Alinsky 101 – The Fact Flashcards

Feel free to copy images, link, repost or tweet. No copyright… just get the word out.

To Be Continued …

Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model – by David Horowitz | FrontPage Magazine.

EXCELLENT PLUS A LINK TO DOWNLOAD the BOOK!

GREAT READ > Six Alinsky Rules That Explain Obama’s Words and Deeds | FrontPage Magazine.

ALSO A LINK FROM THE SITE ABOVE TO DOWNLOAD DAVID HOROWITZ ON ALINSKY! EXCELLENT.

Recently, students at Missouri Western State University, who wish to remain anonymous in order to avoid retribution from their professors and more militant-minded class-mates, are reporting Anti-Christian discrimination and strong-arm tactics in various classes throughout the campus. For instance, several student describe being forced to read pro-Homosexual books, and participate in pro-Homosexual discussions. “I feel like I’m the only one who values Christian principals, and that if I complain – I’ll be singled out by my professor,” said one student interviewed for this article.

And indeed, one does have to wonder if the line between Professor and Homosexual Activism may be getting a bit blurry at Missouri Western.  As reported in the St. Joseph Newspress, on March 28, 2013, the article “Locals weigh in on Supreme Court Cases” informs that, “St. Joseph resident Melinda Kovacs has watched the Supreme Court proceedings with great interest – both as a Missouri Western State University Government professor, and an advocate for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community. She said each semester in her classes, students discuss American values, and equality always is part of the list.”

And at Missouri Western’s website, the article “Student Groups Plan Legislative Advocacy Training” discusses a 2012 training session that took place on campus that was hosted by PROMO, a statewide organization advocating for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. Professor David Tushaus, professor of legal studies (who provided the 2012 commencement speech at MWSU) was the contact person.

Meanwhile at The Globe, a publication of Point Park University, Missouri Western has a bit of a reputation in pushing pro-homosexual ideals. The Globe reports that, “In addition to IUP and Point Park, the “Only Love” campaign has reached Bridgewater State University, Missouri Western State University and the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Pittsburgh. Although these institutions host “Only Love” campaigns separately, they all work together to spread the common goal of love over hate.”

But in the end, perhaps students who have experienced religious persecution at the hands of their Liberal University Overlords may take some comfort from Commentator Dinesh D’Souza. As this former president of King’s College, and founder of a conservative independent student publication at Dartmouth, D’Souza stated stated on Campus Reform his thoughts on how Liberal bias has turned American campuses into “hostile territory” for conservatives. “The solution is not to placidly accept what is going on to but to think of creative ways to fight back,” he said. “When we were in college we became renegades and guerrillas in a way.”

Thoughts? Take Action:

Contact Kent Heier, Assistant PR/ Marketing Director for MWSU
Phone: 816-271-4124, Email: kheier@missouriwestern.edu

Contact Diane Holtz, MWSU PR/Marketing and Alumni Services Coordinator
Editor, Western Magazine Phone: 816-271-5651
Email: holtz@missouriwestern.edu

Read more: Dr. Tushaus tells MWSU Grads, “Seek Justice in your own way”

Tim Graham ~

You would think if Barack Obama were the centrist that liberal reporters pretend he is, he wouldn’t have such a devoted following at the Daily Kos. But a man named Egberto Willies (or “progressiveliberal,” to use his Kos handle) is furious that Fox News didn’t join CNN and MSNBC in offering live coverage when the Israelis gave Obama a Presidential Medal of Distinction. “This should have been a patriotic moment for the country,” he lectured, but Fox was too unpatriotic to show it.

This led to a rant on how “Fox News is a clear and present danger to America,” an undemocratic propaganda tool of the plutocrats:

They are no different than the propaganda engine used by dictators and the Oligarchy in the third world. It is the same tactic used to demonize Hugo Chavez and other leaders that are attempting to bring real democracy and access to success for the masses and middle class.

Fox News is mostly responsible for much of the gridlock, bad policies, citizen misinformation, and the driver of citizens that vote against their own interest. While the remainder of the mainstream media is not  as blatant in their servitude of the American Plutocracy, they also have blood on their hands.

This was a reference to the Gulf War. If the press fails to prevent a war from happening, that is apparently the same as doing all the killing yourselves.

Read more Great Articles at NewsBusters . http://newsbusters.org/

Edward Cline ~

We can envy the men who lived in the 19th century, and even those who thrived in the first half of the 20th. The future lay before them, promising unimaginable wonders in science, technology, medicine, and industry, in man’s mastery of the world. There were, of course, wars and political scandals, and a few economic twists and bends that inconvenienced everyone. But, overall, despite the occasional impediments and transitory anxieties, the future lay unobstructed before men and that was a mood taken for granted.

In 1876, several months before Custer and his 7th Cavalry rode to their end at Little Big Horn, Alexander Graham Bell was granted Patent No. 174,465 for his working telephone. By 1883, Britain’s Gilbert and Sullivan were “corresponding” by telephone over what to do about the kinks in The Mikado.

The infant strides of telephony led ultimately to the Internet. Western civilization in this period had the hallmarks of a confident extrovert, a “reaching out” phenomenon that led to the moon-landings and the robotic exploration of Mars and other planets, not to mention unparalleled advances in medicine, agriculture, and leisure time.

In the beginning of the latter half of the 20th century, the sobering residue of the Depression and World War II was tenuously offset by the prosperity-induced complacency of the 1950s. In books, newscasts, and movies, nay-sayers and doomsters virtually cornered the market in heralding man’s malaise and predicting his ultimate demise. The optimism began to change into a cloying trepidation, an indistinct but very tangible uneasiness, marked by a loss of faith in what the future would bring and a tendency to wallow in guilt-ridden introversion. While science and technology seemed to bound forward at breathtaking speeds, unaffected by the change in mood, something was left behind to wither and gesture limply at the future.

The world seemed to be out of focus, and to grow fuzzier by the year, inebriated on some kind of alcohol that allowed people to see pink elephants and candy-striped zebras and shimmering Cities on the Hill surrounded by palm and date trees. But the pink elephants were wreaking havoc in china shops, the candy-striped zebras turned out to be anti-American academicians and intellectuals and vociferous but venal politicians, and the shimmering Cities on the Hill were being characterized as dehumanizing dystopias. Too many Americans developed a kind of cultural claustrophobia against for which there was no apparent cure.

As the century progressed from the 20th to the 21st, the world seemed to be imploding, bursting in on itself, with institutions, political and moral norms and even science collapsing in on what seemed to be a vacuum.

This was nowhere better dramatized than in the opening pages of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, when Eddie Willers is shocked to learn that the seemingly imperishable oak tree he had once revered was indeed perishable.

…He felt safe in the oak tree’s presence; it was a thing that nothing could change or threaten; it was his greatest symbol of strength.

One night, lightning struck the oak tree. Eddie saw it the next morning. It lay broken in half, and he looked into its trunk as into the mouth of a black tunnel. The trunk was only an empty shell; its heart had rotted away long ago; there was nothing inside – just a thin gray dust that was being dispersed by the whim of the faintest wind. The living power had gone, and the shape it left had not been able to stand without it.*

Our Western civilization, like the heart of Eddie Willers’ oak tree, has been rotted out for decades. We are just learning the extent and scale of that rot. We no longer feel comfortable in our own country, and civilization seems to be the object of numerous lightning strikes: the growth of collectivism and its various applications of statism; a tolerance for various kinds of mysticism, from a vengeful environmentalism to a belligerent Islam; the denigration of individualism and the enthronement of the mob, the group, and the tribe; group warfare for the spoils of statism, for the wealth looted from bewildered and defenseless producers.

What is the nature of the rot? Basically, it is the disparagement and abandonment of reason and the substitution of its numerous antipodes: multiculturalism, “diversity,” egalitarianism, militant subjectivism, organized envy, moral and economic relativism, irrationalism as a protected choice; systems of whim-worshipping non-absolutism. And an ingrained, inculcated anathema for reason, reality, individual rights, and capitalism, an anathema taught in our schools and flaunted in our culture from our theaters to Capitol Hill.

The worst mistake to make is to ascribe the incremental collapse of civilization to some all-powerful, ineluctable, omnipotent conspiratorial force of evil. Evil is not “satanic.” It is essentially a parasite. It feeds on weakness. Evil possesses the cunning of a moocher. Like jackals, vultures, and hyenas, it trails the greater predator, and moves in on the prey after it has been waylaid. It has no plan but to consume the scraps left by a greater predator.

The greater predator is anti-reason. Islam, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the Muslim Brotherhood – all the usual and numerous suspects we take for granted today, all the villains we rail against but whose origins we remain ignorant of but remain astounded by their callous indifference to reason – are merely the parasitical consumers of the living and the dead.

When men begin to grasp that the evil that has been enveloping them in stages for decades, and which promises to suffocate them, is not the product of some mystical power that cannot be opposed – when they grasp that their lives depend not on faith or random happenstance or on “good intentions” – but on a fealty to reason and the sanctity of their lives as volitional beings imbued with the capacity for reason, then they will be able to combat the evil. Then, and only then, will they recognize that evil can triumph only by default. It is otherwise powerless to enslave or destroy.

I include here some issues on which I have recently commented in response to various articles that have appeared, or which came to my attention and address the evil but which struggle to grasp the nature of the evil.

For example, the principal of a Massachusetts school decided that to honor its honor students would infringe upon or harm the “self-esteem” of students who had not made the honors roll. So he cancelled the school’s honors night. This is scoreless kids’ soccer games gone mad, and is an instance of how corrupting the notion of egalitarianism can be.

A Massachusetts principal has been criticized for canceling his school’s Honors Night, saying it could be ‘devastating’ to the students who worked hard, but fell short of the grades.

MyFoxBoston.com reports that David Fabrizio, principal of Ipswich Middle School, notified parents last week of his plan to eliminate the event.

“The Honors Night, which can be a great sense of pride for the recipients’ families, can also be devastating to a child who has worked extremely hard in a difficult class but who, despite growth, has not been able to maintain a high grade-point average,” Fabrizio penned in his first letter to parents, the station reported.

Fabrizio also said he decided to make the change because academic success can be influenced by the amount of support a student receives at home and not all students receive the same level of emotional and academic support at home.

The second instance concerns the common moral premises shared by statist Democrats, in particular President Barack Obama, and the morally rudderless Republican Party.

Speaking to Newsmax TV at CPAC 2013 on Thursday, [Rick] Santorum believes the nation’s leaders currently lack the ability to persuade Americans to aim for greatness.

“We have material wealth because of technology, yet people feel like they’re suffering now,” Santorum said. “I make the argument that’s because leaders and culture are leading people to think there’s nothing to suffer for and that there’s no great aim. We have to inspire people so they’re willing to make the sacrifices.”

However, Santorum is quick to point out that advancing a platform that allows individuals to succeed on their own should not mean abandoning those in need….

“If we just say we need less government and it’s everyone for himself, we won’t win elections,” Santorum said. “We have to do what our founders did, which is not just to take care of ourselves, but take care of our fellow Americans.”

Excuse me, but isn’t this what Obama has been trying to drill into our heads, too? Sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice? To “those in need”? But this has been the leitmotif of the Republican Party, ever since, say, the presidential race of 1912, which the Republicans handed the election to the statist Democrats and Woodrow Wilson because they said, “Me, too!” And I shudder to imagine how Santorum perceives the Founders, who in his mind must have been a pack of blithering, self-sacrificing altruists.

And what did the Founders strive to create between 1775 and 1787? A “democracy” or a constitutional republic? To hear it on the lips and in the words of virtually every columnist, politician and teacher today, it was a “democracy.” For example, one of the most prolific and perceptive conservative columnists today is Daniel Greenfield, who also regularly falls into the trap of advocating “democracy.” Arguing eloquently and effectively in his March 16th column, “Democracy Is Not The Answer,” that a policy of “exporting” democracy to countries that have little or no history or notion of limited government and individual rights, and in fact are prima facie culturally hostile to such ideas, a policy that has backfired on America more than once, he concludes:

The belief that we are meant to export democracy is a Cold War relic and the assumption that exporting democracy also exports our values is clearly wrong. It isn’t democracy that makes free people; it’s individual responsibility. Democracy with individual responsibility makes for a free nation. Democracy without individual responsibility is only another name for tyranny.

Democracy was never the answer, anywhere, because anywhere it has been tried, it has lead to tyranny. The etymological root meaning of the term is “mob rule,” as suggested by the Oxford English Dictionary (“popular government – people having rule, sway, or authority”). “Democracy” implies that no checks are made on the power or authority of the people or their elected officers or representatives. “Democracy” relieves both individuals and their elected representatives of individual responsibility and political responsibility. Our Founders, conscientious and well-read students of ancient and modern political history, understood the dangers inherent in democracy and labored to create a constitutional republic, that is, one which enumerated the powers of government and protected individual rights from populist or mob nullification. That is what our Bill of Rights -now under attack by the left and the Obama administration and defended haphazardly and ineffectually by conservatives – was all about. “Democracy” and “republic” are not synonyms, although the latter term has been largely appropriated by dictatorships (the various “people’s republics”).

Greenfield, in the same column, stresses that a nation’s citizens must be amenable to totalitarian rule before a totalitarian can take over. He points out that most prominently the Russians and Germans in the last century “democratically” elected themselves dictators, and so have the Argentines, Indians, Venezuelans, Chinese, and other populations (with much help from blatant thuggery). The ancient Greeks and Romans consistently elected themselves tyrants (democracy in action). Most recently, Muslims elected themselves the Brotherhood, an organization which basically wishes to make its election to power the last in Egypt. Muslims who voted against the Brotherhood ironically wanted also to continue subscribing to Islam, but a more “benign” kind that wouldn’t enforce Sharia to the extent that the Brotherhood proposed. Well, the Egyptians have learned the hard way that you can’t have your Islam and eat it, too.

But what kind of a person would vote for his own subjugation? Here is a hint, provided by Abigail Esman in her article, “Staggering Number of Women Converting to Islam” of March 12th.

The first thing the Dutch girl did once she’d converted to Islam was change her name – to Soumaya, she says, because “she was the first martyr. She was prepared to die for Allah.”

Soumaya, née Aphrodite, is one of a wave of tens of thousands of Westerners who convert to Islam every year, more than 75 percent of whom, astonishingly, are women. Equally surprising is the fact that most of these women gravitate to conservative Islamic groups – the more misogynistic and oppressive ones -insisting all the while that they feel “liberated” and “free.”

….That this fact is not explained to these women and young girls is what has many feminists concerned, not only about Muslim women in general, but particularly, about converts, who are, as it were, handed Islam in small, attractive bites, sweetened artificially and served up on flowered plates.

Most of these young women display little self-confidence or ability to define their own values and behavior – qualities that make them easily influenced by others, and susceptible especially to those who offer up a lifestyle option that relinquishes them from responsibility for their actions, that gives them a code of behavior and the ease of attributing what they do or wear or eat to God and not to self. [Italics mine.]

Esman’s description of women who voluntarily erase their own identities as individuals and trade them for being selfless ciphers of Islam can easily be applied to anyone who trades the responsibility for his own life and actions for being a ward and dependent of the state, indistinguishable from all other wards and dependents. These are the same individuals who display little self-confidence or the ability to define their own values and behavior; Islam, or Obama, for example, can relieve them of any kind of moral compass but the one that points to what others say and do, especially if that “other” is a man who hands them a Utopia in “small, attractive bites, sweetened artificially and served up on flowered plates,” as Obama has served up his socialist agenda to countless men whose only ambition is to be lead and rewarded for following.

Men who are willing to surrender their own selves and independence in the name of any collectivist “other-ism” necessarily will call for the sacrifice of others if that would mean “spreading the wealth” around, “a little” or “a lot.”

What neither the converts to Islam nor the converts to Obamaism grasp is that both systems are nihilist in means and ends. While they may derive some sadistic satisfaction from seeing their moral betters impoverished or extinguished, they will learn sooner or later that their own numberless masses can also be deemed expendable by their leader and the state.

The ongoing implosion we are witnessing today and will witness for some time to come can be checked only if men rediscover the role and necessity of reason that underlies our country and Western civilization and perpetuates them if we choose to. The only alternative is to perish from the falling debris, whether that consists of the First and Second Amendments or the smashed dreams and shattered hopes and the plundered wealth of the victims.

*Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. 1957. New York: Dutton/Penguin 35th Anniversary Edition, 1992. p. 5

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk series of novels set in England and Virginia in the decades leading up to the American Revolution, and also of  Whisper the Guns and First Prize. His essays, books reviews, and other nonfiction have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and other periodicals. He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason and The Dougout.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters . http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/

A New Bibi-Barack Era? No

Jokes, warm rhetoric and good body language shouldn’t obscure that the differences between Obama and Netanyahu are as stark as ever on Iran and the Palestinians

By DAVID HOROVITZ March 21, 2013, 2:18 pm 4

US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at their joint news conference, Wednesday, March 20, 2013. (photo credit: AP/Carolyn Kaster)RELATED TOPICS

OBAMA’S VISITBENJAMIN NETANYAHUBARACK OBAMA

The repartee has been truly slick at times. Take this one-two at the beginning of President Barack Obama’s remarks during his joint press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem on Wednesday night.

Obama: “It was wonderful to see (your two sons)… I did inform the prime minister that they are very good-looking young men who clearly got their looks from their mother.”

Get The Times of Israel’s Daily Edition by email

and never miss our top stories   FREE SIGN UP!

Netanyahu, instantly: “Well, I can say the same of your daughters.”

Obama: “This is true. Our goal is to improve our gene pool by marrying women who are better than we are.”

A stand-up comic would have been proud of Netanyahu’s rapid response. And Obama’s follow-up was nicely worded to put the two leaders in the same category — both married to better halves.

They’ve joked together, stripped out of their suit jackets together, walked arm-in-arm, called each other the familiar “Barack” and “Bibi.”

They’ve also sought to assert that they largely see eye-to-eye on the key issues they’ve been discussing: Iran, Syria, the Palestinians.

But, Syria possibly excepted, they just don’t. And if you look closely at their comments so far on this first Obama presidential visit, including at that so-friendly press conference, that’s unmistakable.

On Iran, Obama may have legitimately asserted that “there is not a lot of light, a lot of daylight, between our countries’ assessments in terms of where Iran is right now.” But that’s not exactly the point. The real issue is not the assessments of Iran’s progress, but whether there’s any light between the two countries’ approaches to grappling with the consequences of those shared assessments — to stopping Iran.

And on that, the gulf was glaring. Obama said he was here “to understand how the Israeli government and the prime minister is approaching this [Iranian] problem to make sure that there are no misunderstandings there.” Misunderstandings, presumably not. Differences, absolutely.

Obama made clear, again, that “we prefer to resolve this diplomatically, and there’s still time to do so,” that he’ll stop Iran one way or another if that fails, and that he has Israel’s back. As in: Don’t worry, and certainly don’t fire. I’ll take care of Iran. You don’t need to. I can stop them for the long-term. You can’t.

MORE >> via A new Bibi-Barack era? No | The Times of Israel.

Democratic Delegates boo inclusion of Jerusalem and God

HERE >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoMXTOU0eHg&feature=youtu.be

Alinsky Rules (Simple Version)

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Comments?

From the March 19, 2012, issue of NR

By John Fund

Saul Alinsky in Chicago in 1966 (AP)

Forty years after his death, Saul Alinsky — the father of the community-organizing model that inspired both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — is more politically relevant than ever.

Leading conservatives attempt to tie the Obama administration to Alinsky’s radicalism, with Newt Gingrich declaring that Obama draws his “understanding of America” from “Saul Alinsky, radical left-wingers, and people who don’t like the classical America.” For their part, liberals have scrambled to minimize Obama’s affinity for Alinsky and to sand over Alinsky’s sharp edges. A blogger at Britain’s Guardian newspaper claims that Alinsky was merely “what passes for a left-wing radical in American politics, agitating for better living conditions for the poor.” (Liberals have also largely ignored the fact that the subtitle of Hillary Clinton’s honors thesis at Wellesley was “An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”)

Advertisement

Somewhere between Gingrich’s exaggerations and the Left’s whitewash of Alinsky is an explanation of why so many followers of Barack Obama — along with the president himself — draw inspiration from a long-dead radical.

Born in 1909, Alinsky was a left-wing activist with a streak of ruthless political realism. After studying criminology at the University of Chicago, he went into union organizing, and found it too tame. His “approach to social justice,” in the words of the Washington Post, would come to rely instead on “generating conflict to mobilize the dispossessed.” His first big conflict came in 1939, when he helped lead workers in cleaning up the Back of the Yards, the festering slum area of the Chicago meatpacking district. That led to a major grant from department-store heir Marshall Field III, whose generosity enabled Alinsky to found the Industrial Areas Foundation, the nonprofit at which he invented “community organizing.”

This new approach was distinctive. He deployed pickets to the homes of slumlords and used megaphones to hurl insults at them; he dumped trash on the front step of a local alderman to demand better garbage collection; he flooded stockholder meetings with raucous protesters, a tactic Occupy Wall Street is emulating; and he tied up bank lines with people who exchanged loads of pennies for $100 bills and vice versa.

He boasted that knowledge of his tactics often led to preemptive surrender by local officials or businesses. He was able to abandon plans to flood a department store with protesters who would order merchandise to be delivered that they had no intention of paying for; he also never had protesters occupy every bathroom stall for hours at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. In both cases, the mere threat of such action won important concessions from his targets.

Alinsky himself disdained the chaotic tactics of 1960s student radicals. He eschewed violence in favor of planting radical seeds. While students were rioting at the 1968 Democratic convention, former left-wing radical David Horowitz recalls, “Alinsky’s organizers were insinuating themselves into [Lyndon] Johnson’s War on Poverty program and directing federal funds into their own organizations and causes.”

His most enduring influence may have been to inspire the National Education Association to become a political powerhouse. Sam Lambert, the executive secretary of the NEA in 1967, when it hired Alinsky as a political trainer, boasted that it would “become a political power second to no other special interest.” The NEA delivered on that promise. Between 1963 and 1993, the number of teachers belonging to unions grew to 3.1 million, up from only 963,720.

MORE > via Still the Alinsky Playbook – John Fund – National Review Online.

Obama’s Alinsky-Style Immigration Plan

Posted 11/15/2012

Comity: The president is feigning when he says, “I’m hoping to compromise” with Republicans. It’s a trap. His mentors counseled to never compromise with “the enemy.”

‘Reconciliation’ means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation,” wrote the father of community organizing, Chicago socialist Saul Alinsky, in “Rules for Radicals,” the organizing handbook Obama trained by.

It’s clear from Obama’s indignant tone at Wednesday’s press conference that he has no intention of reconciling differences with Republicans over fiscal policy.

He’s also feigning when he says he wants to work with business leaders to create jobs. If this were true, he wouldn’t have locked Wall Street bankers out of his White House summit Wednesday.

He snubbed them because they, like Republicans, are “our enemies” who are “always immoral,” as his late mentor Alinsky warned. “The target,” he asserted, “should be the banks.”

Reiterated Alinskyite Jerry Kellman, Obama’s South Side Chicago trainer: “The real enemy (are) the investment bankers.”

Alinsky explained that banks are the lifeblood of the evil “corporate sector,” with its “predatory drive for profit,” and that lifeblood — capital — must be redistributed to the public sector. “The revolution must manifest itself in the corporate sector,” he said.

“The corporations must forget their nonsense about ‘private sectors,’” he added. “Every American individual or corporation is public,” and therefore has a duty to fund the common weal, to donate their profits to eliminating “poverty, discrimination, disease” and “pollution.”

Corporations, Alinsky warned, “had better recognize this for the sake of their own survival.”

“A major revolution to be won in the immediate future is the dissipation of man’s illusion that his own welfare can be separate from that of all others,” Alinsky told his radical vanguard.

Sound familiar? No? Maybe this will:

“The fact is that it is not man’s ‘better nature’ but his self-interest that demands that he be his brother’s keeper,” Alinsky said. “If he does not share his bread, he dare not sleep, for his neighbor will kill him,” he added. “He is beginning to learn that he will either share part of his material wealth or lose all of it.”

Hear that Wall Street? Because the “speculation tax” is coming.

This isn’t your Bill Clinton Democrat back in the Oval Office, one who’ll listen to reason, compromise, cut a deal. No, this is a different Democrat entirely, far more radical, much more doctrinaire in his leftist beliefs. And now very angry, seeking “revenge.”

MORE > via Alinsky Training Explains Why There’s No Compromising With Obama – Investors.com.

Katie Pavlich News Editor, Townhall

Jan 18, 2013

It’s easy to belittle Barack Obama for being a community organizer, but he’s the one who got the last laugh on November 6, 2012. Community organizing is key to not only winning a campaign but changing a country, which is exactly what the Obama’s plan to do moving forward. Today Michelle Obama helped launch President Obama’s “Organizing for Action,” a massive community organizing project geared towards pushing through Obama’s second term agenda and changing how voters think about issues for the long term.

“Say you’re in for the next phase of this grassroots movement.”

An email from President Obama was sent to supporters today urging people to get involved.

Friend –

Today, a new grassroots organization is being launched: Organizing for Action.

Following in the footsteps of the campaign you built, Organizing for Action will be an unparalleled force in American politics. It will work to turn our shared values into legislative action — and it’ll empower the next generation of leaders in our movement.

We may have started this as a long shot presidential primary campaign in 2007, but it’s always been about more than just winning an election. Together, we’ve made our communities stronger, we’ve fought for historic legislation, and we’ve brought more people than ever before into the political process.

We have the power to do even more to change our politics and our country for the better. With Organizing for Action, you’ll have every resource you need to do it.

But it starts with you. This new organization is in your hands.

I’m so excited to see what you all do next — and so grateful to be part of it.

Thanks,

Barack

Sound familiar?

The connections between Barack Obama and the methods of Saul Alinsky are clear and well established. The two men never met, of course, but when he arrived in Chicago Obama was trained as a community organizer by people like Michael Kruglik–one of the key figures in Spreading The Wealth–whose online bio says:

(Micheal Kruglik) has been developing grass-roots citizens’ power organizations since 1973 with the (Alinsky founded) Industrial Areas Foundation, the Gamaliel Foundation and Building One America.

and

From 1984 to 1998, (Kruglik) was co-director of the Calumet Community Religious Conference, the community organization that recruited and hired Barack Obama as a community organizer. Mr. Kruglik’s role as Barack Obama’s mentor has been chronicled in a number of works of history and periodicals.

What did Obama learn from Alinsky? The New Republic said:

The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. (Another Obama mentor) says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: “You want to organize for power!”

and

Obama so mastered the workshops on power that he later taught them himself. On his (2007) 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, “Power Analysis” and “Relationships Built on Self Interest,” an idea illustrated by a diagram of the flow of money from corporations to the mayor.

Both Obama and Alinsky are flinty nihilist power-mongers at heart, but they grasp the power in portraying themselves as moral figures. Alinsky understood the power of image and realized that by occasionally proclaiming the ethical high ground, he’d be given a free pass by a media eager to attack the free market and embrace central planning.

Conservatives have a lot of work to do and no, Mitt Romney’s disasterous and suicidal ORCA campaign software doesn’t count as community organizing.

MORE > via Obama Launches Major Alinsky-Style Community Organizing Project From the White House – Katie Pavlich.

Yates Walker Conservative Activist 01/14/2013

Any elected Republican discussing compromise over high-capacity magazines needs to quit pussyfooting around and just get a frontal lobotomy. You can’t compromise by giving something away. If I own 10 acres of land, and you want five, we can’t compromise at two. They’re my damn acres of land.

In the gun violence debate, high-capacity magazines are a red herring. Firing 30 rounds with a single magazine or six five-round clips is a difference of about three seconds for anyone proficient with firearms. This debate isn’t about safety. The gun-control fanatics don’t care about safety. They don’t like guns. Does anyone believe that the anti-gun lobby will be satisfied if we surrender high-capacity magazines? After the next atrocity, they’ll have a new list of demands.

These are Alinskyite tactics. For those who still haven’t read “Rules for Radicals,” this is how leftists achieve their goals. They blame an enemy (the rich, big tobacco, the fossil fuels industry, corporations, Wall Street, gun owners, etc. — anyone with something to lose) and they harass that enemy until it offers a concession. Then they ask for more.

Ads by Google

What they want is a concession. A concession, however small and inconsequential, says to the world that, yes, guns (or whatever) are evil. Concessions are an admission of guilt without a trial. Once an unsuspecting industry admits guilt, they’ve told their harassers that harassment works. The game is up. And the harassment never stops. Neither do the concessions. Over time, the small concessions become so routine that liberals start demanding larger ones. The end result is the same: less freedom and more government.

And as long as I’m predicting the future, let me look into my crystal ball. President Obama appointed Joe Biden to mastermind his gun grab, replete with buzzwords like compromise and balance and middle ground. This week Joe Biden is going to ask for something ridiculous. He’s going to point to murdered children. Then he’ll ask gun owners to be reasonable. Then he’s going to propose an infringement on the Second Amendment that gun owners can’t possibly accept. If history is any guide, the GOP will throw a high-pitched hissy fit. MSNBC will find a semi-famous gun owner saying something outrageous. The rest of the media will pick up the sound bite and go with the story. When Republican congressmen protest, Biden is going to whine in front of cameras about the intransigence of the far right. After days of vice-presidential histrionics, Biden is going to find his inner Buddha and propose a middle way. He’ll pretend that he’s acquiescing when he merely asks for a federal ban on high-capacity magazines.

That’s how conservatives lose. That’s how we always lose: We rely on reason. The facts about gun violence, common sense, our nation’s history and FBI statistics indicate that an armed America is a safer America. But cool-headed arguments don’t always prevail. Today, emotions trump facts every time.

So how can gun owners win?

via Mr. Alinsky goes to Washington (and he’s after your guns) | The Daily Caller.