An angry conservative

By Bud Simmons
An angry conservative
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the tax cheat presidential cabinet are destroying our country as fast as they can
The national debt will be larger than the combined debt since George Washington
With the ever increasing government control of all facets of our existence, Government take over of banks, auto companies 
 we must understand where it’s coming from.
In 1971 Saul D Alinsky (A Neo-Marxist community organizer) wrote a book titled “Rules For Radicals”. This book has become
 the cornerstone for liberal doctrine. and democratic party ideology. The democrats are faithfully following the Alinsky’s rules
It is imperative that we conservatives understand this part of the liberal manifesto. Obama and Michelle have quoted from
“Rules For Radicals”. The tactics of the recent election and the continued diatribe against conservatism come straight from
Alinsky’s book
Alinsky’s son recently said
“Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community
organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.” –Letter from L.
 DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky
We can sit and opine current events all day long, but if we are to do anything about the situation we must get off our butts do our homework
become informed with facts not innuendo. And become active in disseminating the truth.
If we do nothing then we are part of the problem, We sat by and allowed prayer to be removed from the schools, abortion on demand. The
Republican party has become the party of can’t we just get along. Our representatives no longer represent our values. If conservative principals mean
anything at all to you, become informed and let the Republican party and Michael Steele  know we are not pleased. Listen to
Rush Limbaugh, read National Review Online , The Heritage Foundation J
The NRA  to protect our second amendment rights  join in the TEA parties on July the 4th. Do not let the country we love be denied
to our children and grandchildren It’s up to usdon’t fail do you duty. Don’t let the Democrat machine destroy us Stand up for your rights stand up for
states rights. We are the ones who hold destiny in our hands Be the flag bearer of democracy. Get active in politics.. complain to the liberal media about
their coverage don’t let them off the hook   And above all   Pray for our country.
Alinsky advocates the following
“True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution
 as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties….   “Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite..
.. Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite
 group called the Developing Communities Project…. Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago,
 Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.” (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)

“Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.”

“Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

“The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.”

“In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton “enemies” like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.)

“One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.” (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying “nigger” on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.

It’s time for Action

For the first time ever, federal aid – not property, sales or income tax – is the top revenue source for state budgets, the paper reported.

The United Fiefdoms of America

By Howie Rich

Lost in last week’s barrage of Barack Obama “spending reform” coverage was a USA Today story that should send chills down the spine of any state official – or taxpaying citizen, for that matter.

For the first time ever, federal aid – not property, sales or income tax – is the top revenue source for state budgets, the paper reported.

And not surprisingly, you could probably knit your way from Hyannis Port to Honolulu with all the “strings attached” by federal bureaucrats.

Like the automotive industry, banking business or mortgage market, an unprecedented level of state governmental policy is now controlled out of Washington.

And just as government’s costly intrusion into the free market is eroding our capitalist economy, its escalating incursion into the realm of state sovereignty is encroaching upon our individual liberties.

As Indiana State Sen. Jim Buck told USA Today, “This money isn’t manna from heaven. It comes with a price.”

Indeed it does – and that price is our freedom.

Of course, to hear big government apologists tell it, this news is exclusively the result of the current economic crisis and the need for government to “lend a hand.”

“This has more to say about the severity of the recession than anything else,” a spokesman for the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said. “Congress stepped in on a temporary basis to help states.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

While Washington’s bailout craze has indeed spawned a sizable increase in federal aid to states, what we have witnessed over the last eighty years is the systematic stripping away of local control – a steady, methodical (and increasingly expensive) obliteration of the sovereignty of state governments.

This marks a complete reversal of the framework of government our founding fathers envisioned, and amounts to a deliberate shredding of the Constitutional compact that states entered into as a prerequisite for joining the Union.

Back in 1929, for example, federal aid comprised just 2% of state consumption expenditures. It rose to 12% under the administrations of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, but remained at approximately that level until the 1960’s.

Then, according to a 2008 report by the Heritage Foundation, state dependency exploded with the introduction of Medicaid.

Comprising just 6% of state budgets in the early Seventies, Medicaid currently accounts for almost a third of all state expenditures – and that number is climbing.

As Congress has expanded eligibility and added services and benefits – all without state approval – Medicaid has grown at a completely unsustainable clip.

In fact, over the last 35 years, Medicaid has grown by $1.64 for every dollar in state spending growth.

Similar increases can be seen in federal education, environmental, social security and welfare programs – with states having to pay ever-escalating tabs across the board.
And with deficit spending adding trillions to a growing national debt, Uncle Sam kept right on pouring cash into these “federal-state” programs.

It made sense to U.S. lawmakers. More federal spending brought more federal control, and in those rare instances when states dared to resist Washington’s will, the feds threatened to cut state bureaucrats out of the gravy train.

Of course that’s just half of the scam.

When tax money wasn’t available to cover the enforcement of new federal edicts, D..C. politicians passed the tab on down to states in the form of unfunded mandates.

As of last March, the “mandate gap” stood at over $130 billion.

Sadly, all that this joint “federal-state” governance has done is to further remove power from the people while “locking in” exorbitant growth rates for government at all levels – a process facilitated by the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by states on taxpayer-funded lobbyists.

Basically, Americans are forced to pay more as they receive less from government – all while having their voice taken from them.

Over the decades to come, our children and grandchildren will be paying off our previous debt as well as the trillions of dollars that government is spending on its various “recovery” efforts.

Let’s hope that as they labor to do so, they will insist not only on dramatic reductions in the size and scope of government, but also the reemergence of a balance of power that gives them a voice in the policies that affect their lives.

Absent that, we will continue to see a nation of fiefdoms drifting further toward servitude.

The author is Chairman of Americans for Limited Government.

The Alinsky Administration

The Alinsky Administration
Today, reading Rules for Radicals is illuminating and worrisome.

By Jim Geraghty


Barack Obama never met Saul Alinsky, but the radical organizer’s thought helps explain a great deal about how the president operates.

Alinsky died in 1972, when Obama was 11 years old. But three of Obama’s mentors from his Chicago days studied at a school Alinsky founded, and they taught their students the philosophy and methods of one of the first “community organizers.” Ryan Lizza wrote a 6,500-word piece on Alinsky’s influence on Obama for The New Republic, noting, “On his campaign website, one can find a photo of Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written Relationships Built on Self Interest,

an idea illustrated by a diagram of the flow of money from corporations to the mayor.”

In a letter to the Boston Globe, Alinsky’s son wrote that “the Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style. . . .  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.”

As a tool for understanding the thinking of Obama, Alinsky’s most famous book, Rules for Radicals, is simultaneously edifying and worrisome. Some passages make Machiavelli’s Prince read like a Sesame Street picture book on manners.

After Obama took office, the pundit class found itself debating the ideology and sensibility of the new president — an indication of how scarcely the media had bothered to examine him beforehand. But after 100 days, few observers can say that Obama hasn’t surprised them with at least one call. Gays wonder why Obama won’t take a stand on gay marriage when state legislatures will. Union bosses wonder what happened to the man who sounded more protectionist than Hillary Clinton in the primary. Some liberals have been stunned by the serial about-faces on extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, military-tribunal trials, the state-secrets doctrine, and other policies they associate with the Bush administration. Former supporters of Obama, including David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Jim Cramer, and Warren Buffett, have expressed varying degrees of criticism of his early moves, surprised that he is more hostile to the free market than they had thought.

Obama’s defenders would no doubt insist this is a reflection of his pragmatism, his willingness to eschew ideology to focus on what solutions work best. This view assumes that nominating Bill Richardson as commerce secretary, running up a $1.8 trillion deficit, approving the AIG bonuses, signing 9,000 earmarks into law, adopting Senator McCain’s idea of taxing health benefits, and giving U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown 25 DVDs that don’t work in Britain constitute “what works best.” Obama is a pragmatist, but a pragmatist as understood by Alinsky: One who applies pragmatism to achieving and keeping power.

One of Alinsky’s first lessons is: “Radicals must have a degree of control over the flow of events.” Setting aside the Right’s habitual complaint about the pliant liberal media, Obama has dominated the news by unveiling a new initiative or giving a major speech on almost every weekday of his presidency. There has been a steady stream of lighter stories as well — the puppy, Michelle Obama’s fashion sense, the White House swing set, the president and vice president’s burger lunch.

The constant parade of events large and small ensures that whenever unpleasant news arises and overtakes the desired message — think of Tom Daschle’s withdrawal, the Air Force One photo op, or North Korea’s missile launch — it leads the news for only a day. For contrast, consider what happened when the photos of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse appeared: As American Journalism Review reports, they “dominated the headlines for a month. Day after day, top national newspapers brought to light new aspects of the debacle on their front pages.”

When Obama announced a paltry $100 million in budget cuts, and insisted this was part of a budget-trimming process that would add up to “real money,” he clearly understood that the public processes these numbers very differently from the way budget wonks do. Alinsky wrote: “The moment one gets into the area of $25 million and above, let alone a billion, the listener is completely out of touch, no longer really interested, because the figures have gone above his experience and almost are meaningless. Millions of Americans do not know how many million dollars make up a billion.”

Obama insists that he doesn’t want the government to run car companies, but he has fired CEOs, demonized bondholders, ensured the UAW gets the sweetest deal, and guaranteed warrantees. He insists that he doesn’t want to run banks, but his Treasury Department hesitates to take back some of the TARP funds that give them influence over bank policies. He’s critical of Wall Street, but he signed off on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s remarkably generous plan to give hedge funds and private investors a low-risk, high-reward option on toxic assets.

Much of this is explained by Alinsky’s epigram, “In the politics of human life, consistency is not a virtue.”

During the campaign, Obama’s critics laughed and marveled at how quickly the candidate threw inconvenient friends, allies, and supporters under the bus once they became political liabilities. Over on the Campaign Spot, it’s been easy to compile a list of quickly forgotten promises. But it is unlikely that Obama would consider any of this a character flaw; instead, it is evidence of his adaptability and gift for seeing the big picture.

Alinsky sneered at those who would accept defeat rather than break their principles: “It’s true I might have trouble getting to sleep because it takes time to tuck those big, angelic, moral wings under the covers.” He assured his students that no one would remember their flip-flops, scoffing, “The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.” If you win, no one really cares how you did it.

Lizza’s profile offered an example of how Obama isn’t quite as cynical as Alinsky’s power-at-all-costs mentality would suggest:


Moreover, when Obama’s ideals clash with reality, he has been able to find compromises that don’t put him at a political disadvantage. For instance, no Democrat can win the general election while adhering to the public financing system if the Republican nominee doesn’t do the same. Clinton and John Edwards have simply conceded that the public financing system is dead and are ignoring fund-raising restrictions that would be triggered if either ends up playing within the public financing scheme. Facing the same situation, Obama — a longtime champion of campaign finance reform in general and public financing in particular — asked the Federal Election Commission if he could raise the potentially restricted money now (the world as it is) but then give it back if he wins the nomination and convinces his Republican opponent to stick with public financing (the world as we would like it to be).

But Obama quickly ignored that pledge when Senator McCain indicated he was willing to restrict himself to the public-financing system. Obama audaciously claimed that his donors had created a “parallel public-financing system” and announced his changed position at a fundraising dinner.
Moderates thought they were electing a moderate; liberals thought they were electing a liberal. Both camps were wrong. Ideology does not have the final say in Obama’s decision-making; an Alinskyite’s core principle is to take any action that expands his power and to avoid any action that risks his power.

As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it — including invite Rick Warren to give the benediction at his inauguration, dine with conservative columnists, and dismiss an appointee at the White House Military Office to ensure the perception of accountability.

Alinsky’s influence goes well beyond Obama, obviously. There are many wonderful Democrats in this world, but evidence suggests that rising in that party’s political hierarchy requires some adoption of a variation of the Alinsky philosophy: Power comes first. Few Democrats are expressing outrage over Nancy Pelosi’s ever-shifting explanation of what she knew about waterboarding. Those who screamed bloody murder about Jack Abramoff’s crimes avert their eyes from John Murtha. The anti-war movement that opposed the surge in Iraq remains silent about sending additional troops to Afghanistan. Obama will never get as much grief for his gay-marriage views as Miss California.

It’s not about the policies or the politics, and it’s certainly not about the principles. It’s about power, and it has been for a long time.

— Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot for NRO.


National Review Online –