Obama, Alinsky and their ‘radical rules’

July 14, 2012
By

The "not so Presidential" Obama. Image: www.conservativetreehouse.com

(Publisher’s note: This column is the prologue for a series of columns that will specifically compare President Obama’s own words and actions against the strategies outlined by such known radicals as Saul Alinsky, Richard Cloward, Frances Fox Piven, Friedrich Engels, and the grandaddy of them all, Karl Marx. Yes, it’s long but before you skip over I beg your indulgence to one question:  Which is worse, ten minutes on this column or the rest of your life after an Obama second term?)

I can’t remember exactly when I first heard of Saul Alinsky and his “Rules for Radicals” playbook for political terrorists. I do know that it was from one of those ‘evil’, right-wing commentators and I remember how in the beginning I rolled my eyes and did the “oh, man, not again.”

Then a funny thing happened on the way to this column; with each additional day of the Obama Presidency, my eye rolling and head shaking became less and less.

But still I was perplexed. Could Obama really be as bad as being made out? What could I do to find out for myself?

Do what every self-respecting middle aged man does, turn to his mother. (Or in this case to her methods.)

From the time I was old enough to read, mom’s response to almost any question I had was “look it up”. Being one who has always had the patience of a gnat I found her unwillingness to just “give” me the answer on the spot, quite irritating indeed.

But as only mom’s do, she knew exactly what she was doing.

By sending me into the living room to scour the World Books for answers I not only found the immediate knowledge desired, I invariably found myself reading the peripheral articles surrounding the subject at hand. Over the years all those articles added up to a knowledge base I could have never had if she had just given me the answer I wanted to hear. (Oh, if only our politicians had our mothers’ wisdom.)

And so it was, that I began to “look up” for myself just who exactly was this Saul Alinsky and why were so many beginning to compare him and his ilk to Obama and his administration?

From the moment I first read Alinsky’s rules, the symmetry between them and the Obama administration’s words and actions was clearer than a trout stream in Yosemite.

From the most oft repeated, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” to the lesser known “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative” each and every action by Obama and his administration can be tucked under one Alinsky rule or another.

Or to put it more simply, hold a picture of Alinsky up to a mirror and you’ll see Obama smiling back.

As I got past the “rules” and into the book however, it was no longer a casual exercise in comparing political tactics. It became a full blown revelation that the man America put into the Oval Office that historic night in November, 2008, was more than a fraud. He was and is, the antithesis of traditional American values and founding principles.

Consider but these “purposes” as highlighted from the site crossoad.to:

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…. “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.’ This means revolution.” p.3

“Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.” p.6

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….” pp.10-11

Now before you close your mind and write off this column as just “too far-right”, take a moment and reflect upon a few questions.

How many times over the past four years have you heard the words, “fairness, equality, and justice” roll off Obama’s lips?

Can you find one President in our entire history who has used his office to seize more power than one Barack Hussein Obama?

How many times in the past four years has Obama “shifted” (evolved) from one side of a position to another?

Can you look at Obama’s political career and find but even one time when he as not been “relative and changing”?

Has he not this entire first term remained purposely aloof to respond however the politics required on any given situation?

Has or has not the entire term of this President had the one, main theme that the problems we face today are caused by the rich and those evil capitalists “exploiting” the “proletariat”?

When taken in their totality can there be any doubt that every action, every executive order, every power grab after the other has as a means to its end “reorganizing” this nation into a “new social order”?

Yes, it’s damn hard to think that a President of these United States, a man who took an oath to uphold and defend the greatest document in human history, the United States Constitution, is also a man who wants nothing more than to tear it down in order to “transform” it into a more “fair” and “just” Marxist utopia.

How DO you wrap your head around such a “radical” idea?

You do it as I did. Removing the blinders and seeing the periphery that Obama doesn’t want you to see.

You do it by objective analysis.  Alinsky calls for this, Obama’s does that.

Side by side, word for word, the actions of this President march in lockstep to the beat of the radical drum.

To some, it’s “radical” to dare think such thoughts about a President.

Yet they are the same people who in their time would have never dreamed that JFK would be unfaithful to Jackie, that the Gulf of Tonkin was exactly as Johnson told us, that Nixon really wasn’t a crook, or that Clinton, “did not, did not I say, have sex with that woman”.

Many of our Presidents have been flawed.  Some even dishonest and corrupt.

Yet never before in our history have we had a President with a world view not defined by American founding principles, her exeptionalism and her virtues, but rather the writings and philosophy of known terrorists, avowed communists and the absolute worst of the political  left.

Alinsky, Ayers, Wright, Jarrett, are anything but names of American patriots in the tradition of our founding principles. They are, by their very own words and actions opponents of those traditions and proponents of radical, transformational “change”.

Whether it be by “radical rules”, domestic terror bombings, bombastic sermons from the pulpit, or subtle ‘forget me nots’ in the ear, each and every one of them lives in the inner most mind of the President of the United States.

It is their philosophy, their teachings, their words he listens to and lives by.

We did not elect them. We do not want them. But it is they and their loyal student who now dictate our policy and if not stopped, every aspect of our daily lives.

Bold words I know, but with barely a 100 days left to November 6th, 2012 there is no longer time for polite debates on policy.

This election is far, far more than a decision on policy.

It is, in fact, the day that history will record as either the day America stood with her Founders, her freedoms and her principles and fought back the radicals, or the day she finally succumbed to the cancer that had been eating away at her for decades and at last succeeded in destroying her from within.

Come the morning of November 7th which quote do YOU want to be the truth of the day?

Reagan’s:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

-or-

Tocqueville’s:

“When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.”

This is one American who is willing to fight and protect and who has every intention of remaining his own master.  Care to join me?

Tags: , ,

6 Responses to Obama, Alinsky and their ‘radical rules’

  1. Uncle Jed on July 14, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    You’re on the great one’s watch list now buddy. I had my “head wrapped around” this fraud from the beginning but was laughed at. I’d say look who’s laughing now but I can’t for the crying over what he’s doing to our country.
    Keep spreading the word, this man cannot be allowed a second term.

  2. anson burlingame on July 14, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    Geoff,

    I am struggling to form a cogent reply. This blog could easily be written off as just another right wing, radical right wing rant against Obama. But I know you well enough, I think, to not put you in that category.

    IF and only if what you write has any real basis to it I believe it would show up first of all in his educational papers, essays, etc. as well as the teachers he thrived under. I know nothing about that background and have always assumed that his education and early training or formulation of ideas was typically American.

    I do know long ago that when I was first investigated by the FBI for a security clearance that type of deep background was part of the formal FBI process all the way back to and during college. Had I been a “student radical” that would have been part of my FBI file, started when I was about 23 years old, formally and maintained throughout my Naval Career. I wonder when such a background investigation was first done on Obama? Probably when he became a Senator IF he was granted a Top Secret security clearance.

    BUT if he had no security clearance as a Senator then the first “shot” at him by the FBI would have been when he was granted a TS clearance upon winning the election.

    I do know that at least long ago associations with “radicals” was in no way ignored by the FBI during routine security clearances. How deep Obama’s background investigation, required by law before granting a security clearance, might have been and if the files even exist any longer is a great unknown to me. But you can bet NO ONE will have access to such unless “deep throat” arose again.

    So I believe your allegations are unprovable in terms of who the REAL Obama might be and just how radical he might be in his heart. But of course when you raise such issues publicly, then you will be branded as a “nut” and might even get the attention of the Secret Service.

    I do not believe that trying to link Obama to radicals will work as a campaign ploy to gain support for the GOP. It in no way gives me reason to “vote GOP” just based on the above. I of course will read what follows to see if more comes to light.

    Face it Geoff, your blog reads like Obama is a “Manchurian Candidate” of the worse sort and a long and deeply covered “plot” has been in place for a long time to gain control of the various levers of power in America. To me that is too far fetched and again unprovable.

    I do NOT believe Obama is some kind of radical bent on what you suggest. But I do believe he sides with the downtrodden ONLY and seeks ways to punish the rich to help the poor to a much greater degree than other Presidents. He wants more and more federal power to redirect the efforts of the federal government for reasons that go beyond typical “leftist” AMERICAN Presidents in the past.

    I have no idea how much influence his father had upon the young Obama. But his mother was on the fringe of society, meeting a black Keyan in a bar, marrying him, etc. and I suspect she may have had very strong views against the intolerance of typical American society in the 1960’s. Was she a “hippie” with all sorts of stuff in her head? I have no idea. How much her views actually influenced the young Barack, I have no idea as well. I also do not believe anyone will every really find out the details of that sort.

    You can bet we mostly understand the background of Bush II and his brother Jeb. Very Ivy League “traditional”. Barack Obama came from a very different background than any other President however, multiracial parents, lived in a Muslim country as a child, high school in Hawaii and then something later that has not been really revealed.

    Run those kind of “old tapes” on Clinton and a case could also be made against him, I suppose. Any adult “child of an alcoholic” has scars. But it would be crazy to make the leap in judgment that such a childhood caused him to be a bad President, or a good one for that matter.

    Finally, I don’t even stoop to calling Obama a “socialist”. I just believe he has a “sensitivity” towards race and the lower rungs of the economic ladder that few if any previous Presidents have held. Certainly you can rather easily correlate such “sensitivities” to his policies articulated as President and make THAT kind of case.

    But to try to link him to radicals and tell us thus he is at heart a radical of the violent, overthrow the “regime”, etc. sort is too far a stretch for me as a conservative.

    Anson

    • Geoff Caldwell on July 14, 2012 at 3:01 pm

      Anson, I don’t need to “link” him to the radicals, his own actions already do it for him. The questions in the column tie to it as well.
      Answer the questions I pose in the column. His own actions and words mirror those of Alinsky and the rest.
      If his “heart” wasn’t in it then why march in lockstep with the very policies espoused by those radicals?
      Yes, I know, it’s damn hard to admit that a President could be one, but we have been fooled before, just not to this degree.
      All I know is Obama has grabbed more power than any President in history and just keeps on going. The latest being a most likely illegal redefining work requirement in the 96 welfare reform bill, and his EPA trying to enforce low sulfur marine fuel rules on Alaska before the Senate has even ratified the portion of the treaty the EPA is using as the basis for the new mandate.
      I didn’t want to believe it either at first, I gave him the benefit of the doubt in the early days but it didn’t take long to start seeing a pattern.
      A pattern of one ruling, one law, one regulation after another that puts more and more power into one branch, brings more and more people onto the welfare/government roles, and makes it harder and harder for private sector to do business.
      I hadn’t intended for today’s column to be anything like it turned out. But as I was reviewing this last weeks news and all the focus Obama and staff are trying to put on the b.s. about Bain and Cutter going so far as to insinuate Romney could be a felon sent me down that path.
      Tomorrow and in columns to come, I’ll be laying out even more of just how in sync the Obama administration and campaign is with the Alinsky rules and the rest of those radical ideas that some still don’t want to believe he adheres to.
      I certainly understand your skepticism, I didn’t want to admit it either, but the words are there and the actions are there.

    • Geoff Caldwell on July 14, 2012 at 3:15 pm

      I don’t disagree that I can’t “prove” what’s in his heart, no one can. But in regards to those people I name, he was immersed in the Alinsky style in college and as a community organizer, he sat in Wright’s church for 20 years, Ayers brought him into politics in his own house, and Jarrett is never far from his side.
      I’m not a believer that he’s some plotted Manchurian candidate, but I most certainly believe that to deny all those radicals mentioned plus the rest of his upbringing didn’t produce a world view far, far different than any previous President, requires as Hillary would say: “a suspension of disbelief”.
      And we can’t forget that it’s now come out even his own autobiography is filled with half-truths and “compressions”. And lets not forget being caught in the lie about his uncle liberating Auschwitz. And on and on it goes.
      He is but one made up tele-prompted speech after another and with barely 100 days until the election, I’ll be damned if I don’t do my part to show just how much of a fraud and radical he really is.
      We simply cannot afford a second term of this, whatever he is.

  3. anson burlingame on July 14, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    Geoff,

    Believe me, I know how passionate you are against Obama. My only point is stick to the polices he has put forth and disdain such policies. Don’t try to “link him” to the past because he was raised in a different way than you and I were raised.

    If I ran for President, many would try to “link” me to my Southern roots in KY. Go read JanesReaction comments to me consistently calling me a racist, which I am not. Yes, I was raised in a “racist” society, one of segregation, until I was a freshman in High School at least when integration was forced upon us. Would I “govern” with such old views today. Of course not but would be accused of trying to do so by the left.

    I was as “non-racial” as I could be in my adult life when in positions of authority. Romney was not “against unions or the poor” in his tenure as a manager of a major equity firm. He and I both only sought the best “ship” or company we could develope when we were in positions of leadership. But that is not how the political spin would show.

    You know very well that I am a conservative, unashamedly such a conservative, in general. Now go back and “cherry pick” my blogs for the last four years. Some would call me a “felon” for my views.

    I am only suggesting that you critique Obama on his POLICIES promoted, not the “tapes” from his background that caused him to promote such policies.

    You will NEVER prove those “tapes” and will be discounted as a “nut” for trying to do so. It is like the “birther issue”. I believe his birth was one from America now. For a while I wondered, but so what. You are raising “bither like” issues as to his background which you will NEVER prove, in my view.

    Go after the man as a president and you have more than is needed to convience me to vote against him. But remember, you and I will not decide the election, nor will Wheeler and the EC.

    It is the other 20% and I cannot see them agreeing with the “radical” views expressed above.

    Anson

    • Geoff Caldwell on July 15, 2012 at 3:09 pm

      I see your point but disagree on what I see as the most fundamental. This is not about linking him to the “past” this is about highlighting what he’s doing right now in front of our eyes and how that “past” is guiding it.
      There are still too many who just right this guy off as just another liberal democrat.
      I’ve written extensively on him for four years now and believe me he’s not just another liberal democrat.
      Yes, I know it’s hard to believe he has anything but the best of intentions for America. And I suppose if you want America to be “transformed” into a Western European socialist state than Obama has nothing BUT the best of intentions.
      My issue is that I see such actions and attempts to do so as tantamount to just one step shy of treason.
      To the average person just watching the nightly news or a snippet here and there on the net, Obama’s just such a “likeable’ guy who’s just “lookin out for the middle class” while those big, bad evil Republicans “obstruct” everything he tries to do.
      Well thank God for 2010 and at least some check on his power.
      Wasn’t it one Barack Hussein Obama who lambasted Bush for abusing executive power and the “imperial” Presidency? Yet he’s grabbed more than all the rest combined!
      I don’t intend to prove the “tapes”, I am just going to start comparing Obama’s actions and words against the “transcripts” of those tapes and let the reader decide.
      As I said before, I didn’t intend to go down this path, but damn, when you actually start looking at it in depth, this man is but one big friggin Alinsky, Cloward, Piven, Marx, Engels all rolled into one.
      And I think you’ll be surprised how many of that 20% starts to come around as the campaign gets nastier and more negative than any in history.
      Remember the scene in Patton when the battle was engaged and George C Scott said: “Rommel, I read your damn book..”?
      Well I’ve finally read Obama’s book and believe me, it’s all laid bare to see. All you’ve gotta do is connect the dots.
      Yes, it’s hard to imagine, but like I’ve said before, we’ve had other flawed Presidents, we can’t lull ourselves into thinking that this one isn’t one as well.

Calendar

October 2019
M T W T F S S
« May    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Archives

Search