Alansky: Part III: Where Obama got his 'Playbook.'

Ok sports fans, I've heard from some that the first Alinsky piece was just a little to long to get through and the 2nd installment is also living a lonely life, SO... Here's a Succienct, Short & Sweet, Down & Dirty, Joe Friday: "Just the facts ma'am" version for all you 'time-challenged' conservatives who want to know what makes Obama tick; there are eleven (11, or XI to you Roman cats) basic tenets (SOP's or Standard Operating Proceedures to you fellow military/veteran-types out there) to Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals listed below.

Background-

In 1971, Saul Alinsky penned his treatise on grassroots organizing titled 'Rules for Radicals.' Many on the left, who are uncomfortable with it, view Alinsky's approach as too aggressive. However to many diehard socialists RFR serves as their Operations Manual on tactics and minipulation of the masses.

According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a bad situation. Alinsky would say, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.”
Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.

While Alinsky provided a collection of rules to guide the process, he emphasized that in order for these rules to be translated into real-life tactics, they must be fluid and responsive (ie, Situationally-Flexable) to the task, or goal at hand.

Alinsky's '11 Rules for Radicals:

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

Mark's Notes: Hmmm, sound like anyone we know? Please cut/paste article, or my blog link to all your conservative friends who need to know what Obama's methods are. As Sun Tzu stated in the 'Art of War,' "Before one can plan to defeat one's enemy, one must first KNOW one's enemies methods." Saul Alinsky wrote the book that not only Obama, but the Clinton's and many of Obama's inner circle use to carry out their plans. I would appreciate your joining my blog as 'Followers' as well. Press On, Mark

Douche Bag of the Month: John Edwards

Sleezy 'Pretty Boy' knocks-up bimbo aide while wife's treated for terminal cancer. Gotta love the left!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kCAFkfFLQQ

'You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet'

January 27, 2010.
By Christopher Chantrill, from 'The American Thinker' Blog

Isn't it great to have a Republican senator from Massachusetts? It's also good to have the First Amendment reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court -- even if our liberal friends are shocked and appalled at the notion of corporations sticking up for themselves. As delicious as last week's good news was for conservatives, You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet. We do not mean that every week will bring new conservative successes. Not at all. It is just that every month will bring fresh anguish for President Obama and his supporters.

There's the sinking spell in the equity markets last week. It might be from worrying about the president's anti-banker populism. Or more likely, it is telling us that we are not out of the woods yet on the economy. I suspect disappointing news on fourth-quarter GDP on January 29. Indeed, it's pretty clear after 2009, the year the locusts ate, that President Obama and his liberal supporters are facing an annus horribilis. And they know it. Here's Jon Jeter of The Root telling his readers to be afraid, very afraid. He sees "a perfect, gathering storm of economics, politics and tribalism[.]"

Trilbalism? I'm afraid so. Racism is rearing its ugly head again. Jeter quotes Andrea Mitchell, who sees anger out there -- the worst since the days of George Wallace. And guess who will be taking the part of George Wallace this time around: Sarah Palin. Palin is the latest in a long line of demagogues -from post-Reconstruction governors in the Deep South to Father Coughlin in the '30s, from Reagan to Lou Dobbs-who've emerged to redeem, or reclaim, the land from Northern carpetbaggers and uppity Negroes.

It still takes me by surprise when the liberals reaches for the racist redneck line. Yet it makes complete sense. If you are writing the narrative of a progressive vanguard leading the world into a highly evolved future, then your story needs an antagonist. The redneck, racist truck-driver with a rifle in the back window fits the part to a T.

Presumably President Obama is trying to preempt the right-wing racists by getting the first dagger into the backs of the bankers. After all, it was the bankers who sent the Okies to California.

Here's my prediction. The president's banker gambit will fall as flat as his stimulus plan, his cap-and-trade bill, and his ObamaCare fiasco. But that will be the least of his problems. There will be continuing high unemployment right through 2010, which I predicted a couple of weeks ago. There's the housing market that still hasn't turned. There's the huge monetary stimulus that must be unwound. There's the budget crisis in the states. There is the tax increase coming in 2011 when the Bush tax cuts expire. Oh, and did I mention the budget deficit and runaway federal spending, or everyone's favorite, Fannie and Freddie?

It is becoming more and more clear that neither Obama nor Axelrod nor Emanuel really understands ordinary, suburban, private-sector, Joe the Plumber America. Urban America they know. But not suburban Massachusetts.

Scott Brown's victory last week, writes Bill Kristol, demonstrated the potential of an "enlightened, good-natured, constructive populism." Notice also how the new Brownian motion slices through the "enlightened progressives vs. benighted reactionaries" narrative of liberal Jon Jeter.

Jeter's liberal way is the pre-modern way, a hierarchical moral order, with the educated elite guiding the unevolved peasants. The conservative way is the Modern Moral Order, as Charles Taylor describes it in A Secular Age:

The basic normative principle is, indeed, that the members of society serve each other's needs, help each other, in short, behave like the rational and sociable creatures that they are ... In other words, the basic point of the new normative order [is] the mutual respect and mutual service of the individuals who make up society.

This all comes straight from John Locke. So a president who wants health care organized in a single administrative bureaucratic program is missing the basic Lockean point. He is proposing a new version of the old medieval hierarchical structure, where kings ruled by divine right. Only now, liberals want to rule by educated right.

The president has a problem, as Mark Steyn points out: "[Obama ran for president] as something he's not, and never has been: a post-partisan, centrist, transformative healer[.]" After a year of the president reverting to type as a partisan, left-liberal wheeler-dealer, the American people have declared in three elections so far that they didn't vote for that. They wanted someone who would stop the bickering and grow the economy.

So what does Obama do now? The way he's going, there may not be a Democratic Party by the end of his term in 2013.

As I said, you ain't seen nothing yet.

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

Alinsky II: 'Polarization 101- Leading the Lemmings Astray'

In what's the second installment in my conpendium study on the connection between Barrack Obama and Saul Alinsky, I offer an outstanding piece I came across in the 'American Thinker' (www.americanthinker.com) that helps explain how Obama thinks as well as shed further light on the oporational methods and goals of the 'Alinskyites' in his Administration.

Given the fresh results of the Scott Brown upset over Martha Coakley in Massachuettes last Tuesday, I think it's time to consider that Obama's team of 'Alinskyites' may have overestimated the support of mainstream media and mainstream Democrats, while at the same time underestimated their Conservative targets' influence.

In this 'Part II' of my Saul Alinsky Series, I offer an eye-opening piece that was penned October 20, 2009, by Kyle-Anne Shiver in 'The American Thinker' titled: 'Alinskyite in Chief Is a Master Polarizer.'

'The Thirteenth Rule of Radical Tactics: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. - Saul Alinsky, the Father of Community Organizing, 'Rules for Radicals'; p. 128

There's a whole lot of polarizing going on in Obama's America. Unity is out, apparently. Polarization is still in. And Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are the new Bush. One would need to be a complete ninny outfitted with blinders and earplugs not to know this by now. One blaring truth rears its ugly head to any open-minded person who takes a hard look at Barack Obama's personal and political history. His history is shot clear through with polarizing effects, both intentional and unintentional.

One might almost say that Barack Obama was a born polarizer. Obama's Polarization Roots. When Barack Obama burst upon the national political stage with his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he was selling himself as an ideal-Republic American. Yes, as is typical of all of Obama's speeches, this one was heavy on the "I." Nevertheless, the speech heard ‘round the world at that convention was one just about any American anywhere could like.

The most memorable lines and the ones that drew the heaviest applause: "Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America."

Unfortunately for the Country, these were indeed just words. As researchers came to learn during the campaign, Barack Obama was raised on the mother's milk of socialism, not the bedrock American values claimed by the Axelrod-spun, fairytale narrative. Both Barack's mother and his father were fellow travelers of the Marxist band and made no bones about this during their lives. Stanley Ann Dunham was spouting the "gospel of envy" by the time she was in her mid-teens. Barack Obama Sr. saw his own political career in Kenya die out, not only due to his alcoholism, but also due to his hard-core communist fealties, which were too stringent for the softer-core socialists in command of the fledgling post-colonial country of his birth. Young Barack's grandfather, who was his primary caregiver from age 10, made sure the youngster spent vast amounts of his free time with stalwart avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis.

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

Fancy, high-flying words don't change a thing. When Barack Obama made his way to Chicago, he was already a natural polarizer, seeing the world through us-vs.-them lenses. His associations with ACORN (Project Vote) and Jeremiah Wright fit perfectly with the worldview his parents, grandfather and mentor purposefully taught him. His study of Alinsky power tactics during those years merely reinforced that polarizing worldview and gave it stronger legs.

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

As a young politician in Chicago, Obama was known for sowing division and polarity among his own constituents, first with his underhanded treatment of Alice Palmer, then with his ill-fated challenge of Bobby Rush for the U.S. Congress. Why would anyone believe that Barack Obama had a single unifying bone in his body? Such a belief defies common sense.

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

It's the smooth-flowing, used-car-salesman rhetoric, honey. Writing of Obama's U.S. Senate campaign, Mendell noted (p. 248): "As he had so often before, Obama sold his message to both liberals and centrists, as well as to some who tilted toward the right. His message, after all, was both liberal and conservative. His policy positions were decidedly to the left, but he offered them in such a passive, two-pronged way that it made him sound almost conservative."

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

Obama, the general threw down the rhetorical gauntlet and ever since, his troops have followed suit, attempting to polarize Rush Limbaugh (and every one of Rush's listeners) in the same way Democrats effectively polarized President Bush. President Obama followed up on his polarizing tactic against Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents Dinner, laughing uproariously as Wanda Sykes plied her death-wish humor at Rush's kidneys and ludicrously suggested that Rush was the 20th hijacker on 9/11.

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

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

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

The Goals of Alinskyite Polarization: Killing the Opposition- Saul Alinsky declared that the only way to effect any substantial change in the prevailing order of power (Haves vs. Have-nots) was to first polarize the whole societal/political atmosphere.
Alinsky described his community organizer as someone who must become a "well-integrated political schizoid."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To those who would decry his tactics as unwholesome and at bedrock, untruthful, Alinsky offered this rebuttal: "Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as, ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband'? This becomes political idiocy." (Rules for Radicals; p. 134)

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama should, perhaps, have heeded Alinsky's warnings on picking perfect targets: "It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target. There is a constant squirming and moving and strategy...on the part of the designated target. The forces for change must keep this in mind and pin that target down securely. If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible."

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

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

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

Thoughts on the Scott Brown Senate Victory: Where we go from here...

We were just given a gift; an opportunity to get some traction against the dangerous slide towards tyranny that we are still on. While this victory is indeed sweet, we cannot return to complacency (which IS a conservative weakness). Nor should we gloat (this is but one battle we've won) because the war continues. We can never allow ourselves to return to a state of ambivalence, taking our Constitutional Republic for granted. Non-vigilance and indifference are no longer acceptable options if we love the country we grew-up in and want to see our children and grandchildren have any hope of enjoying the same freedoms and blessings we've enjoyed.

If the Obama administration has taught us nothing else, it's been that they, the American Left, are dedicated to ACTIVELY changing America into a socialist country. They are passionate, organized and ruthlessly focused to do anything necessary to reach that end. Therefor we MUST commit to ACTIVELY defending and re-establishing our Constitutional Republic. It will require that we all do our part and get out of our comfort zone to do so. But IF we are willing to stop to consider our children -go now and look upon them as they safely sleep (if they're still young and home with you), or pause to think of them wherever they may be if grown (especially those who are deployed far away defending us at home), our love for them and what kind of future we want for them, this work will no longer feel at all as a burden to us, but rather a responsibility and honor. It may perhaps be our generation's (1946-1964) opportunity to do something noble, worthy and lasting.

"One must never allow disorder to continue so as to escape a war. One does not escape; the war is mearly postponed to ones disadvantage."

-Machiavelli, 1514.

Where is the United States in the 'Cycle of Spirtitual Faith to Bondage?'

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from Bondage to Spiritual Faith; from spiritual faith to Great Courage; from courage to Liberty; from liberty to Abundance; from abundance to Selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to Apathy; from apathy to Dependence; from dependency back again into bondage."

- Anonymous

The Real Reason Democrat Women Hate Sarah Palin (and what was going-on behind the photos)

by Mark Baker

Democrat women hate Sarah due to the fact that given a choice, Democrat Men would overwhelmingly prefer to have sex with Sarah over any of them...

Regarding the picture collage above, here's the story behind each:

1. Barbara Strisand- Wiaiting for her pet condor to land on her nose.

2. Helen Thomas- "What are you looking at?, LBJ actually chased me around the Ovel Office buck-naked back in '64;"

3. Hillary Clinton- "OMG, I just crapped my best Pant Suit!"

4.Teresa Kerry- Just caught John 'touching himself' again after claiming he couldn't because he had a headache.

5. Maddy Albright (on phone)- "No, the damn hair-plugs DIDN'T TAKE and I demand my money back!"

6. Janet Reno (thinking to herself)- "FIRE BAD!" (wanna nibble-on those ear-lobes fellas? NOT!)

7. Anderia Dworkin- With a name like 'DWORKIN' she must be good!... No, wait, that's SMUCKER'S, never mind.

8. Nancy Polisi- "Ok Doctor, exactly how long will the Botox freeze my face like this?"

9. Susan Estritch- Poparazzi snapped this picture when he interupted her canabalizing her paperboy.

Life's too serious, we need to have a little fun with the left from time to time; heck, gotta admit, they're damn funny to look at!

Press On,
Mark