Tag Archives: Saul Alinsky

Behind the anti-Trump Disruptors, the Fine Hands of Alinsky and Obama

obama-teaches-alinskyOriginally posted at American Thinker

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.

Does ‘No Impeachment’ Fulfill Alinsky’s Rule #4?

imagesOriginally 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 →

Radicals Uncovered: Bill Ayers and Obama Both Quote Alinsky

radicalOriginally 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.

It happened at a Dinesh D’Souza-Bill Ayers Dartmouth Review-sponsored “What’s So Great About America” debate held at Dartmouth University.

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.”

Chris Christie Pulls an Alinsky on Rand Paul

obama-christie-cityroom-blog480Originally posted at American Thinker

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.

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.

Garroting Throats and Hailing Satan

proabort22-e1373304985649-300x183Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Recently pro-choice “keep your laws off my body” protestors in Texas were serious about aborting the unborn.

So much so that putting their hands, in a violent way, on anyone who tried to put laws on their bodies was apparently considered a justifiable form of hand-to-hand combat.

Supporters of Texas state senator Wendy R. Davis, the woman Barack Obama praised for her filibuster of a vote on abortion legislation that aimed to save the lives of fetuses over the gestational age of 20 weeks, threatened Texas representatives, including pro-life Jonathan Stickland and his staff.

The protestors vowed that if the right to destroy babies, agonizing death or not, over the age of 20 weeks was not upheld (btw, it was not), normally peace-loving pro-abortion types would respond with their usual measure of tolerance by seeking out and garroting pro-life throats.

Lest we forget, many abortion advocates are of the Mini Cooper-driving/Coexist/PETA ilk, unless of course the right to scald, slice, or suction the unborn to death meets with opposition.  Then all bets are off.  If conflict arises, the pick-a-daisy-for-peace/Patchouli incense-burning crowd turns into ‘face pummeling‘ barbarians who openly express heartfelt wishes for innocent women to be raped.

Plus, judging from what went on in Austin, Texas last week, in lieu of a live appearance from Moloch, it appeared that pro-choice advocates were of the mind to take to the streets to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech and religion by drowning out prayers being offered for the preservation of life with chants of “Hail Satan!”

“Hail Satan” or not, in response to that and other unseemly threats, while the proceedings were taking place members of Stickland’s staff were convinced it would be wise to take the necessary measures to ensure personal safety by carrying licensed, concealed handguns.

Wait, what?  Handguns? Conceal and carry?

What if the president who tweeted that he ‘stood with Wendy’ for her brave stance on behalf of slaughtering the unborn were to find out about the guns?  Isn’t he the guy fully dedicated to the safety of all children?  What if toddlers holding up signs saying things like “If I wanted the government in my womb, I’d f— a senator” were accidentally shot by pro-lifers protecting themselves from the minions of hell manifested on the steps of the Texas State Capitol?

Either way, thus far, Barack Obama has been known to personally congratulate friends on their multifaceted love-related accomplishments by phoning up people like sexually promiscuous contraceptive-demander Sandra Fluke, out-of-the-closet NBA dribbler Jason Collins, and geriatric lesbian same-sex marriage activist Edie Windsor.

For those he considers friends, correction is never offered, by telephone or otherwise.

Therefore, although he is usually concerned, first and foremost, about the safety of innocent Americans, for some reason Barack Obama has not felt moved to dial up the rowdy individuals demanding the right to kill babies. Nor has he requested that in the future they represent his radical pro-choice policy stances by comporting themselves as living examples of love, kindness and mutual respect.

And about that shocking invocation of Satan being shouted out by rabid pro-choice activists? Well, we already know that the former community organizer’s favorite author, Saul Alinsky, dedicated Obama’s favorite tome Rules for Radicals to the same entity that the women hailing Satan were giving public honors.

Based on the Alinsky precedence, there’s really no reason for the president to admonish crowds of enthusiastic abortion supporters for participating in what anyone other than him would consider inappropriate prayer and supplication.

Most importantly, because the president has never been shy about inserting himself into state-level politics (think Arizona immigration law), or local news for that matter (think Henry Louis Gates Jr.), the only conclusion one can come to is that Barack Obama is expressing his opinion on Texas’s SB5 with his silence.

Thus, by saying nothing, Obama sent a message that he is of like mind with the grace-confronting group who forced cherubic toddlers to hold up crudely drawn pictures of wire hangers.

Suffice it to say that it’s likely Barack Obama agrees that, henceforth and in perpetuity, whenever the right to execute the innocent is obstructed it would be perfectly acceptable to abandon the peacetime tactic of quietly slaughtering 3,000 babies a day and take up arms against those who want to stop the shedding of innocent blood.

Community Organizing, Cairo Style

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Barack Obama prides himself on being a community organizer — stirring up the disgruntled in Chicago was the sole skill set that earned him the esteemed title of Leader of the Free World.

Using Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as a road map, Barack Obama not only community organized, but taught others how to follow his lead.  Young Obama instructed students that to make a statement that would inspire change, they’d have to be well-practiced in the art of street-level confrontation, picketing, demonstrating, and all-out pandemonium.

He was very good at what he did. Saul Alinsky-style organizers were taught to 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” which, ironically, is exactly what the world is witnessing as the Middle East is ablaze with street-level hatred.

For days the world has watched in growing horror as the fires of animosity have spread.  Yet for those wondering why Barack Obama isn’t addressing more firmly the upheaval in the Islamic world, a simple answer might be that one community organizer can’t very well criticize another community organizer’s style of community organizing, now can he?

Back in Chicago, Barack Obama encouraged the underprivileged to take action on their own behalf by reminding the already resentful of past injustices.   Wherever and whenever there’s strife, there is surely what Obama called “indigenous…charismatic leadership” nearby. There’s always a ringleader in the group – an individual or a team that possesses the ability to make something happen by getting “people to understand the source of their social or political problems.”  In this case the source of the turmoil is rooted in religious zealotry.

Either way, wherever street-level organizing takes place and regardless of the extent of the mayhem, motivating people to unrest to make a point is really nothing more than a mob leader organizing a group of angry thugs and goading them toward hostile confrontation. Sometimes the resulting action takes place in American cities like Chicago, but other times it erupts in unstable pockets in the world like the ones Barack Obama commiserated with in his book “Dreams From My Father” when he said:

[t]he desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi in much the same way as it does the lives of children on Chicago’s South Side, how narrow the path is for them between humiliation and untrammeled fury, how easily they slip into violence and despair.

Barack Obama explained in a chapter he wrote for a 1990 book entitled After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois that the work of a successful community organizer is to devise and map out solutions and strategies with the express goal of moving protesters to “action through campaigns that win concrete changes.”  In Chicago, broken streetlights were facilitators to discuss jobs, education and crime. In Cairo, poorly made videos and American infidels are the torches that ignited the flames of unrest in an already unstable situation.

Think about it — thousands of miles away from Chicago, people — angry, vicious people – under the banner of the late al Qaeda leader Osama ‘Alinsky’ Bin Laden are rallying together under the Islam black flag of “common self interest.”

In the Sudan, Tunisia, Egypt, and even in Libya, the means to the end may be more violent and destructive than what went down on the Southside of Chicago, but it’s the same philosophy at work.  In Chicago, picketing opened the door to demanding stop signs be fixed and progressed from there.  In Benghazi, it started with burning American flags; an embassy was then destroyed and innocent lives were lost as ancient grievances were resurrected from the hot desert sand to make a statement against America, the Great Satan, and Isaac, Ishmael’s arch enemy, also known as the nation of Israel.

Whether residing in Chicago, Washington DC, or a remote compound in Pakistan, in their efforts to “make something happen,” community organizers have their own unique ways of applying conflict for change.

Although the gripes and tactics are more primitive, what is actually happening in the Islamic world is simply this: common people with a common agenda are coming together, in their own uniquely violent way, to address a common concern. In Obama’s Chicago, the goal was to whip up the community to a “fighting pitch” to address political and social justice. In this case, the goal is clearly to deliver “Death to America.”

Similar to Alinsky’s recommendations in his radical rules handbook, Middle Eastern protesters are merely exhibiting neighborhood empowerment in a culturally innovative way.  From a tactical point of view, any community organizer worth his salt would have to admit that the community-organizing stratagem Barack Obama so closely identifies with is what is now crudely on display in the Arab world.

Maybe that explains why the perpetually fundraising Barack Obama is hesitant to criticize the chaos; he recognizes that what’s going on thousands of miles from Chicago is an impressive show of “collective power,” where a community vision has moved our Muslim brothers and sisters to action.  It could be that our Community Organizer-in-Chief, who once praised people for “reshap[ing] their mutual values and expectations and rediscover[ing] the possibilities of acting collaboratively,” actually believes that throwing stones, ambushing diplomats, and burning American flags is just another kind of neighborhood effort to foster lasting change.

Obama Raffle: Dinner with Mr. Lonely

Originally posted at BIG Government

During Bibi Netanyahu’s 2010 visit to the White House, in the middle of a tense settlement concession conversation an irritated Obama left Mr. Netanyahu sitting in a room to rush upstairs for din-din with Shelley and the girls. Abruptly walking out of the room, the President said “Let me know if there is anything new.”  Either the Israeli Prime Minister was being officially dissed, or Michelle refuses to tolerate any excuse for Barack showing up late for dinner

However, in the future, should the Prime Minister desire another sit-down with the President of the United States, he’ll have the option of purchasing a roll of tickets for the “Sometime soon, can we meet for dinner/Reelect Barack Obama” raffle.

Before the “Sometime Soon, Can We Meet For Dinner?” initiative, Netanyahu didn’t stand a chance in hell of getting Barack to sit through an entire conversation.  Now, at least Bibi has as much opportunity as anyone else willing to contribute five bucks.

Now, if by chance Bibi’s ticket is pulled out of the spinning drum, Obama, albeit under duress, will be obliged to endure eating blintzes and can no longer escape a Jerusalem settlement discussion using dinner getting cold as an excuse.

The President of the United States selling dinner raffle tickets may indicate that the man is forlorn and in need of genuine companionship. Begging to be shown love by the people who just three years ago were showering him with confetti and weeping at the mere mention of his name, frankly, is both “creepy” and pathetic.

Barack Obama’s dine-with-me/love-me idea started when the 2012 reelection campaign sent out an email with this subject line: “Sometime soon, can we meet for dinner?” Why would an American president ask such an unusual question? Obviously, to goad supporters into donating money in hopes of winning face time with Mr. Lonely.

The email also says, “So whenever I can, I want to take the opportunity to meet you.” Wouldn’t a message like that coming from anyone besides the President alert Americans trained to be careful online that it may be time to call in the authorities?

Nevertheless, Obama’s endearing words reminded voters that he and they are more than just political allies.  The President said “Supporters like you are reason I’m here, and that the values we share have always made our organization more than just a political campaign.”

Honestly, the President’s fundraising/supper-with-a-supporter email was more like an awkward love letter than a powerful politician’s solicitation for money.

That aside, winning benefactors will have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to experience what Bibi Netanyahu was denied, which is to enjoy dinner and a chat with Barack Obama and be thanked “in person,” something a former Democrat president, who shall remain nameless, provided for free.

In addition, the email updated constituents on Obama’s summer meeting with volunteers from around the nation, which could be liberal code for ACORN workers and Black Panther poll watchers.  The online correspondence also expressed the President’s heartfelt desire “to talk one on one with the people…taking ownership of [the] campaign and [to] connect with the work going on every day in neighborhoods across the country.”

Try as he might to disguise it, Barack sounded as if the real reason for the odd fundraising style, besides being starved for the cheering displays of adoration that he’s become accustomed to, might be that the President is unable to pry himself away from his love of community organizing.

If Barry really wants to inspire community involvement, for an extra $2 the President could suggest a secondary raffle for a chance to win his very own well-worn, personally autographed copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

Moreover, and not to be overly critical, but based on some of the high class dinners Barry has treated friends to in the past, like the time he took Dmitry Medvedev to Ray’s Hell Burger, the $5 may not go directly into the campaign coffers – but could be used to cover the cost of the date.

Let’s remember, the President has tried the raffle thing before, but from the looks of the polls, even enjoying a Ray’s B.I.G. Poppa with Big Poppa doesn’t seem to be turning things around. Even still, Obama said he wants to “keep doing these dinners throughout the campaign.” With the economy in the tank and the line at the unemployment office getting longer every day, and with more and more fast food restaurants taking food stamps, should the President of the United States really be spending time supping with sycophants like the Obama Girl?

In the end, history has proven that dining with the Prime Minister of Israel holds little sway in Obama’s world.  Instead, it’s things like raffle dinners that sets Obama’s campaign apart, because he believes “dinners like these are how [he] will continue to put people at the heart of [his] campaign — and prove that [he doesn’t] need checks from Washington lobbyists or special-interest PAC money to win an election.”

However, what Obama does “need” are $5 donations squeezed out of inexplicably loyal supporters who otherwise don’t have two nickels to rub together.

Couple the dine-with-me email with Obama imploring cheering crowds in North Carolina to prove their love for him by passing his jobs bill, and the whole sorry state of affairs gets even more peculiar.  Crying out for dinner dates and hollering “If you love me, you got [sic] to help me pass this bill,” is either pure desperation, unbridled narcissism, or both, sending the situation from the realm of the strange into the annals of the absurd

However, there’s always a bright side. The next time Bibi Netanyahu is in a room with Obama and the conversation morphs into a “hazing in stages,” the Prime Minister knows he can distract Barry from stomping off to dinner by changing the subject and proposing an idea for yet another raffle, where for just 50 cents unlimited winners get to give America’s love-deprived President a big smooch.

Cloward-Piven Paradise Now?


Posted also on FOX Nation

Originally posted at American Thinker

Combine class warfare, demonizing the rich, getting as many people onto the welfare rolls as possible, and pushing the economic system to collapse and you have a flawless formula for Cloward-Piven 2.0 — and a vehicle that ensures Obama remains in power.

Cloward-Piven is a much talked-about strategy proposed in the mid-1960’s by two Columbia University sociology professors named Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.  The Cloward-Piven approach was sometimes referred to as the “crisis strategy,” which they believed were a means to “end poverty.”

The premise of the Cloward-Piven collective/anti-capitalist gospel decried “individual mobility and achievement,” celebrated organized labor, fostered the principle that “if each finally found himself in the same relative economic relationship to his fellows … all were infinitely better off.”

The duo taught that if you flooded the welfare rolls and bankrupted the cities and ultimately the nation, it would foster economic collapse, which would lead to political turmoil so severe that socialism would be accepted as a fix to an out-of-control set of circumstances.

The idea was that if people were starving and the only way to eat was to accept government cheese, rather than starve, the masses would agree to what they would otherwise reject.  In essence, for the socialist-minded, the Cloward-Piven strategy is a simple formula that makes perfect sense; the radical husband-and-wife team had Saul Alinsky as their muse, and they went on to teach his social action principles to a cadre of socialist-leaning community organizers, one of whom was Barack Obama.

As the debt crisis continues to worsen, President Obama stands idly by an inferno with his arms crossed, shaking his head, and doing nothing other than kinking the fire hose and closing the spigot.  Spectator Obama is complaining that the structure of the American economy is engulfed in flames while accusing the Congress, which is trying desperately to douse the fire, of doing nothing about the problem.

Although speculative, if the Cloward-Piven strategy is the basis of the left’s game plan, spearheaded by Alinsky devotee Barack Obama, it certainly explains the President’s inaction and detached attitude.

The greatest nation in the history of the world is teetering on the brink of a catastrophic economic crisis. America was pushed to this point by a rapidly-expanding national debt and a stressed-out entitlement system; in the center of this crisis is the President, who insists on expanding it even further, all in the name “fairness” and “social justice.”

As a default date nears and the President threatens seniors that there’s a chance they may not receive their Social Security checks, it has been revealed that the federal government disperses a stunning 80 million checks a month, which means that about a third of the US adult population could be receiving some sort of entitlement.

Since the 1960’s when Cloward-Piven presented a socialistic guideline to usher in the type of evenhandedness Obama lauds, America’s entitlement rolls have swelled from eight million to 80 million.  If the nation’s ability to disperse handouts were ever disrupted, it’s not hard to see how chaos would erupt should an angry army of millions demand what Cloward-Piven called “the right to income.”

Couple the threat of dried-up funds for food stamps, Social Security, unemployment benefits and the like with the Obama administration’s vigorous campaign to turn a tiny upper class of big earners into the enemy, and you have the Cloward-Piven recipe for anarchy and complete collapse.

If the worst happened, Saul Alinsky’s biggest fan, whose poll numbers continue to plummet, could use mayhem in the streets to remain firmly ensconced in the White House.  Alinsky taught his students a basic principle that community organizer Barack Obama learned well: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Fiscal disintegration coupled with lawlessness would deliver the type of Cloward-Piven/Saul Alinsky trifecta that progressives have worked toward and waited decades for.

Barack Obama has spent the last 1,000+ days defying reason and choosing policy directions that seem nonsensical to the rational mind: a failed stimulus package; ObamaCare; growing the deficit to astronomical proportions; and cynically portraying wealth as immoral. Now, when cuts are the only fix to a budgetary balloon about to burst, a seemingly illogical President digs in and demands additional phantom dollars to spend on a system that is collapsing under the weight of unmanageable debt.

It’s hard to figure out the method to the President’s obvious madness, because based on Obama’s approval rating, if the election were held today even Pee Wee Herman could replace Obama behind the Resolute Desk.  Maybe the “method” isn’t “mad” in the least!

Could it be that Barack Obama is purposely pressuring the system in a premeditated effort to foster a major crisis?   One that would demand extraordinary measures to control by a President who could then mete out basic sustenance to Americans who would agree to anything to regain some sense of normalcy.  And in the process successfully usher in the “socially just” system Barack Obama has dreamed of all his life.

While radical Alinsky/Cloward-Piven disciple Obama appears to be clueless and detached, it may be a ploy; he may actually be focused and engaged as he purposely pursues an Alinsky-inspired course of action to force the system to “live up” to its own rules.  Obama’s ultimate goal of once-and-for-all discrediting the capitalist system and replacing America’s foundational economic and social tenets with a broad-based socialist one headed by progressive Marxists like himself, is actually within reach.

As Obama pushes and prods the US economy and instigates social unrest, it could be that he believes a Cloward-Piven-style utopia resides just beyond the horizon — a progressive panacea where an election-free, classless society, thankful for a simple crust of bread, looks to Barack Obama to keep the peace by remaining in power indefinitely.

Therefore, unless all of America, regardless of class or political persuasion, pays attention to the potential for a bleak future that lies ahead and realizes the President’s non-plan could be itself an actual calculated plan, the resulting consequences will affect everyone, as Barack Obama transforms a once great nation into Cloward and Piven’s idea of paradise.

Surrendering Israel to Alinsky

Posted at Renew America

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.

Cartoon by SooperMexican

 

%d bloggers like this: