Barry, Nancy, Harry and the Giant Peach

Barry, Nancy, Harry and the Giant Peach

David Hass
In Roald Dahl’s wonderful children’s book, James and the Giant Peach, the little boy James and some over-sized garden creatures trick thousands of seagulls into carrying a hollow, house-sized peach out of the ocean and up into the air to escape the sharks that begin to devour it. The seagulls are tied to the peach by silk strings made by the over-sized silkworm.

This impossibly improbable scenario is like government-run medical care.

The largest, current government-run medical care system is Medicare.

Today, the New York Times is reporting that Medicare premiums are scheduled to increase 15 percent for next year.

The chief argument put forth by President Obama to support the Democrat’s health care reform proposals is to stem the rapid increase in cost for health care and health insurance. Yet, the government’s own health care program has a scheduled increase in premiums that is almost double of the estimated increases for private health insurance premiums for 2010.

What is the government’s response to the Medicare Administration’s premium increase? Pass a new law to stop it. The Medicare Premium Fairness Act, HR 3631, was passed by the House on Sep. 24, 2009, by a 406-18 vote. The $2.8 billion bill will be paid for by sloshing around money in the Medicare system.

Is this what is going to happen to our health care system once it is fully socialized? The administrators will increase rates by 15 percent and then Congress will pass a law to stop it?

Were these type of Congressional shenanigans factored into the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of Medicare legislation when originally proposed? Probably not. Should we believe the CBO’s analyses of each of the current bills being put forth by Congress? Probably not.

So, what we have here is the Giant Peach of Government Run Health Insurance held up by millions of silk strings pulled by millions of tired seagulls. Not a good system.

At the end of James and the Giant Peach, a plane flew into the thousands of silk strings cutting them. The peach fell out of the sky and got impaled by the Empire State Building.

Medicare too will soon come crashing down to earth, and get impaled by the financial collapse of an improbable design.

Senators, Congressmen, if you’re listening to the American people – don’t build a Giant Peach of a Socialized Medicine system – we really don’t like getting impaled.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/barry_nancy_harry_and_the_gian.html at October 20, 2009 – 09:57:11 PM EDT

Barney “Grabby Hands” Frank: Ready to “reshape U.S. finance”

Barney “Grabby Hands” Frank: Ready to “reshape U.S. finance”

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 25, 2009 11:46 PM

Egad, hasn’t he done enough damage already?

Apparently not. Via the Boston Globe, Rep. Barney Frank can’t wait to meddle even more in the marketplace. Keep an eye on the grabby hands:

As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank is busy assembling a complex bill to give the federal government unprecedented control over the country’s financial institutions. It is as ambitious as any legislation jolting town halls and cable-news programs…When Congress returns to session after Labor Day, Frank expects to chair a series of hearings and markup sessions that he hopes will generate a single comprehensive bill on financial reform for a vote in the House…

…Frank says the legislation is necessary to help fend off future episodes of financial panic. Hedge funds and derivatives traders would have to operate under new limits. A financial products safety commission would regulate the consumer marketplace, down to payday loans and check-cashing stores. Federal officials would gain new powers to unwind failed financial institutions.

Last time I checked Barney Frank’s financial oversight record was the pits. Only in Beltway Bizarro World does such an epic failure get rewarded with even more expansive powers to screw things up.

Who will rid me of that troublesome Rush?

Who will rid me of that troublesome Rush?

By Christopher Chantrill

Don’t be tempted to believe in an organized conspiracy to race-bait Rush Limbaugh.  That’s not how things work in politics.

To understand how DeMaurice Smith, head of the NFL players’ union and politically connected Obamite, could be the center of an attempt to destroy the reputation of Rush Limbaugh you only need to recall the complaint of English King Henry II about Thomas Becket.  “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?” the King is supposed to have said.  Immediately four knights set off to Canterbury to deal with Archbishop Becket (See Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral; Anouilh, Becket).

 

Here’s another example.  A lowly courtier thinks he heard British Henry IV say of the deposed King Richard II: “Have I no friend will rid me of this living fear?”  And so he rids Henry of his fear.  Of course, Henry is livid when the courtier brings in the coffin of Richard. “I thank thee not,” he says. (See Shakespeare, Richard II).

 

It doesn’t take a conspiracy.  It just takes a word, an attitude from the king, and the courtiers get the message.

 

In the case of Limbaugh it doesn’t even take a careless word from the president.  Every liberal knows how turbulent and troublesome, uncivil and racist the president’s critics are.  If it weren’t for them we would have universal health coverage by now.  If it weren’t for them we’d be well on our way to saving the planet by now.  If it weren’t for them, we’d be well on our way to resolving the world’s conflicts with diplomacy and “soft power” by now.

 

What’s the harm in adding a little “artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative?” (See Gilbert, The Mikado).

 

(We are adding all these literary quotes for the benefit of any sophisticated liberals reading this article.)

 

Rush Limbaugh is just doing is what the turbulent critics of the powerful always do, whether it’s Thomas Becket criticizing Henry II, Sir Thomas More criticizing Henry VIII, or Tea Partiers criticizing Henry Paulson. 

 

Politicians have the power of force; critics have the power of ridicule.  Limbaugh’s power is his talent to deliver “fun, frolic, and a serious discussion of the issues” to his 20 million listeners.  You might even say that Rush is “edgy,” because he commissions Paul Shanklin to do parodies like “Barack the Magic Negro” and “Banking Queen” to make his point.   That’s what art is for, according to our liberal friends.  It is supposed to challenge the comfortable shibboleths of the establishment and say things that you are not allowed to say.

 

Here is the irony of the full-court press on Rush Limbaugh.  Our liberal friends have made a big deal in recent years about the unilateral foreign policy of the Bush administration.  They have lectured the “neo-cons” about the importance of “soft power” in resetting relations with powers that President Bush treated as adversaries, but that could be our global partners in diplomacy.  They know the importance of developing trust and reciprocity.

 

But what do liberals do on the domestic front?  They blow 1,000 page bills through Congress that nobody has read.  They rush through a so-called stimulus bill in early 2009 that spends most of its money in the 2010 election year.  They twist the Baucus health bill into a pretzel so it will score well with the Congressional Budget Office.  They plan elaborate legislative tricks and subterfuges to snake their unpopular legislation around the long-established rules and customs of Congress   They set up phony quotes on Wikiquote (that curiously seem to be edited from an IP address at a New York law firm) to discredit their political opponents.  To heck with trust and reciprocity.  We won, as the president said.

 

Let us not call this hypocrisy.  It goes well beyond hypocrisy.  It points to a delusional worldview.  How can liberals think and write and act as though American conservatives are beyond the pale of polite society while they talk nicey-nicey with thug dictators and millennarian revolutionaries all over the world?  If “soft power” and diplomacy works so well in international relations, what disqualifies them for the day-to-day diplomacy between the governing liberal elite and its loyal opposition, even including a popular entertainer and commentator?

 

However you look at it, the way the powerful treat their opponents tells us a lot about their fitness for power.

 

In a partisan sense, the clumsy political thuggery of the Obamites is a once-in-a-generation gift for conservatives.  But as Americans who want the best for our country and its people, we deeply regret the truth that it communicates.  Day by day, issue after issue, our liberal friends are telling all Americans that they do not deserve the political power that the voters have entrusted to them.

 

Limbaugh asked last weekend just what was the problem with his troublesome racial views:

 

You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race…  Those controversial racial views?

 

Remember when young Prince Hal became king?  The corrupt Sir John Falstaff thought he’d get his own shovel-ready stimulus project. Prince Hal had other ideas.  The new King Henry V told Falstaff: “I know thee not, old man.” (See Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part Two).

 

Would that President Obama were as wise.

 

Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his roadtothemiddleclass.com and usgovernmentspending.comHis Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/who_will_rid_me_of_that_troubl_1.html at October 20, 2009 – 09:50:57 AM EDT

Did Obama swing his own Nobel?

Did Obama swing his own Nobel?

By James Lewis

Napoleon famously crowned himself Emperor of France and its conquered European empire, which he was trying to spread to Russia, Britain and Egypt, in its brief moment of grandeur. I’m wondering if Obama also crowned himself Nobel Laureate right after the US election. That would fit his vainglorious persona and his famished ego, always hungry for more and more applause.  Just wait till we see his Nobel PC Address being televised around the world. America is too little for Zero.

Obama obviously thinks of himself as a Man of Destiny, like Napoleon and quite a few other Saviors on Horseback. Men of Destiny don’t wait for the world to recognize their superhuman virtues. They know it from the start, and by gum, the rest of the world better catch up quick. As Nicolas Sarkozy has said, Obama is “utterly immature… arrogant … empty of all content.” This is the Prez of France, who lives in a Heavenly Palace near the Avenue of the Heavenly Fields — the Champs-Élysées. He’s an expert on the swelled head, since every president of France is required to have one.

 

The latest rumor is that three of the five Norwegian political hacks on the PC Committee were against giving the golden bauble to Our Messiah (Peace Be Upon Him!) — until something made them change their minds. The two members of the ruling party apparently talked the other three into making it “unanimous.” Now they’re all getting big flak and scurrying for cover.

 

According to Alexander Downer, former Foreign Minister of Australia, “Electing President Barack Obama for the Peace Prize was a political decision of gross stupidity.”

 

Writes Mr. Downer,

 

“There are five Norwegian MPs on the committee, three from the left and two from the right. There is a woman called Sissel Ronbeck, who is a Labour MP. In her earlier years she was the chairman of the Norwegian Workers Youth League. Then there is Ms. Agot Valle, of the Socialist Left Party. There is a Conservative and a member of the libertarian Progress Party. And then there’s the chairman, the most important of all the members of the committee. He is a man called Thorbjorn Jagland.
… He is a member of the Norwegian Labour Party.”

 

So three socialists, one Libertarian, and one Conservative (by Norwegian standards) were finally talked into giving the first International Prize for Trying Really Hard.

 

Norway has only 4.5 million people — fewer than Cook County, IL –  and it’s hard to keep a secret. This is an international embarrassment, and half of Norway must be asking questions behind the scenes. How the hell did this happen? It’s the biggest embarassment since Vidkund Quisling.

 

So my question is: How did Rahm Emanuel talk the Oslo Labour Party into arm-twisting the three No votes on the Committee? You can bet that Hillary wasn’t handling it. Hillary could never be trusted to swing a Nobel for the Big O. It had to be the White House, and they could promise favors or threaten punishment for the ruling party in Norway. That’s how Rahm usually gets it done, as he made clear during his infamous table-stabbing speech in the Clinton years.

 

Remember, this sleazy award made the whole Nobel PC Prize look idiotic, even to the brainwashed masses. They sacrificed whatever credibility they had left after the Al Gore fiasco. But even the BBC just confessed that global warming doesn’t exist, and John Tierney, the Only Honest Man at the New York Times, is even beginning to bring a smidgen of sanity to that madhouse.  The Nobel establishment must be wondering whether Algore is going down in flames — which he will very soon. When that becomes obvious, they can kiss their Nobel PC Prize goodbye. It’ll be a global farce, just like the UN “Human Rights” Commission, which gladly welcomes genociders to its ranks.

 

So the three skeptical committee members might have realized that their credibility was on the line. After the Obama Preemptive PC Prize no sane person will ever believe that it has any integrity, that it hasn’t been utterly politicized — the way the Left politicizes everything.

 

After all, the Feminist Left even politicized motherhood. All the traditional loyalties are just shotgun targets for Leftist takedown: Free speech, academic freedom, a genuinely free press, God, scientific integrity, the individual, the sanctity of life, private contracts, private property, the U.S. Constitution, the free web, hard work and sacrifice, love of country, family loyalty, marriage, babies, fatherhood, motherhood — and now with Obama’s “Safe Schools” Commissar Kevin Jennings, even childhood is no longer sacred.

 

That’s why Jennings wrote his piece for Queering Elementary Education — Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling (Curriculum, Schooling, and (Homo) Sexualities. That must be why he is now the de facto Gay Commissar in Obama’s Education Department. He came to power in the LGBT world for Queering the Elementary School. It’s on the public record, and his heroic stance on expanding the sexuality of little kids obviously didn’t hurt his political career in LGBT — which is why he is now in charge of “safe schools” for Obama. 

 

Jennings built a political career out of his publicly stated ambition to meddle with the sexual development of elementary school kids, and ended up gracing Obama’s White House. Look it up on Amazon if you doubt it. 

 

I used to wonder why Dante needed so many circles in his Hell to punish evildoers. I thought he was some kind of madman. Now I think Dante was right. There really are degrees of more and more evil. Where do you think Dante would have put Kevin Jennings? Or all those who enable the Jenningses in politics? Beat poet Allen Ginsburg, another celebrated sexual predator of the Left, is quoted as yelling “We will get you through your children.” Well, Obama seems determined to fulfill that promise.

 

We used to throw childhood predators in jail, but now we give them big jobs in the White House. On top of that Obama just promised to allow Gay politics to be publicly celebrated in the military. We have seen where that leads. This is not a matter of Gay rights but Gay aggression — unless somebody would like to put on an annual Heterosexual Parade in the military just for balance. But no, that would be persecution of a designated victim group. It’s heads I win, tails you lose.

 

Compared to all those swamps of corruption the Nobel Peace Prize means nothing. The world can live without it. Saving just a single kid from the clutches of Kevin Jennings’ Brave New Elementary School is worth all the Nobels in the world.  The Nobel PC Prizes have sometimes been pretty dubious, and over time they have become a mark of Cain. It’s like the Imperial Deutschmark. Or the dollar. Even the most valued symbols can turn sour.

 

For the Left there is no integrity, no honesty, no truth and no morality outside of its lust for power. Three of the five Committee members apparently understood the big gamble they were taking. But they still gave in to the two pols from the Labour Party.

 

Why?

 

I don’t know the answer.

 

But it’s important to pay attention, because this is another indication that we are slipping toward a corruptocracy to rival Chicago in the days of Al Capone’s Mob.

 

It looks like Obama is Hizzoner Da Mare and da Dems are da Machine.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/did_obama_swing_his_own_nobel.html at October 20, 2009 – 09:48:31 AM EDT

Alinskyite in Chief Is a Master Polarizer

Alinskyite in Chief Is a Master Polarizer

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

The thirteenth rule of radical tactics: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
 - Saul Alinsky, the Father of Community Organizing
    Rules for Radicals; p. 128
There’s a whole lot of polarizing going on in Obama’s America.  Unity is out, apparently.  Polarization is still in.  And Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are the new Bush. 

 

One would need to be a complete ninny outfitted with blinders and earplugs not to know this by now.

 

One blaring truth rears its ugly head to any open-minded person who takes a hard look at Barack Obama’s personal and political history.  His history is shot clear through with polarizing effects, both intentional and unintentional. 

 

One might almost say that Barack Obama was a born polarizer.

 

Obama’s Polarization Roots

 

When Barack Obama burst upon the national political stage with his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he was selling himself as an ideal-Republic American.  Yes, as is typical of all of Obama’s speeches, this one was heavy on the “I.”  Nevertheless, the speech heard ‘round the world at that convention was one just about any American anywhere could like.

 

The most memorable lines and the ones that drew the heaviest applause:

 

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.
Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.
There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

 

Unfortunately for the Country, these were indeed just words.

 

As researchers came to learn during the campaign, Barack Obama was raised on the mother’s milk of socialism, not the bedrock American values claimed by the Axelrod-spun, fairytale narrative. 

 

Both Barack’s mother and his father were fellow travelers of the Marxist band and made no bones about this during their lives.  Stanley Ann Dunham was spouting the “gospel of envy” by the time she was in her mid-teens.  Barack Obama Sr. saw his own political career in Kenya die out, not only due to his alcoholism, but also due to his hard-core communist fealties, which were too stringent for the softer-core socialists in command of the fledgling post-colonial country of his birth.  Young Barack’s grandfather, who was his primary caregiver from age 10, made sure the youngster spent vast amounts of his free time with stalwart avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis.

 

At their very core, all Marxist theories rest upon polarization, which is the direct result of envy and greed for power.  “They have what we want,” is the rallying cry of all socialist/communist/fascist systems.  All Marxist creeds are as naturally polarizing as a mob of looters.

 

Fancy, high-flying words don’t change a thing.

 

When Barack Obama made his way to Chicago, he was already a natural polarizer, seeing the world through us-vs.-them lenses.  His associations with ACORN (Project Vote) and Jeremiah Wright fit perfectly with the worldview his parents, grandfather and mentor purposefully taught him.

 

His study of Alinsky power tactics during those years merely reinforced that polarizing worldview and gave it stronger legs.

 

The church chosen by Barack Obama in Chicago was run by Jeremiah Wright, another active and vociferous polarizer.  Wright based his own theology on the writings of James H. Cone, a man who boastfully declares that blacks — not Jews — are the chosen people of God, that they’re due special preference because of their history of oppression and that the only way a white person can join them is to shed their “white skins” and become black in their souls.  Both Cone and Wright preach black supremacy and black separatism and have bought hook, line and sinker the socialist, “They have what we want,” rallying cry.  Barack Obama chose this theology of his own free will as a full-fledged, well-educated adult.

 

As a young politician in Chicago, Obama was known for sowing division and polarity among his own constituents, first with his underhanded treatment of Alice Palmer, then with his ill-fated challenge of Bobby Rush for the U.S. Congress.

 

Why would anyone believe that Barack Obama had a single unifying bone in his body?  Such a belief defies common sense.

 

The Master Polarizer as President

 

President Barack Obama sailed into the presidency itself on the wings of eight years of solid, left-wing manipulated polarizing of all things Bush.  So, why did Americans believe Obama would be anything but a polarizing president?  David Mendell, writing in his book, From Promise to Power, puts his finger right on the pulse of Obama’s ease with bamboozling all comers. 

 

It’s the smooth-flowing, used-car-salesman rhetoric, honey.

 

Writing of Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign, Mendell noted (p. 248):

 

“As he had so often before, Obama sold his message to both liberals and centrists, as well as to some who tilted toward the right.  His message, after all, was both liberal and conservative.  His policy positions were decidedly to the left, but he offered them in such a passive, two-pronged way that it made him sound almost conservative.”

 

After becoming president, Obama’s first target of Alinsky polarization tactics was Rush Limbaugh.  The targeting began very early with Obama’s words to Republican lawmakers over the hastily passed, non-bipartisan Stimulus package.  When Republican lawmakers attempted to take the new President at his conciliatory campaign rhetoric and provide actual input, the President’s petulant reply:  “I won.”  To which he added the polarizing bait:  “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and expect to get anything done.”

 

Obama, the general threw down the rhetorical gauntlet and ever since, his troops have followed suit, attempting to polarize Rush Limbaugh (and every one of Rush’s listeners) in the same way Democrats effectively polarized President Bush.

 

President Obama followed up on his polarizing tactic against Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents Dinner, laughing uproariously as Wanda Sykes plied her death-wish humor at Rush’s kidneys and ludicrously suggested that Rush was the 20th hijacker on 9/11.

 

According to the Huffington Post, “The White House’s communications staff announced this week (referring to Oct 5-9) that it was charting out a new, more aggressive strategy, defined largely by a pledge to push back hard against news stories that are either inaccurate or unflattering.”  Anita Dunn appeared the following Sunday on CNN to fire the first salvo of this stated policy.

 

Since then, our Alinskyite in Chief has taken the unprecedented extra step of using the people’s government to perform a rhetorical hit job on an independent media outlet, Fox News.  Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, whose favorite philosopher is Mao, the Chinese-Communist butcher, audaciously targeted Fox News on national television.  She slandered the channel’s coverage of the presidential campaign, declared it a “wing of the Republican Party,” and openly admitted the reason it was dissed by the President last month was its tenacious insistence on reporting stories unflattering to Obama.

 

This open polarizing of independent news and opinion broadcasters is not by accident, but by design and rests solidly at the feet of the President.  Dunn made it big in the news again this week for her declarations that Obama had controlled the media during the campaign.  But this control of the media thing only works if one controls all the media. 

 

The Goals of Alinskyite Polarization:  Killing the Opposition

 

Saul Alinsky declared that the only way to effect any substantial change in the prevailing order of power (Haves vs. Have-nots) was to first polarize the whole societal/political atmosphere. 

 

Alinsky described his community organizer as someone who must become a “well-integrated political schizoid.”

 

“The organizer must become schizoid, politically, in order to slip into becoming a true believer.  Before men can act an issue must be polarized.  Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil.  He knows there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree.” (Rules for Radicals; p. 78) 

 

When Senate candidate Obama gave that speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and declared, “even as we speak, there are those preparing to divide us,” he was talking out both sides of his mouth. 

 

Being a consummate divider is the community organizer’s very job description.  His task is to “rub raw the sores of discontent” until ordinary people become so agitated with the status quo that they are willing to do whatever is necessary to change it.  When Alinsky was taunted with the accusation that organizers were nothing but “professional agitators,” he gleefully agreed, declaring that the organizer’s job was to “fan the flames of discontent.”  Only hopelessness and overwhelming fear of the future, he contended, that would pave the way for revolution: 

 

Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. – Rules for Radicals, p. xix

 

That’s precisely where we were in the lead-up to the presidential election.  Americans were indeed “rubbed raw” from the left’s ceaseless caterwauling against Bush, the “religious right,” “ideological” policy making, “Bush’s war,” etc.  And it has been clear from the beginning of the Obama presidency that he and his supporters believed enacting far-reaching leftist policies would be little more than child’s-play.  After all, the President also had overwhelming majorities in Congress to do his bidding.

 

But things have not gone as easily or as uncritically as hoped.  Resistance has formed and it has been widespread and quite resilient against the President’s charms.  Rather than re-examine his policy proposals or question himself, President Obama simply goes to the fallback position of every true-blue Alinskyite.  He “picks a target, freezes it, personalizes it and polarizes it.”

 

In the President’s mind, the only reason good Americans disagree with him and his far-reaching, anti-American policies are those media folks who report on his scheming, i.e., Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.  The other news and opinion outlets have given the Alinskyite a complete pass.

 

Alinsky taught that the purpose of polarization was not only to “rub raw the sores of discontent,” but also to force the target into committing the “crimes” of which he stood preemptively accused.  Alinsky gave examples of how he had polarized and tormented an opponent so forcefully and tenaciously that the target eventually broke and succumbed to things like breaking into his offices to get information and hurling invective that made him look guilty to onlookers.  The whole idea of polarization is to push the target into becoming the villain he was targeted to be.

 

Alinsky summed up his polarization tactic with these tidbits, which should act as warnings to targets of Alinskyite polarization:

 

  • The real action is in the enemy’s reaction.
  • The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.

 

To those who would decry his tactics as unwholesome and at bedrock, untruthful, Alinsky offered this rebuttal:

 

“Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as, ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband’?  This becomes political idiocy.” (Rules for Radicals; p. 134)

 

Even though Alinsky dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to the one he referred to as the “very first radical known to man,” none other than Lucifer, Alinsky was also quite adroit at claiming he was following injunctions by Jesus Christ, too.

 

“The classic statement on polarization comes from Christ:  ‘He that is not with me is against me.’ (Luke 11:23)  He allowed no middle ground to the moneychangers in the Temple.  One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (Rules for Radicals; p. 134)

 

Putting himself on the same level as Christ was an Alinsky favorite and it certainly reminds me of our own Alinskyite in Chief.

 

President Obama has sown division among religious people too.  Among Jews, he has polarized stalwart supporters of Israel and in his foreign policy moves against the tiny State, has relied on backing of anti-Israel Jewish groups, such as J-Street.  President Obama has also attempted to polarize the Pope and stirred division among Catholics by speaking at Notre Dame.  In religion, as well as politics, President Obama adopts the all-with-me or against-me rhetoric, but unlike God, is willing to use any dirty trick in the book to get his way.

 

Seems like the actions of a true radical in the Luciferian mold to me.

 

The bottom line on polarization is that it’s an ugly, deceitful power tactic being used unabashedly by President Barack Obama to further his own designs for America.  But targeting the most popular, successful radio and television personalities in America today would seem a bit beyond the pale, even for an Alinskyite in Chief.

 

President Obama should, perhaps, have heeded Alinsky’s warnings on picking perfect targets:

 

“It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target.  There is a constant squirming and moving and strategy…on the part of the designated target.  The forces for change must keep this in mind and pin that target down securely.  If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible.”

 

With 15-20 million listeners every week and plenty of financial power, Rush Limbaugh has proven that he is not a soft target.  Remember the left’s Congressional-letter fiasco.  As the most highly viewed Cable news network, Fox would seem also un-amenable to easy polarizing.  Eventually, other news individuals and organizations will most likely enter this president-picked fight on the side of their beleaguered Fox comrades, not to mention the millions of Fox’s angered viewers.

 

Backlash is forming faster than a thunder cloud on a hot summer day.  It’s going to be a fine fight and I’m bidding for the popcorn concession. 

 

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and a syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate.  She blogs every now and then at kyleanneshiver.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/alinskyite_in_chief_is_a_maste.html at October 20, 2009 – 09:45:39 AM EDT

CAPITAL CULTURE: Obamas big on White House gigs

CAPITAL CULTURE: Obamas big on White House gigs

By NANCY BENAC (AP) – 9 hours ago

 

WASHINGTON — Michelle and Barack Obama sat one table over from J. Lo and Marc Anthony, and all four of them were rocking in their seats as Sheila E. shook the house — well, really the tent.

The latest installment of the White House music series was too big for the East Room, so a high-wattage assortment of Latin musicians sent pulsating, can’t-help-but-bob-along rhythms tumbling out of a giant tent on the mansion’s South Lawn.

As it happens, music of all sorts — rock, jazz, country, classical — has been busting out of the White House all year long.

Presidents have long used the White House as a platform to showcase the best of music and the arts: Chester Arthur staged the first formal East Room concert in the late 1800s.

But the Obamas are demonstrating a commitment to use the White House to promote the arts in a huge way. And they’re not just tapping safe, living legends: Fresh faces like bachata band Aventura and Mexican pop sensation Thalia (who lured Obama on to the dance floor briefly) shared a stage with gray eminence Jose Feliciano at last week’s Fiesta Latina.

The Obamas’ musical push started on Day One, when the Wynton Marsalis Quintet played for a private inaugural celebration party of 100 at the White House.

A month later, the White House brought in Earth, Wind and Fire to entertain visiting governors. And days later, the Obamas hosted an East Room tribute to Stevie Wonder that featured Tony Bennett, Martina McBride and Wonder himself. The president called it “the most accomplished Stevie Wonder cover band in history.”

Since then, the lineup has zigzagged all over the musical spectrum.

The first installment of the Obamas’ ongoing White House music series was a June day devoted to jazz that included daytime workshops for 150 young musicians and an evening concert headlined by Paquito D’Rivera.

That was when Michelle Obama let it be known she wants her daughters, Malia and Sasha, to be “aware of all kinds of music — other than hip-hop.”

In July, self-proclaimed “city boy” Barack Obama presided over an evening of country music that brought together Alison Krauss and Union Station, Brad Paisley and veteran Charley Pride.

Joe Reinstein, the deputy social secretary who coordinates the White House music series, said the Obamas made it clear early on that they wanted to use their new home as a platform for the “best and the brightest that America has to offer.” But he said the first couple has taken a hands-off approach when it comes to picking specific genres and artists.

“We knew that they loved jazz, so that was an easy one to start with,” says Reinstein, whose musical background is limited to playing in the band as a kid and being an appreciative listener. “Now, we’re trying to move through as many genres of music as we can and keep going.”

Next up: classical music in November. And beyond that, the White House is exploring events to feature opera, dance and perhaps film.

Reinstein says it’s a win-win deal when he calls artists with an invitation to perform at the White House.

“I am so excited to be talking to them, but they’re just as excited to get a call from the White House,” he said. “I’m giddy; they’re giddy.”

Some eager artists don’t even wait for an invitation. They volunteer.

“My inbox is full of a lot of the talent that America has to offer,” says Reinstein.

Past performers say that playing at the White House carries with it a special significance, even if the audience is relatively small.

And because many of the White House musical events are televised — Fiesta Latina, for example, is airing on PBS, Telemundo and V-me — the exposure gets magnified exponentially.

Aventura lead singer Romeo Santos said in an interview that there couldn’t have been a better way to launch the group’s new U.S. tour, adding that he thought his manager was joking when he said the White House had called.

“It’s really powerful,” Santos said. “What it does for Latino music is it gives it a mainstream respect.”

At an afternoon soundcheck for Fiesta Latina on a sunny day on the back lawn of the White House, Los Lobos singer-songwriter David Hidalgo spoke quietly about the impact of the White House spotlight.

“A lot of times minorities get treated like second-class citizens,” he said. “It doesn’t feel that way today.”

Musicologist Elise Kirk, author of a book about the history of music at the White House, wrote that the groups featured there over the years have “tended to be more conservative than innovative, more reflective than prophetic.” But there have been notable exceptions, and plenty of unexpected moments.

Theodore Roosevelt’s White House showcased American music, chamber music and the modern French and Russian schools “at a time when these styles were barely recognized in this country,” Kirk recounts.

When Carol Feraci performed at the Nixon White House, she shocked the audience by unfurling a blue banner that read “Stop the Killing,” as a protest against the war in Vietnam.

The Kennedy administration, in particular, was known for putting a huge focus on the arts.

“My main concern,” Jacqueline Kennedy told Kirk, “was to present the best in the arts, not necessarily what was popular at the time.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers