Tag Archives: Saul Alinsky

Obama’s solution to school shootings: More Alinsky!

Originally posted at American Thinker

Barack Obama has invested too many years and come too close to seeing the “world as it is” change into “the world as it should be” to give up now.  Just because the former president no longer rests his feet on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office and moved headquarters from Pennsylvania Avenue two miles away to the tony Washington, D.C. neighborhood of Kalorama, that doesn’t mean he’s stopped “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Case in point: the opportunity that has presented itself to the left since the tragic events that took place in Parkland, Florida.

Let’s first admit that had Barack Obama still been in office,the Parkland school shooting would have resulted in a memorial, “Together We Thrive” T-shirts, fake tears, and a stanza or two of “Amazing Grace.”  After the tears dried, the former president would have issued an accusatory reprimand to Americans still clinging to the Second Amendment and, in the company of a diverse gaggle of adorable children, signed yet another executive gun control order.

On the job, Barack Obama was so adept at maneuvering tragic shootings that he’d manage to get all that done before “Fast and Furiously” walking two thousand firearms over the border into Mexico, into the hands of drug cartels, who then handed them off to MS-13 members traveling north to America’s streets.

That’s why, amid all the talk of student marches and nonviolent town hall attendees threatening to burn alive representatives of the NRA, Barack just could no longer contain his glee.  In fact, feeling all feisty and exhilarated by the enthusiasm, the former president took a break from organizing the #MENEXT social media underground movement and cryptically spoke on behalf of snatching the guns out of the hands of bitter clingers.

Hearkening back to his time furthering Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals tried-and-true philosophy, Obama resurrected words related to the Lucifer-loving socialist’s vision concerning “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.”

After the shooting, Obama resurfaced on Twitter and seized upon an opportunity to further the progressive agenda the only way he knows how, which is to community-organize the youth.  Barack Obama had this to say about the chaos surrounding the gun debate in America:

That’s right: the victims were barely buried when the former president reappeared and quoted words that appear in speeches Obama has given as he’s attempted to community-organize the planet into Saul Alinsky’s “world as it should be.”

Barack is not alone.  Michelle debuted on the world stage using the “world as it should be” language in her speech at the 2008 DNC Convention.  Over the years, the former first lady continued using similar references, especially during college commencement speeches.

Bill Ayers, Obama’s “Weather Underground Chicago flag-stomping buddy, quoted Alinsky in a debate with Dinesh D’Souza at Dartmouth in 2014.  During the discussion, Ayers pontificated that we are “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.”

Then there’s Barack, who even used the “world as it should be” adage while lecturing Hebrew college students in March of 2013.  In Jerusalem, Obama paraphrased from the Alinsky Bible when he said Israel “has the wisdom to see the world as it is, but also the courage to see the world as it should be.”

And so, after being out of office for more than a year, Obama has reared his activist head to goad the youth to “get in faces” and push for a change to a document Obama once admitted he felt was a “charter” that bestows “negative liberties.”  After all, having sown into the gullible, via liberal education, who better than Barack Obama to cash in on that investment by convincing dumbed down youngsters, scared of being shot, that they alone “have helped lead our great movements”?

Apparently, Obama chose to speak out now because, according to his tweet, he’s “inspired.”

The former president wrote, “How inspiring to see it again in so many smart, fearless students standing up for their right to be safe.”  Sorry, but sentiments like that are a bit disingenuous coming from a politician who denied the “right to be safe” to 8 million babies aborted during the eight years he was in office.

After patronizing “smart, fearless” students who read off scripts at a CNN town hall, bombastic Barack exposed his Alinsky roots when he applauded “marching and organizing [to] … remake the world as it should be.”  This means the world the way Saul Alinsky saw it, the way Barack Obama sees it, and the way the progressive gun-grabbing, Second Amendment-hating left sees it.

The Hopi elder-quoting agitator, who was referring to himself when he said, “We are the one’s we’ve been waiting for,” proceeded to stroke the egos of adolescent activists, tweeting, “We’ve been waiting for you.”  Then he wrote, “And we’ve got your backs,” which are the words Michelle used during the 2012 DNC convention and what she told Jason Collins when she congratulated him for being the first openly gay NBA player on Twitter.

And so, from the bunker where he plots his next move, Barack Obama must recognize the advantages of using social media to convey directives to those he hopes will continue “fundamentally transforming” the “world as it is” into the world his mentor Saul Alinsky felt it should be.


Barack the Brick-Thrower

Originally posted at American Thinker

Note Tied to Brick with Broken Glass — Image by © Randall Fung/Corbis

The same Saul Alinsky-style community organizing methods that served Barack Obama well on the Southside of Chicago became indispensable tools in his quest to “fundamentally transform” the whole world from “what it is” into “the world as it should be.”

It was Barack Obama’s friend and former chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, who confessed to NPR that community organizers in Chicago would throw bricks through the window of Democrat campaign headquarters and call a press conference to blame the opposition.  So when Obama accused Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin of colluding to steal an election, the brick that landed on the accuser’s toe was one he planted there himself.

Let’s not forget that although the International Court of Justice deems interfering in a foreign election a violation of international law, and notwithstanding the fact that U.S. regulations ban the use of tax dollars to sway foreign elections, it was brick-throwing Barack, not Donald Trump, who repeatedly defied the law on behalf of a larger global agenda.

In 2006, U.S. senator Obama traveled to Kenya on the taxpayer’s dime at a time that coincidentally corresponded with Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) leaders strategizing to help Muslim-sympathizer Raila Odinga unseat incumbent President Mwai Kibaki.

Obama delivered the $1 million he had raised for the Luo tribesman’s bid for the presidency and showed up at rallies with Odinga, where he criticized Kibaki and preached “hope and change.”

After Obama’s alleged distant cousin lost by more than 200,000 votes, Kibaki appointed Odinga prime minister in a power-sharing deal, but not before Alinsky-style chaos broke out in the streets.  When it was over, the new prime minister’s sharia-supporters had killed thousands of Kenyans, destroyed 800 Christian churches, and incinerated fifty Christian believers inside an Assemblies of God.

Apparently, tossing blocks of cement through his own window for all these years has caused Obama to forgot that in 2009, the late Hugo Chávez’s friend, Honduran president Manual Zelaya, decided to ignore term limits and keep his presidency open-ended.

In response, the Honduran Supreme Court decided to have Zelaya forcibly removed by the military – a decision Barack Obama referred to as a “coup d’état.”  In an attempt to both punish and persuade the Honduran people to reinstate the deposed Zelaya, a vindictive Obama made permanent the suspension he imposed on non-humanitarian aid.

Obama’s large-scale efforts have not been limited to aiding and abetting Luo tribesmen from Africa and leftist dictators from the Americas.

In February of 2011, Obama decided to oust Moammar Gaddafi from power by instructing the State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton, to interfere in Libya’s political and military affairs.  President Obama spent a billion dollars to fund the operation, which included the U.S. military joining jihadi rebel groups to topple and ultimately kill the Libyan leader.

As a result, Barack managed to community organize a nation and “fundamentally transform” Libya from a moderate Islamic regime, that was no longer a threat to America, into a safe haven for ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Egypt saw transformational community organizing at its best.   Obama spent $200 million dollars supporting Mohammed Morsi, Islamist opponent of  the largely secular/pro-American President Hosni Mubarak.  By channeling money through the trusty Hillary Clinton-led State Department and with the help of cover organizations, Obama was able to boost to victory the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, whose leadership advocated implementing Sharia Law.  Obama’s community organizing skills were so well honed he was able to transform the Muslim Brotherhood into the Islamist wing of ACORN.

But Obama’s success was short-lived. A year after Morsi won the rigged election a military coup ensued, the president was ousted, and a pro-American Muslim-moderate named Abdel Fattah al-Sisi replaced the toppled leader.

From there, President BO moved his world as it should be operation further east to deliver a sucker punch in a dispute over Israel’s refusal to acquiesce to the community organizer’s demands concerning the Palestinian state.

Not once, but twice, in 2009, and again in 2015, the Alinsky acolyte sharpened his election-meddling skills, enlisted the US State Department, and deposited thousands of dollars into the coffers of Bibi Netanyahu opposition groups. In hopes of blocking Netanyahu from being reelected Obama even dispatched to Tel Aviv his grassroots National Field Director from two successful presidential campaigns, Jeremy ‘Anyone But Bibi’ Bird, who joined forces with like-minded Israeli activists.

Undeterred by failing to keep his nemesis from becoming Prime Minister, just prior to the 2016 Brexit referendum, America’s erstwhile egomaniac moseyed on over to Britain to issue “back of the queue” threats to Brits contemplating the benefits of exiting the European Union.

Although Obama’s efforts failed more than they succeeded, the late Saul Alinsky would still be proud.

Then, in 2017, during the French presidential election, on behalf of Macron, Obama resurrected his 2009 inauguration speech that appealed to “people’s hopes and not their fears.” Philip Gordon, Obama’s assistant secretary of state for Europe, said in an interview with The Guardian, that Emmanuel Macron “represents everything [Obama] is for and Le Pen everything he is against.”

Barack Obama’s illegal use of government money and resources for nefarious purposes inspired a group of Republican senators to petition Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, to investigate the former president’s habit of siphoning and redirecting tax money to leftist “extreme and sometimes violent political activists” that are oftentimes tied to liberal billionaire George Soros.

According to a March 2017 article in the Washington Free Beacon, the six Republican Senators wrote Tillerson a letter citing personal conversations with foreign diplomats who disclosed incidents of political interference by the Obama State Department.  Allegations included Obama’s “use of taxpayer funds to support leftist causes in countries like Macedonia, Albania, Latin America, and Africa.”

Stateside, Obama now is assisting the effort to destabilize the current president. That’s why, based on the former president’s history of illegally influencing foreign elections, it does not seem implausible that it was Barack Obama who recruited the FBI, the DOJ, and the US State Department to perform their own versions of the ACORN, Organizing for Action (OFA), and the New Black Panthers dance. At the end of the day, the former president has  track record of applying Alinsky-tactics to promote sociopolitical change, which may be why Putin and Trump were blamed for throwing bricks through windows that, under closer scrutiny, appear to be covered with Barack Obama’s fingerprints.

LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN: THIS Is Who Is REALLY Behind The ‘Impeachment Mania’…

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.

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.

%d bloggers like this: