Barack Obama is organizing Democrats to usher in the Democracy Spring.
Originally posted at American Thinker
Lately it’s hard to take John Boehner and his Coppertone tan seriously. However, when it appeared that the House Majority Speaker was proactively taking the wind out of Barack Obama’s ‘they want to impeach me’ sails, there was a glimmer of hope that someone on the right had actually grown a spine.
Republicans reiterating that impeachment was not an option exhibited a rare unified spirit. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) even hobbled up to the mic to reinforce Boehner’s proclamation that impeaching Barack Obama was a talking point that Democrats, not Republicans, were going on about. Continue Reading →
Originally posted at American Thinker Over the years, liberals occasionally get sloppy and let it slip that the inspiration for their vision of America comes directly from a left-wing activist/community organizer and student of Chicago mobsters, Saul Alinsky, author of a handbook for revolutionaries entitled Rules for Radicals.
Just prior to his death in 1972, while discussing life after death in a Playboy interview, Alinsky said that, if given the choice between heaven and hell, he’d choose hell.
So it’s probably no coincidence that Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals guidebook, also written in 1972, included a reference to Lucifer, whom Alinsky called “the very first radical,” because he “rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.”
Alinsky’s writings helped mold the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and ultimately, through her husband’s influence, Michelle Obama.
In her Wellesley College senior thesis, Hillary Rodham chose to research and write a dissertation entitled There is Only the Fight… An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. That model may be the reason why, after Bill Clinton took office, nasty tactics, shifting blame, and truth-parsing became commonplace in American politics.
As for Barack and Michelle Obama, neither one has ever been timid about citing Chapter 2 of Rules for Radicals, which says,”The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.”
Michelle Obama has shared many times that it was while attending a small group meeting in a church basement conducted by a young radical she had just started dating that she first heard him discuss “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be…”
In her speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, again Michelle shared Barack’s words, saying, “All of us [are] driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do — that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”
Though not verbatim, the basic Alinsky “world as it is… the world as it should be” premise is what the Obamas latched onto and continue to repeat to this day.
The “as it is… as it should be” reiteration proves that over the years Obama’s affection for radical rules hasn’t waned much since that day in Chicago he impressed his future wife when he conjured up the ghost of Alinsky past.
In March of 2012, while addressing young Israelis in Jerusalem, Obama displayed his high regard for Saul Alinsky when he again endeavored to quote him, saying, “Israel has the wisdom to see the world as it is. And, Israel has the courage to see the world as it should be.”
More recently, in the least likely of places, Obama’s commitment to radicalism, as if it were ever in doubt, was reestablished, but this time not by him.
What’s ironic is that the reconfirmation didn’t come from the man recently indicted for exposing the truth in a highly successful 2012 documentary entitled 2016: Obama’s America. Instead, it was the president’s old Weather Underground Chicago buddy, the bomb-throwing, anti-capitalist, America-hating, flag-stomping, ghostwriting Alinskyite, Bill Ayers.
While struggling to debate Dinesh D’Souza about why America isn’t so great, Ayers waxed philosophically poetic when he quoted the same words both Michelle and Barack attempted to cite from Chapter 2 of Rules for Radicals.
At exactly 43 minutes and 14 seconds into the contest, there it was, plain as day when Bill Ayers said this: “Standing right next to the world as such, a world that could be or a world that should be and committing ourselves to work toward that better world.”
Saul Alinsky, the man Obama and Ayers attempted to quote but sometimes fail to do accurately, once said this about the middle class: “The despair is there; now it’s up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change.”
Thanks to Bill Ayers, America, “rubbed raw with sores of discontent,” is again reminded from whence our president came. As evidenced by the pandemonium his progressive policies are delivering to every corner of American politics, society, and culture, Barack Obama is still very much committed to “radical social change.”
Tracing backwards from Bill Ayers to Saul Alinsky to Alinsky’s source of inspiration, Lucifer, it’s undeniable that the president still firmly believes that “the world as it is just won’t do.” And what proves it is that he is currently in the process of ‘fundamentally transforming’ America’s world into the sort of hell Saul Alinsky thought “it should be.”
Originally posted at American Thinker
A few days prior to the 2012 presidential election, in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie gave Obama a long, drawn-out hug and silently nodded his head in agreement to every word spoken by the always-opportunistic president. Since that day, the twosome has been setting the standard for bipartisan solidarity.
Effusively calling Obama’s response to the storm “wonderful,” “excellent” and “outstanding,” Christie addressed concerns over how his actions might impact the outcome of the election:
I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested. I have a job to do in New Jersey that is much bigger than presidential politics. If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics, then you don’t know me.
At the time, those words were likely music to Obama’s amply-sized auricles. Since then, rapport between the two has persisted. At the Governor’s Ball Christie was even given a seat of honor and got to clink champagne glasses with the captivating Michelle Obama, who actually agreed to share dining space with a chubby New Jerseyan who looks nothing like Jon Bon Jovi.
Either way, it must be mutually-shared moral authority that is the primary force behind the Chris/Barry relationship. Apparently, having personal experience with super-storms and terrorism, Christie, together with Obama — who understands everything about everything — both possess the moral authority to stomp all over the U.S. Constitution.
Now, with the IRS thugs having to lay low for a while, Obama the community organizer needs a dependable agent to work on behalf of the 2014 election. And who better than a man that proved his mettle in 2012? That’s why, based on the governor’s pugnacious conduct toward those in his own political party, it appears Chris Christie may have been recruited into the Obama “Rules for Radicals” gang.
Obama must have guaranteed Christie a new amusement park in Seaside Heights, because lately the Garden State governor has been the pure embodiment of Alinsky rule #13, which says, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” What’s making the whole thing so suspicious is Governor Christie’s verbal rancor is mostly being directed toward a specific political adversary of the president, the outspoken Tea Party favorite, Rand Paul.
The dust-up started at the Republican Governors’ Summit in Aspen, Colorado when, for no apparent reason, Christie singled out and pounced on Senator Rand Paul. Addressing opponents to Obama’s snoop-and-spy policies, the New Jersey governor went on to personalize his attack by suggesting the Kentuckian is “dangerous” because he opposes the Obama Administration’s overreaching government surveillance programs. Christie also accused the senator and those like him of failing to understand the dangers of terrorism.
Implying that concern over government abuse of surveillance is “esoteric,” and sounding like he was reading straight off Obama’s teleprompter, Chris Christie said:
This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought. You can name any number of people and (Paul is) one of them.
For context, the late Saul Alinsky stressed that “In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.'” That is exactly the approach Barack Obama built his political career upon and appears to be what Chris Christie attempted to do to Rand Paul on Obama’s behalf.
Respectfully responding to the “esoteric…dangerous” remarks, the senator suggested Christ-O-Bama get a “new dictionary” if he believes Constitutional fidelity is “esoteric” and “dangerous.”
Senator Paul accused Christie of being “sad and cheap” for using the “cloak of 9/11 victims” to shield his unconstitutional position, and of having a “give me, give me, give me all the money” approach to fiscal issues in Washington. More recently, Paul also criticized Christie’s über-dependence on federal funds.
In classic Alinsky style, the Jersey governor fired back by portraying the fiscally conservative Tea Party activist as a “big-spending Washington establishment figure.”
At a press conference announcing monetary grants for homeowners affected by Hurricane Sandy, Christie said:
Maybe [Paul] should start cutting the pork barrel spending he brings home to Kentucky? But I doubt he will, because most Washington politicians only care about bringing home the bacon so that they can get reelected.
This is Crispy Bacon Christie talkin’ here! He’s the one who sold out his party for federal assistance to rebuild gambling casinos. Paul responded to the governor’s pork comment by saying, “Oh, you start trashing my state. Now he’s really going to be in trouble. Don’t start trashing Kentucky, buddy.”
Paul pointed out that he did not “choose this fight with the governor.” That is correct Mr. Senator, you did not; the choice to pick a fight was probably made higher up on the food chain, and has rolled down to you via Barack Obama’s portly political pawn.
Tough guy Chris Christie is aiding and abetting Alinsky acolyte Obama by accomplishing a key Alinsky objective, which is to “zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack,” so that “all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork…[and] become visible by their support of the target [.]”
In filial loyalty to his bipartisan buddy, new Alinskyite recruit Chris Christie appears more than willing to tag-team with Obama and entice “all the others” to step forward in Paul’s defense. In other words, in fear of losing control of the Senate, Barack Obama is employing Chris Christie to wage an attack that hopefully will tease conservative senators out of hiding to rush to Rand Paul’s defense. That way, the president can “target…freeze and attack” Paul’s defenders too.
Having a RINO governor as an ally helps the president broaden the attack by “acting decisively … [on]… the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” With Christie on the devil’s side, Obama hopes to find and neutralize every political threat in time to lock down the House in 2014.
Originally 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.
Whenever self-anointed arbiter of border etiquette Barack Obama awkwardly interjects Scripture into a speech, his disingenuous inner core is exposed. Recently, in defense of an unaddressed porous US border, the President attempted to add weight to his argument by introducing Bible verse into the discussion. Barack misconstrued Scripture so badly he compared illegal usurpers with ancient Hebrews enslaved in a foreign land whose escape from bondage required ten plagues and Moses parting the Red Sea.
To support a liberal stance on amnesty, Bible opportunist Barack misquoted the Book of Deuteronomy citing “moral imperative” and “a greater understanding from our faith.” In defense of officially pardoning illegal aliens and in an effort to cultivate guilt and project a false image of righteousness, Obama revealed a counterfeit identity by dragging out a Bible Bazooka and haphazardly shooting poorly-interpreted verse at those who oppose granting lawbreakers a reprieve.
In a more recent border debate, Obama requested Israel relinquish land to Ishmael. This time Obama supported the appeal by choosing to disregard Deuteronomy 30:5, which refers to Israel when it says: “The LORD your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.”
Although Obama attempts to prove otherwise, his Bible knowledge is clearly limited to specific, out-of-context verses scrolling by on the Teleprompter. Yet, when quoting Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, a flow takes place that lacks the clumsiness of Barack misusing Scripture to lend validity to imprudent solutions to the U.S. border dispute.
Even Barack Obama is astute enough to realize that citing Scripture in a Middle East and North Africa speech would contradict the proposition of Israel surrendering God-given land to people who’ve vowed to push the Jewish nation into the sea. Instead, tucked within Obama’s proposal to core the apple of God’s eye lies a direct quote from a tactical primer promoting “realistic” radicalism.
Speaking from the State Department, self-appointed international border expert Barack Obama presented a “new chapter in American diplomacy” that includes advancing America’s values (as defined by Obama), as well as tried-and-true Obama-style change as it applies to the Israeli/Palestinian border dispute.
The President’s lengthy speech chronicled ongoing, rapid-fire adjustments presently coming about “Square by square, town by town, country by country,” in a portion of the world engulfed by a set of circumstances where “the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights,” in a manner strangely similar to the Saul Alinsky technique.
Speaking like a true community organizer, Obama said: “It’s not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo — it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it’s the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome.”
In what sounded like the present state of affairs in America and Barack Obama’s Middle East rhetoric described an all too familiar “relentless tyranny…refusal to pay taxes to a king… power concentrated in the hands of a few” and “change that cannot be denied.”
Obama, who heartily sanctions the “slaughter of innocents…for a better life” in America, also argued that in the Middle East, “the slaughter of innocents [does] not answer [the people’s] cries for a better life.”
Slowly winding his way toward the borders of Israel, the President – broached “fresh air” in Cairo; the “end of night” in Sanaa; words of freedom in Bengazi; “dignity” in Damascus, and an expository review of the situation in Libya. Failing to provide details, Border Patrol President Obama warned, “We will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners,” a pledge that came with a committed resolve to “change our approach” to avoid a “spiraling of division” between the US and the Arab world.
Then, in order to avoid further division, in a telling use of words Obama, clearly more familiar with Saul Alinsky than Saul of Tarsus, took Middle East cues not from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but rather from Alinsky’s controversial handbook Rules for Radicals.
Alinsky tenets maintain that: “The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.“ Based on the President’s constant promotion of reckless chaos, one would assume Obama’s world is not a world as he thinks it should be – at least not yet.
Without a doubt, the President’s ‘standards of judgment’ remain ‘rooted in’ more concern over Palestinian border issues than those of Arizona, Texas and California. Which may explain why Barack chose to insert Alinsky principles into the Middle East solution when he said: “after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.”
Obama’s ‘wished-for fantasy’ concerning Israel was revealed with the shocking suggestion that 40+ years later the “borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
America’s President explicitly stated “The United States,” which in his mind is represented solely by the opinions of Barack Obama, “believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.”
Texas and California should proceed with caution, because with Alinsky’s Lucifer-lauding “world as it should be” guiding the way the next thing Obama may decide to do in an initial effort to resolve yet another border crisis is to return the two states to Mexico.
Either way, one important issue has finally been resolved. In a misguided attempt to grant America’s Promised Land to illegals through the exploitation of out-of-context Scripture and then the attempt to deny the actual Promised Land to its rightful heirs using a quote from the mouth of an atheistic mentor, the world as Barack Obama believes “it should be” has been finally been laid bare.
The dragging manacles scrapping along the halls of power belong to the ghost of Saul Alinsky. He is the phantom influencing the tenor of the politics insuring that left-wing policies are implemented, unobstructed by dissension. Alinsky taught his mentee well and now Barry is able to apply the principles of Rules for Radicals to every person or group who disagrees with him in any venue of governance.
The President is a textbook narcissist. He presents himself as being secure and having high self-esteem but instead has crossed the “border of healthy confidence into thinking so highly of himself that he has put himself on a pedestal.” Obama’s deluded impression of himself causes an inability to handle criticism or disagreement. Narcissists demand constant praise and admiration, expect others to concur with their ideas and plans and are easily hurt and rejected.
Alinsky’s tactics work to Obama’s advantage. He repeatedly utilizes the tenets of Rules for Radicals attacking and targeting those, be they individuals or groups, who do not agree with or approve of his political policy initiatives. Obama appears most content orating between two Greek columns, at an elevated podium, in a stadium full of weeping, cheering devotees, smoke machines puffing away while soaring violins play Handel’s Messiah at his entrance.
Since Election Day, Obama has been acting the part of a narcissistic, alpha-male, marking territorylike a dog racing around a hydrant claiming it as his own. If anyone tries to impede him, he shifts into bullying, aptly applying Alinsky Ghost of RadicalsPast methods, insuring those perceived as a threat are aware he alone is the leader of the pack.
Alinsky scholar, Barack H. Obama, doesn’t take well to other dogs coming around his telephone pole barking and baring their drooling fangs demanding he back off. It appears Obama has decided, in true Alinsky style to“… target, freeze, personalize and polarize” his political opposition.
One shocking example of this is the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS), presently identified as The Department of Haughty Socialists, “Intelligence” Analysis Report. Unclassified and widely distributed entitled, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. This 10-page atrocity is devoid of facts and based solely on discriminatory, political profiling-type supposition whose presentation illustrates typical Saul Alinsky technique.
The anti-capitalist spirit of Alinsky is goading Obama to take a sword to the reputation of rightwing conservatives, instructing him to target them, freeze negative public perception, personalize the attack and polarize all people on the right without distinction. “The Radicalmay resort to the sword … He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people. In this case, this method is being used as patent intimidation and chastisement, resulting from the Rights lack of support for Obama’s narcissistic plans to radicalize and socialize our entire nation.
The Intelligence and Analysis Assessment warned law enforcement officials of the threat of rightwing extremists. After its worldwide release, the information specified that the supposed impending terrorization is “largely rhetorical”and there are no “…indicated plans to carry out violent acts.” Translation: the report is based on pure speculation and has no specific information to back up accusations. Nonetheless, symbolism, although errantly applied, does give substance to the impressions and thoughts of the uninformed masses, which is precisely its purpose.
The groups, under attack, include anyone who disagrees with big government, those who favor federalism, anyone who opposes illegal immigration, second-amendment rights advocates, pro-lifers, service men and women returning from war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether they are individuals or groups like the military, NRA or Birthright, all are now considered a potential terrorism concern to the Obamalinsky administration. It seems as if the specter of Saul Alinsky is whispering to his apprentice reminding him that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
This administration wants to steer the public away from what they call the “politics of fear” by rejecting the terrorism moniker as fear based, renaming terrorists, man-caused disaster-ists. They then assign the name “terrorist” to Americans in hopes of cultivating an environment of trepidation among the citizens of this nation one-toward-another. Alinsky has taught Obama well that the “…morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.” Through the misrepresentation of many upstanding Americans this administration has targeted as a threat to the nation innocent private citizens. Even referring to conservative political banter, on the Internet, as “chatter,” which is the language used to describe intercepted terrorist communication.
Shamelessly, the Intelligence Based on Ignorance Report amassed returning veterans together with, ex-military man turned, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and a pro-gun, Philadelphia shooter who killed three police officers. What better way to cultivate the soil for a paramilitary group than to wear away the nation’s trust and foundational confidence in the United States military? An Obama paramilitary organization can be counted on to abide by any command from their leader, made-up of illegal immigrants and scores of people made dependent for survival upon his policies. A band of yahoos who are willing to apply the Alinsky principal that, “In war, the end justifies almost any means.”
The extremist report repeatedly mentions this, “historical election” as recruitment tool for the Right. It clarifies that “most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.” One problem is that the assessment fails to give examples. It is replete with conspiracy theory, accusations and long-shot associations but extremely deficient in facts, examples or references. Even going so far as to say that “…in the run up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the democratic nominee,” once again no citation or proof, failing to identify the extremists.
Obama, under Alinsky’s tutelage, managed to stir up a good dose of racial suspicion and division, accomplished through personal pit-bull, Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano. Napolitano implicated individuals with policy beliefs adhering to less government, faithfulness to the Constitution, right-to-life, respect for law and opposition to illegal immigration. She did this through nuances implying these values are somehow connected to racial bigotry.
This suspect examination of rightwing extremists naturally brought up the illegal immigration issue, highlighting “prominent,” unnamed civil rights organizations having “observed” an increase in anti-Hispanic crime. Unfortunately, neither was the Hispanic civil rights groups identified, nor was there any statistical data offered to back up the statement. The opportunity to bring balance was curiously overlooked by failing to mention that Hispanic crime is on the rise in our country, or the obvious terrorist aspect of marauding Latino street gangs.
The assessment analysis doesn’t waste an opportunity to intimate that Christianity may play a role in extremism by mentioning “end times” prophecy in the same breath as racist, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial, violent Christian Identity groups. The goal here has an obvious justifiable agenda. Liberal author Mary Beth Rogers said there are, “Only two kinds of people who can afford the luxury of acting on principle, those with absolute power and those with none and no desire to get any…everyone else who wants to be effective in politics has to learn to be ‘unprincipled’ enough to compromise in order to see their principles succeed.”
This report is an effort to convince the public that DHS is concerned with protecting the general public from the danger of potential home-grown terrorist organizations and then morphs into a terrorist extremist itself. The definition of terrorism is the threatened use of force by a person or organized group against people with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments often for ideological or political reasons. The rightwing of this nation is the group being terrorized by the President’s administration. Conservatives are being threatened by the force of words with the intention of menacing and coercing us into surrendering to a left-wing, liberal narcissists ideology and political persuasion.
Saul‘s protégé knows that “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” The danger of being viewed as a terrorist, extremist, being grouped together with militia men who threatened to kill illegal immigrants, domestic terrorists, Ku-Klux Klansmen and White supremacists, is being used as an Alinsky inspired means of control to daunt and smother political opposition.
Barry Soetero, ACORN community organizer, sees us as his own large scale neighborhood and he is applying Alinsky organizing techniques on us to pressure us into submitting to his socialistic plans for this nation. The Narcissist-in-Chief is lifting his leg on a group of people who refuse to allow him to mark us as his own or transform us into the prescription he needs to address his self-absorbed issues by defining us as terrorist extremists instead of the patriotic Americans we are!
Obama’s desire to target, freeze, personalize and polarize fifty-percent of the population and make conservatives or rightwing political adherents a bigger threat to the safety of this nation than true Islamic extremists that desire to see us destroyed. His view of those who disagree with him has been exposed in this report, as well as his pathetic clutching at obscure, pitiable, rare examples in an effort to isolate and shut down opposing political dissent.
Copyright 2009 Jeannieology. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed