Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist

Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

“They fear that the development and building of People’s (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”
 – Saul Alinsky responding to his critics, Reveille for Radicals; p. 199
When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe.  It wasn’t hard then to see in Alinsky’s programs at home, elements of the people’s revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same “in your face” tactics being employed by Hitler’s Brownshirts.
What Alinsky’s critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of people’s organizations, which all had two elements in common:  (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.
While most modern Americans remember well Hitler’s Holocaust and the Cold War waged by a solid U.S.S.R., many of these same Americans have swallowed some false history regarding the movements that spawned such widespread, horrendous results.  In what may be regarded as the most triumphant propaganda victory of our time, fascism has been scrubbed of all its Marxist roots, while communism has been scrubbed of  its millions of callous murders. 
This post-WWII propaganda coup undeniably set the stage for the early Alinsky critics’ most feared eventuality, that the massive organizations could be shrewdly adopted by a fascist demagogue, someone who could “seize leadership and control” and turn them into a “Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”
But perhaps the most cunning propaganda feat in history has been undertaken for the past 8 years.  As Jonah Goldberg expertly expounds in his book, Liberal Fascism, American left-wing ideologues have managed to dissociate themselves from all the horrors of fascism with a “brilliant rhetorical maneuver.”  They’ve done it by “claiming that their opponents are the fascists.”
Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously.  Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this diabolical tactic to deceive the people.  From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:
“…in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University…students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations – a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies.  The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address.  That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative – and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school.  He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’  And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”
In what may eventually prove to be a devious rhetorical feat of monstrous proportions, while the left has been indulging and fostering the “Bush Is Hitler” meme, they may have just put a genuine ideological fascist heir in the White House.       
There is inherent danger in making scurrilous comparisons (as were perpetrated unceasingly against George W. Bush), but there seem to be some very worrisome signs in the rise of Barack Obama that we Americans would be foolish to ignore.
Obama, the Closer
As I put forth last year in “Obama, the Closer”, Barack Obama, did not start his movement; Alinsky did.    
Nor did Obama amass the organizations that propelled him.  As detailed by Heidi J. Swarts, in her book, Organizing Urban America, the movement begun by Saul Alinsky in the 1930s has morphed into thousands of secular and faith-based leftist political organizations.  ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has perhaps the highest public profile, is most reputed for radicalism, and is the organization with which Barack Obama was first aligned.  But ACORN is the mere tip of a veritable iceberg of Alinsky-styled community organizations that sweep across the entire United States and make up the backbone of faith-based progressive movements as well.
These euphemistically called “community” organizations have next to nothing to do with improving the communities and everything to do with politics, primarily strong-arming government money to advance their political aims.  Prior to Reagan’s election, these groups worked independently for the most part, each seeking to effect local change towards leftist ends.
But with Reagan’s victory, ACORN founding member Wade Rathke sent out a memo (published by Swarts; Organizing Urban America; p. 29) that would reverberate all the way to Barack Obama’s moment.  ACORN had been behaving as a sort of “Lone Ranger of the Left” for too long, wrote Rathke.  Ronald Reagan had formed a coalition among the middle-class that threatened to bring greater prosperity without left-wing Statists calling the shots.  Rathke put out the call to the ACORN troops to stop antagonizing those who would be allies, especially unions and church organizations, once shunned by ACORN as too placid for the real fight for power.  For the next 25 years, the community organization network built, proliferated and formed a solid, nation-wide base of political strength, purely according to Alinsky’s original vision, and all just waiting for the right candidate to tap into it and lead it.
When folks from all corners of America proclaimed, seemingly with one voice, Barack is the “One we’ve been waiting for,” they were speaking out of the vast Alinsky-originated network.    
Neither did Barack Obama invent the political “ideology of change,” nor design its carefully crafted propaganda.  While media folks talked of the tingles up their legs and the brilliant rhetoric of Barack Obama, they were heralding the speaker only, not the creator of the movement and its slogans.  That would have been Saul Alinsky, the man who took fascism and cunningly made it appear to casual observers every bit as American as apple pie.
Barack Obama is merely the movement’s closer, the quintessential liberal fascist with a teleprompter.Hail Obama
Alinsky’s Ideology of Change:  The Third Way
Goldberg fastidiously notes the comparison between Alinsky’s “in your face” rules for radicals, studied and perfected by Barack Obama, and shows them to have profoundly fascist roots:
“…there’s no disputing that vast swaths of his (Alinsky’s) writings are indistinguishable from the fascist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s…His worldview is distinctly fascistic.  Life is defined by war, contests of power, the imposition of will.  Moreover, Alinsky shares with the fascists and pragmatists of yore a bedrock hostility to dogma.  All he believes in are the desired ends of the movement, which he regards as the source of life’s meaning…But what comes through most is his unbridled love of power.  Power is a good in its own right for Alinsky.  Ours ‘is a world not of angels but of angles,’ he proclaims in Rules for Radicals, ‘where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”
Saul Alinsky was the man who transformed politics in America into all-out war mode.  Alinsky’s tenth rule of the ethics of means:  “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”  All’s fair in love and war, and politics, to Alinsky, was war.
“A People’s (community) Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social service’s ameliorative gesture.  It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people.  It thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.
A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war.  A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.”
Saul Alinsky; Reveille for Radicals; p. 133     
Alinsky includes an entire section in Rules for Radicals on “The Ideology of Change.”  The watchword of the Obama campaign was “change.”  Just as Hitler mobilized the masses with a calculatingly undefined demand for “change,” so did Alinsky disciple, Barack Obama.
“Everything must be different!” or “Alles muss anders sein!,” Hitler’s own campaign slogan, morphed into “Unite for Change,” and the Obama transition team’s change.gov.  Even the idea of a vast “movement” was borrowed from Hitler.  As Goldberg states, Hitler used the phrase, “the Movement,” more than 200 times in Mein Kampf.            
The word ‘movement’ itself is instructive.  Movement, unlike progress, doesn’t imply a fixed destination.  Rather, it takes it as a given that any change is better.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 176)
Perhaps the most intoxicating allure to the fascist demagogue and his movement for undefined change is its misleadingly conciliatory flavor.  Barack Obama continually, throughout his campaign and even now, portrays himself as the Third Way between the cantankerous factions that have polarized America for the past 80 years, since liberal fascism took root as the Progressive Movement. 
Obama claimed that Bush was too much the ideologue, that his policies were driven by the Christian right, involved “false choices” between all-out war on the one hand and diplomacy on the other, between the welfare state and cold-hearted, do-nothing conservatism, between absolute sovereignty and cowardly submission to the global community, between doing all and doing nothing.  And if any of this gibberish were a true reflection of our political disagreements, Obama would be somewhat correct.  But as any sentient person knows, this radical presentation of Obama’s is absolutely false.  That gets lost, though, in the leader’s conciliatory tone.
What must not get lost, however, is the very real fact that this Third Way movement for change is as fascist as anything we have ever seen in the USA.  As Alinsky described his own “Ideology of Change,” the lure is in the claim that the leader has no ideology that would confine his outlook to hard choices between what is moral or immoral, that there are no boundaries set by either religion or politics, that everything can change and the only thing that matters is one’s end intention to do something good.
As Hitler, before Alinsky, proclaimed, “Our program is to govern,” not delve into theory and dogma.  This is in itself very appealing, especially to an electorate sick of the contentiousness of the past decade.  This undefined “ideology of change” for the sake of change, for some action that will break through the roadblocks of polarization, has tremendous allure.
But Goldberg bursts that bubble:
The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical.  Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking.  But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian.  Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs.  The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices -‘I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’  The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity.  Fascist movements are implicitly utopian because they – like communist and heretical Christian movements — assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified. 
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 130)
Of course, thinking people — when they are indeed thinking — know this is an utterly false promise.  Life will never be made perfect because all human beings are imperfect.
Unity, the Diabolical Lure
What of this longed-for unity then?  Barack Obama proclaimed he was leading a movement of people “united for change.”   What is the appeal of unity? 
The modern liberal fascist seeks that state between mother and child which exists early on before the child seeks his own independence, before mother must set herself at odds with him.  It is the perfectly secure state of childhood where all is lovely and peaceful and nurturing, but cannot continue indefinitely if the child is to be prepared to face a world of difficulty and hard choices.  Nevertheless, the yearning continues.  It is this primordial yearning which sets itself in the crosshairs of the fascist demagogue.
But in adult life, this type of unity is anything but desirable, anything but virtuous.  As Goldberg states, however, “elevation of unity as the highest social value is a core tenet of fascism and all leftist ideologies.”
The allure of this mystical unity is so great that its demand to sacrifice reason and thought on the false altar of infantile security is seemingly lost to many.  But as Goldberg also reminds us, “unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink.”
Rampaging mobs are unified.  The Mafia is unified.  Marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified.  Meanwhile, civilized people have disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments.  Classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always anti-liberal.
Liberalism rejected the idea that unity is more valuable than individuality.  For fascists and other leftists, meaning and authenticity are found in collective enterprises – of class, nation, or race – and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 172)
Just as the healthy relationship between parent and developing child demands friction, so does the healthy relationship between truly liberal citizens.  Unity is the siren song of tyranny, not the call to genuine progress.
Fascism:  The Two Birds with One Stone Approach
I think of Obama’s liberal fascism as a cancer that attempts to kill the two birds of American exceptionalism with one stone.  It is a deviously appealing Third Way that in the end, if allowed to triumph completely, kills both individual liberty and Judeo/Christian religion with its single stone.
And, indeed this was the precise goal of Adolph Hitler.  Unlike the outspoken hatred of private property and religion espoused by communists under Lenin and Stalin, Hitler preferred the more moderate-seeming incremental takeover of private enterprise in the interest of the “common good,” and the slow-death of Judeo/Christian religion by chipping away at it and replacing the people’s dependence upon God gradually with reliance on the state (Hitler).
[Note:  Hitler’s Holocaust was based on the Progressive Eugenics principles set forth by Social Darwinist scientists and social engineers of the 1920s, widely accepted both in Europe and in the United States.  Religion was not at the core of the Holocaust; race was.  However, Hitler’s other chief aim was to destroy the Judeo/Christian religions, which he believed had ruined the Germanic race’s world predominance.]
Of course, as the German people were duped into giving Hitler totalitarian powers to work his magic “change,” he took off the kid gloves and accelerated the program.
In the end, however slow the process, however seemingly benign the growth of the state may seem, liberal fascism has the same result of all tyrannies before it:  hell on earth for most and a self-indulgent feast for the Statists in power.
As Barack Obama speaks, thinking Americans ought to hear the echoes of past fascist demagogues and remember.  Remember.
When Barack Obama promises “collective redemption” through his profligate spending programs and vast overtures to a new world order built on love for our fellow man, we ought to shudder not swoon. 
We ought to remember that healthy global relationships are built upon respect, not all-encompassing love, and that redemption for one’s soul is a commodity the state is not empowered to offer.
As Pope Benedict XVI has so presciently warned:
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much.  Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
Be not fooled, America.  The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil.  It’s a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesn’t change a thing.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com. 

Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution – The Alinsky Model By David Horowitz

Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution – The Alinsky Model By David Horowitz

Posted By dashton On October 30, 2009 @ 4:31 pm In PAB |

Dear DHFC Supporter, 

When you take a hard look at what Barack Obama already has done and plans to do, you quickly realize he is not Jimmy Carter. He is not even Bill Clinton. That’s because Barack Obama, working in concert with the ultra-liberal socialists that run the Democrat party, is radically transforming America.

Right now, the Freedom Center is pulling out all stops to expose the radical agenda of Barack Obama and the socialist leadership in Congress is trying to force on the American people. That includes running our newspaper ad, “Ten Ways Barack Obama and the Socialist Congress are Radically Transforming America!”

Today I need your help! This campaign needs your support. And if you are able to join me in the project with a contribution of $25, $35 $50, $100 or even $1,000 today [1], I will send you – at no cost – my new booklet detailing the radical transformation Barack Obama and the socialists in Congress are implementing.

I have reserved a copy of my new booklet, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution, for you. Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution provides even more shocking links between the President’s left-wing agenda and the radical, anti-American hate-filled writings of Saul Alinsky. It’s imperative that we get these booklets out to as many Americans as possible, however. And it’s absolutely critical that we raise enough money to run our powerful newspaper ad detailing Obama and Congressional Socialists work to derail our republic.

That is why I’m asking you use any of the links provided in this message to support the Freedom Center [1] with a generous contribution to ensure we generate remaining $225,500 needed to fully fund this project. If your contribution is $25 or more [1] I will rush you Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution at no cost.

As more mainstream Americans see what is behind the Obama agenda, they realize how dangerous it is to our nation – an agenda driven by the writings of a man who hated America, Saul Alinsky. In the short time Obama has been in power, we’ve witnessed:

  • The virtual bankruptcy of our economy. The deficit is at $2 trillion and rising with the overwhelming majority of the money spent to grow the federal government.
  • More than 35 “Czars” controlling billions of dollars and making management decisions about everything from our auto industry to “green” jobs to urban development. These Czars answer to no one but Barack Obama!
  • A maniacal attempt to socialize our health care! Contrary to his stylish rhetoric, the Obama plan will put private insurers out of business and put bureaucrats in charge of our health care. Anyone who has stood in line at the Post Office or waited in a security line at an airport has had a glimpse of a future with government-controlled health care.
  • Raising our taxes. Obama’s first budget will consume 28% of the entire GDP! 28%! He plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts, raise income taxes, the capital gains tax and block the repeal of the estate tax (death tax) for the sake of “morality,” he said. But there is nothing moral about taking more and more of your family’s income to feed his socialist agenda.

We’ve identified six more points in our newspaper ad. Each action designed to undercut our independence and, just as you’ll learn from the booklet, adhere to Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, his “how to” book on destroying America.

You’ve been a vital player in many Freedom Center projects! Can you step up with us again today?

As I’ve said on the Glenn Beck show and places where I’ve spoken in recent months: This isn’t like four bad years of Jimmy Carter or even eight years of Bill Clinton. This is the systematic transformation of our nation from an open, capitalist society, to a Big Brother-type socialist nation. We must stop it. Now. Thank you so much for your time.

Sincerely,

David Horowitz
President & Founder

P.S. Remember: We have a powerful ad detailing “Ten Ways Barack Obama and the Socialist Congress are Radically Transforming America.” But we need your help to get this in front of the people. Please support the Freedom Center right now with a generous contribution. [1]

[1]

Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution – The Alinsky  Model. [1]

Max Baucus on Obamacare’s hidden agenda – redistribution of wealth

Thursday, March 25, 2010
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:08 PM

Max Baucus is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and the Democrat most responsible fo Obamacare’s final shape other than Nancy Pelosi.

In an unusual speech on the Senate floor moments ago, Max Baucus declares that the “healthcare bill” to be  “an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans.”  Baucus continued, “[t]oo often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind.  Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America.  This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

Max Baucus on Obamacare’s hidden agenda – redistribution of wealth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo&feature=player_embedded

Baucus’ candor is appreciated, though the fact that he waited until the bill passed to announce the real agenda behind the massive tax hikes isn’t a profile in courage.  And the seniors on fixed income who are about to lose Medicare Advantage would laugh at Baucus’ pseudo-populism.

Posted in Abortion, American Fifth Column, B Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Biden, Bill Ayers, CNN traitors, defeat liberalism, Democrat Communist Party, Democrat corruption, Democrat george soros, democrat half truth, Democrat issues, democrat John McCain, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat polls, democrat scandals, Democrat Shadow Government, democrat socialists, democrat spying, DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, Democratic Corruption, Democratic majority, democratic media, Democratic Party, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats & The Left, Democrats and AARP, democrats and acorn, democrats and CNN, Democrats and drilling, Democrats and Earmarking, democrats and global Warming, democrats and illegal immigration, Democrats and labor unions, Democrats and Subprime mortgages, Democrats and talk radio, Democrats and taxes, Democrats and the media, Democrats being stupid, democrats cheating, democrats socialized medicine, Democrats' Nepotism, Dennis Kucinich, Dianne Feinstein, Earmarking, earmarks, Evangelical Left, Fifth Column, Fifth Column Left, get tough on liberal media, get tough on liberals, get tough with democrats, Harry Reid, Healthcare, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Socialist, Hollywood liberals, Homeland Security, Hussein Obama, Impeach, In The News, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islamic immigration, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Murtha, Left wing churches, Left-wing, left-wing ideologues, Leftist Claptrap, leftist fund, Leftist parties, leftist universities, leftist wacko, leftists, leftwing billionaire George Soros, Max Baucus, Nancy Pelosi, National Debt, Nazi Pelosi, Obama, Obama Czars, Obama Jackboots, Obama-Pelosi-Reid, Obamacare, partial birth abortion, Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, Pelosi Land, Radical Politics, Rahm Emanuel, Saul Alinsky. Leave a Comment »

Obama helped fund ‘Alinsky Academy’ Teaches tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation

Obama helped fund ‘Alinsky Academy’

Teaches tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation


Posted: March 18, 2010
11:45 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Saul Alinsky

A Chicago nonprofit on which President Obama served as paid director provided startup capital and later funding to Midwest Academy, an activist organization described as teaching tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation, WND has learned.

Also, in 1998, Obama participated on a panel discussion alongside Midwest Academy founder Heather Booth, an extremist organizer and dedicated disciple of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy. WND first reported Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.

Midwest was co-founded by Booth’s husband, Paul Booth, a founder and the former national secretary of Students for a Democratic Society, the radical 1960s anti-war movement from which Ayers’ Weathermen splintered.

In 1999, Booth’s Midwest Academy received $75,000 from the Woods Fund. In 2002, with Obama still serving on the Woods Fund, Midwest received another $23,500 for its Young Organizers Development Program.

Midwest describes itself as “one of the nation’s oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.”

Read the book that the author dedicated to Lucifer! Get Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

It later morphed into a national organizing institute for an emerging network of organizations known as Citizen Action. Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing.

Discover the Networks describes Midwest as “teach[ing] tactics of direct action, confrontation, and intimidation.”

In August 1998, Obama participated in a panel discussion following the opening performance in Chicago of the play “The Love Song of Saul Alinsky,” a work described by the Chicago Sun-Times as “bringing to life one of America’s greatest community organizers.”

Obama participated in the discussion alongside other Alinskyites, including Booth, political analyst Aaron Freeman, Don Turner of the Chicago Federation of Labor and Northwestern University history professor Charles Paine.

“Alinsky had so much fire burning within,” stated local actor Gary Houston, who portrayed Alinsky in the play. “There was a lot of complexity to him. Yet he was a really cool character.”

Booth herself is a notorious radical community activist and self-described dedicated disciple of Alinsky, of whom she says: “Alinsky is to community-organizing as Freud is to psychoanalysis.”

Booth’s vision of uniting various left-leaning organizations and factions has also been the subject of her two books: “Toward a Radical Movement and Citizen Action” and “The New American Populism.”

Former 1960s radical and FrontPageMagazine Editor David Horowitz describes Alinsky as the “communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States.”

Horowitz writes in his 2009 pamphlet “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution. The Alinsky Model”:

“The strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it was what sixties radicals called ‘boring from within.’ …. Like termites, they set about to eat away at the foundations of the building in expectation that one day they could cause it to collapse.”

As WND reported, Obama approached Northwestern University professor John L. McKnight – a loyal student of Alinsky’s radical tactics – to pen a letter of recommendation for him when he applied to Harvard Law School. Under the tutelage of McKnight and other hardcore students of Alinsky, Obama said he got the “best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School.”

In a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, Alinsky’s son praised Obama for stirring up the masses at the 2008 Democratic National Convention “Saul Alinsky style,” saying, “Obama learned his lesson well.”

The letter, signed L. David Alinsky, closed with, “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully.”

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

National Education Association recommends Saul Allinsky

November 03, 2009

National Education Association recommends Saul Allinsky

Right there on the official website:
“An inspiration to anyone contemplating action in their community! And to every organizer!” [bold in original]
Hat tip: Jeff R.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/national_education_association.html at November 03, 2009 – 08:42:44 AM EST

The Alinsky Administration

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

By Jim Geraghty

Alinsky-Rules-for-Radicals

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 – http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTY5ZTA5NmEwMGY4MTFhNDg2ZDg4NjU2MDkxOGYyYTE

Alinsky-Rules-for-Radicals

She said:”Barack stood up that day,” talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, “and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be…”

Figures. Michelle Obama Quotes Lines From “Rules For Radicals” In Her DNC Convention Speech (Updated)

 

Figures.

Michelle Obama quotes lines some radicalFar Left book in her DNC Convention speech.

What to make of Michelle Obama’s use the terms, “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be?” From whence do they originate? Try Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals. In last night’s speech, Michelle Obama said something that peeked my curiousity. She said:

“Barack stood up that day,” talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, “and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be…”

And, “All of us 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.”

Here’s an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals:

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… 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 Took Lines From Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” in DNC Speech

Michelle Obama Took Lines From Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” in DNC Speech

leave a comment »

What to make of Michelle Obama’s use the terms, “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be” in last night’s speech? Where are those lines from?

She said:

“Barack stood up that day,” talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, “and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be…”

And, “All of us 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.”

Try Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, ‘Rules for Radicals’. Alinsky was a radical leftist/socialist union and community orgainizer in the sixties, seventies and eighties. He was a hero to the Obama’s.

Here’s an excerpt from Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… 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.

The Obama’s ARE radical leftists, so I don’t see much surprise in her quoting Alinsky. Do you? It is part of their feeling of superiority, their feeling they are part of the intellectual elite, that she boldly lifted the passages feeling, I am certain, confident no one but her fellow leftists would recognize Alinsky’s work.

Michelle Obama can smile all she wants, (even speak truth about her kids–they are adorable!) but she remains an angry radical leftist, willing to do anything, say anything, to grab power. Focus groups show people perceive her anger, bubbling just below the surface.

Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

Diane Alden
Jan. 7, 2003


Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky’s real claim to fame was as strategist for anti-establishment ’60s radicals and revolutionaries.

Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for ’60s radicals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on her climb to national prominence.

Alinsky had a true genius for formulating tactical battle plans for the radical left. He wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: “Reveille for Radicals” (1946) and “Rules for Radicals” (1971).

“Rules for Radicals” begins with an unusual tribute: “From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

The devil challenged authority and got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about. That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means.

Alinsky asserted that he was more concerned with the acquisition of power than anything else: “My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it.” This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: “[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized … it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes.”

Alinsky advises his followers that the poor have no power and that the real target is the middle class: “Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America’s white middle class. That is where the power is. … Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority.”

But that didn’t stop Alinsky and his followers from using the middle class for their own purposes. They counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in “life’s lottery.”

Alinsky’s radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party.

Transition and Transaction

The transition of the old Democratic Party to what exists today should not surprise or confound conservatives. Nor should Alinsky’s tactics seem foreign. After all, for nearly 40 years, Republicans and the conservative agenda have been getting hammered by the left through the successful use of Alinsky tactics.

In that cause, radicals and the liberal-left gravitated toward the print and electronic media, toward the university professorate and the law. The left, consciously or unconsciously, adopted Alinsky’s rules. The impact changed the nature of the Democratic Party and the direction of the United States. Increasingly, the left is succeeding in changing the nature of the Republican Party as well.

Suffice to say the greatest change has taken place in the relationship between the state and the individual. America is rapidly descending from a representative Constitutional Republic to a collectivist empire controlled by elites of one sort or another.

Alinsky’s influence on the modern Democratic Party indicates that the ends do indeed justify the means. As Alinsky states in “Rules for Radicals” it was foolish to believe that means are just as important as the ends. He states that “to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles … the practical revolutionary will understand … [that] in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.”

Sadly, not enough Republicans and conservatives learned Alinsky’s rules until late in the game. A sign of hope is the fact that the new media, including talk radio and the Internet, are changing all that. One can hope it is not too late.

In any event, Alinsky’s rules include:

  • “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.

Of course, Republicans reaction to all this is to immediately go on the defensive. Seldom do they unleash their pit bull orators or strategists. Rather than use the immense amount of data available to prove the conservative case, Republicans tug their forelocks, say “yes sir,” and hope the accusations and name calling will go away.Why is it that Republicans consistently fail to point out the monumental failures of the new Democrats? Failures such as the massive disaster that is the “war on poverty.” On that topic alone Republicans should be drilling the public in every media venue and at every opportunity. Then and only then should Republicans offer alternatives to the failed policies of the Democratic left.

Republicans should pound relentlessly on the fact that the Democratic Party was hijacked by leftist reactionaries way back in the early ’70s. The reactionary left is the obstructionist left. They do nothing but defend and cling to the failures of the past. That fact makes them reactionaries rather than radicals or progressives.

Unfortunately, Republicans still pretend that nothing has changed regarding the basic philosophy of the political parties. They refuse to understand the horrendous notion that Democrats tell us the U.S. Constitution is flexible. That means the rule of law is flexible. If that is the case the law and the Constitution mean nothing. It means that the law and Constitution are twisted by the whims and fancies of the moment.

In fact, in the 2000 election Al Gore maintained the Constitution could and should be manipulated because it was “flexible.” Whatever happened to the amendment process?

Bill Clinton used executive orders to circumvent Congress and the Constitution. He used the agencies of the federal government against his enemies. Clinton set an extremely dangerous precedent. Alinsky would have loved it. It is a perfect example of the use of the Rules for Radicals – ends justify the means.

Hillary and Bill Clinton and other powerful former ’60s radicals learned from Saul Alinsky. It is about time that a few more Republicans and/or conservatives did as well.

Alinsky in South Dakota

Remember that Alinsky’s advice was that the ends justify the means. Think of Florida in 2000 and the manipulation of military ballots. Think of Milwaukee and unattended polling places, which allowed leftist college students to take handfuls of ballots to check off. Think of a million immigrants in the 1996 election granted instant voting rights by the Clinton administration.

More importantly, think of South Dakota in November of 2002, or Nevada in 1998 or 2002.

In a brilliant bit of investigative reporting, National Review’s Byron York gave us a grand overview of the corrupt and unpleasant outline of how Alinsky’s rules work during election season. Republicans, once again asleep at the switch, live in the land of euphoria. They still believe that their Democratic counterparts are among the angels on God’s right.

Considering that Alinsky expresses admiration for Lucifer, they are looking in the wrong place to find many modern Democrats. Republicans still assume that the modern Democratic Party, its media sycophants, its operatives during national or state elections, will play fair. It is hard to say which is worse, Republican naïveté’ or Democratic cheating and law breaking.

When Democrats cheat, especially under Bill Clinton’s and Terry McAuliffe’s watch, they whine when they discover they didn’t cheat enough to win. When they are caught in the big lies, they expect Republicans to ignore it and give them a pass. The last election in South Dakota is a case in point.

In the primaries and election of 2002, lawyers from Washington started showing up at polling places in the hinterlands of South Dakota. The Republican leadership and the establishment should have seen it coming but they didn’t.

As Byron York relates in “Badlands, Bad Votes”: “On Election Day, Noma Sazama knew something unusual was going on the moment she arrived at her polling place, the St. Thomas Parish Hall in Mission, South Dakota. Sazama, a member of the local election board, noticed several strangers in the room – an unusual sight in Mission, population 904, where most people know one another. It turned out the strangers were all lawyers, Democrats who had come to town to serve as poll watchers for the race between incumbent Democratic senator Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune. One was from Washington, D.C., another was from New York City, and a third was from California. ‘There were no locals, and I’ve never seen that happen before,’ says Sazama, who has lived in the area for 73 years.”

Furthermore, York maintains, “The Democratic team of lawyers confiscated the Parish Hall kitchen only a few feet from the balloting tables.”

Witnesses swore in affidavits that party hacks had rented dozens of vans and hired drivers to bring voters to the polls. Lawyers from elsewhere made the Parish Hall their headquarters. Seventy-three-year-old Ms. Sazama stated, “They had the names and time-of-pickup and whether someone voted on them, and from those he would contact the drivers.”

Finally she understood that the influx of outside Democrats were going to use the polling place as their headquarters, an action which is against the laws of South Dakota.

The lawyers tied up the phones, which meant that the poll watchers and election officials could not make needed phone calls. York quotes the election supervisor: “They were on the phone using it to call I don’t know where, and I needed to call because we had some new districting. They were always talking on it.”

When Wanless, the election supervisor, protested, she got a chilly reaction from the out-of-towners. “I felt like they were trying to intimidate me,” she recalls.

In fact, all this is against South Dakota law, which states: “No person may, in any polling place or within or on any building in which a polling place is located or within one hundred feet from any entrance leading into a polling place, maintain an office or communications center. …”

There were no Republican lawyers or authorities around to inform election officials that it was against the law for the Democrats to be running their campaign from a polling place. That was bad enough, but ever since November Republicans have failed dismally to make it a BIG national issue.

There was also complete failure to understand Alinsky’s second basic rule: “Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.” The DNC counted on the locals being intimidated by a gang of high-priced lawyers – and of course they were.

Another Alinsky rule used in the November elections in South Dakota: “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.” In other words, what you do is count on the failure of will by your opponent to call a foul. The opponent usually believes it is easier to do nothing, it is always easier to do nothing, and so Republicans “move on.”

That is the kind of apathy Hitler’s forces counted on in the Weimar Republic. The end-justifies-the-means cabal figures that even good people find it easier to do nothing.

In South Dakota, lawyers from diverse places were part of a brigade that the DNC uses to “ensure voters’ rights are protected.” But as York relates, “According to the testimony of dozens of South Dakotans who worked at the polls, the out-of-state attorneys engaged in illegal electioneering, pressured poll workers to accept questionable ballots, and forced polling places in a heavily Democratic area to stay open for an hour past their previously-announced closing time. In addition, the testimony contains evidence of people being allowed to vote with little or no identification, of incorrectly marked ballots being counted as Democratic votes, of absentee ballots being counted without proper signatures, and, most serious of all, of voters who were paid to cast their ballots for Sen. Johnson.”

According to some witnesses, Democrats were also running car pools out of polling places on the Indian reservations, where investigators are discovering that the dead Indian vote had a major impact on the slim, last- minute, 524-vote Tim Johnson victory over John Thune.

Affidavits from South Dakotans also indicate that money probably changed hands in crucial areas in the boonies. It was not gas money for van drivers either, but paying per head per vote – shades of Tammany Hall and the elections in Boston wards. Nonetheless, Republicans have decided to “move on.”

To get the entire story, including affidavits sworn to by South Dakota residents, read York’s November article in National Review Online.

Alinsky Does Nevada

When I worked at Nevada Policy Institute in Nevada several years ago, the Post-election analysis of the 1998 election uncovered the fact that family pets received absentee ballots in crucial districts. Dead people were counted as well.

Democratic Senator Harry Reid’s slim, 428-vote win against Republican John Ensign raised eyebrows and the juices of some who understand how the modern DNC and its phalanx of wheelers and dealers, lawyers and opportunists really work.

A part of the tactic includes breaking the law when you can and where you can get away with it. Remember, in the minds of the hijacked Democratic Party the ends do indeed justify the Luciferian means.

In Nevada on Dec. 24, 2002, the FBI seized ballots cast in primary and general elections. Said Daron Borst, FBI special agent in Las Vegas, “There is an ongoing investigation into election fraud, but I can’t go into any details due to the nature of the investigation.”

Ballots were taken after a complaint was lodged that 85 voters in tiny Eureka county did not live in that county or were long dead. The Eureka County probe marked the second time this year the FBI has become involved in a county election in Nevada.

As in South Dakota, it is much easier to get away with election fraud where people don’t know the law or will not enforce the law or they are intimidated by the chutzpah and law breaking of crooks in Armani suits holding credentials from the Democratic National Committee.

Unfortunately, when Republicans don’t pay attention to the corruption and allow themselves to get screwed time and again, they are also in league with the devil. By this failure of will, the sins of omission are as evil as sins of commission.

Voting fraud was rampant in 2000 and again in 2002 and it will be more so in 2004. Why aren’t Republican lawmakers and the RNC making sure this does not happen again? In 2002, Terry McAuliffe told the world that Democratic lawyers would be out in the states keeping an eye on things. They did more than that and it was against the law.

The failure of Republicans to impose the rule of law on the cheaters, liars and manipulators allows those who use Alinsky’s corrupt system to win. That fact tells us that the voting process means as little to our elites as does the Constitution.

Because of that fact, Republicans will lose future elections. More importantly, the people of the United States will lose.

The RNC and the GOP leadership just don’t get it. Otherwise they would care enough to do something about it.


Diane Alden is a graduate of the University of Minnesota with degrees in political science, economics and history. Dubbed the “prairie pontificator,” she also has grad work in international economics and international political movements, plus extensive work in the psychology of behavior in disordered children, women’s issues in Third World countries, creative writing, and marketing. With a sideline in American Indian studies and independence and secession movements worldwide, she is also working on upcoming changes in Canadian politics and the flux in the political landscape of North America.
See her full bio

TYSK Note: Learn more about the Alinsky Method, the Delphi Technique and “facilitators”. If you work for a major corporation or a school district, you are sure to have come face-to-face with this method of group manipulation or, group mind control under the guise of using the “team” approach to problem solving. Click on this link for a short overview article. Once enlightened you are sure to want to know more. Do a Google search on either the Alinsky Method or the Delphi Technique. You will not only learn of its insidiousness, but also see how many groups proudly claim to use these methods to obtain results!