Archive for the ‘America’ Tag

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 two weeks ago (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.


Are We Cheapening our Faith?

“Give Satan an inch, and he’ll be a ruler”. As I read these words from a recent church marquee, I couldn’t help but to laugh and turn my car around to take a photo. I would pay big bucks to be in the congregational business meeting when the church was looking for a new evangelistic catch phrase to scroll across their marquee: “The last order of business for this quarter’s business meeting consists of what will now fill our church marquee. Remember that people daily drive by the marquee and nearly wreck into the nativity scene contemplating how these evangelistic statements can be applied in their lives. Momentarily I’ll ask for a motion to vote so that I can then ask for a motion to vote between “Give Satan an inch, and he’ll be a ruler” versus “Prevent truth decay by brushing up on your Bible.” Is this where the Church in America has come to? Where Christianity is seen and communicated through t-shirts and marquees. We don’t communicate our business projects, vacation plans, and political positions through marquees and t-shirts, so we don’t need to communicate our faith through such means.

The church in America has simply taken out the terminology of America and replaced it with its own terminology with a Christian twist. Christian bookstores are taking on the feel of a Super Wal-Mart, but without the food, except for the “testamints” and crucifix lollipops at the counter. Clothes, video games, toys, comic books, food, and music has been changed just enough for it to appear on the surface as Christian. From shirts branding “a bread crumb and fish” (see the likeness to Abercrobmie and Fitch) to Bibleman action figures to Majorvictory Superhero to Dance Praise video games.

Having Christian clothes, toys, comic books, and video games aren’t bad things in themselves. But does it make Christianity relevant to the rest of society? And what is our motive in creating Christian super heroes?

In essence, the church has separated itself from America and created its own culture by putting a slight Christian twist to clothing, video games, toys, comic books, food and music. It has stated through its actions that it doesn’t want to be a part of culture, but rather create it’s own culture. It has become a “Christian pop culture” that is disconnected from the rest of society.

What are the implications of Christianity creating it’s own culture? First of all, culture can closely be defined as a group of people that are defined by their language, politics, customs, beliefs, etc. With this in mind, a Christian culture would be one in which the language, politics, customs, and beliefs are heavily Christian. Although it may not be wrong having Christianity mixed with these things, there is something starkly wrong when Christianity exists in a culture by removing itself from that culture and creating its own culture. This is how much of the Christian church in America exists: in its own Christian sub culture.

In this Christian sub culture, Christianity becomes exclusive. Rather than having a warm and fuzzy community feel to it, the church feels more like a cold and stuck up country club. Christians pay their dues, abide by the enforced rules created by the committee that oversees all the other committees, make people come to them, dress and talk with a certain distinction, participate in private social events, and regard their fellow country clubbers as “we” and “us” and those on the outside as “them”. What would our reaction be if a scruffy older man walked in during a church service carrying a 40-ounce Bacardi or if two younger female partners walked in together while holding hands? Just as Americans feel uncomfortable visiting another country, similarly do the un-churched feel uncomfortable visiting a church.

What is our motive for creating a Christian sub culture, whether we’ve created it consciously or unconsciously? Is it a motive of love? Sacrifice? Pride? Self-righteousness? Comfort? It could be a number of different motives. It could be a motive of comfort where we live among our kind, avoiding at all costs confrontation with others that may make us feel uncomfortable. It could be a motive of self-righteousness, where we want people to take notice of our external Christianity, so they see how spiritual we are. And it may be a motive of pride, where we see ourselves as superior to those around us. Whatever our motive is, it’s hard to believe that it could be a motive of love as Jesus demonstrated.

Can you imagine Jesus running the neighborhood Christian gift shop while wearing pleated pants, loafers, and a t-shirt saying “1 savior + 3 nails = 4given”? Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that Jesus would be meandering around in his Leisure Toga. I personally think Jesus would mix some old school with new school, rocking Reebok Pumps with a popped collar. However, that is beside the point. The point is that it is unmistakable that Jesus’ life on earth was motivated by love.

One of the best examples of Jesus’ love and his association to those he didn’t even know, comes from Mark 6:30-44. In this account, Jesus sees a crowd of people that has just run from several surrounding towns in order to see him. Upon seeing them he is moved with compassion. The actual word for compassion is a deep feeling of pity, likened to a yearning or movement within the bowels (“bowels” certainly isn’t the word I would prefer to use but it’s what the Greeks and Jesus chose to use, so if you’re insulted because of my impropriety you can blame the Greeks or Jesus). Jesus’ so-called successors, also known as his disciples, told Jesus to just send them home. The disciples said this with it already being late and right after they had just spent solitary time with Jesus. They had been by themselves all day and without even spending a moment with the people, they tell Jesus to send them off. Not only did Jesus not send them away, but he met their physical need and spiritual need. He taught them and then he fed them.

So who are you in this account? Jesus or the disciples? If you say you’re Jesus then you’re lying because if Christians imitated Jesus’ example in this account then there would be an attraction to Christianity in America, but there is not. When was the last time you saw Christians being depicted as loving. Christians have been depicted as protesters, politicians, and moralists, while atheist celebrities are the ones being depicted as loving.

The challenge then is to recapture the love of Christ. We will never be able to recapture that love until we stop living out of our own Christian sub culture and start spending time with Christ and with people. C.S. Lewis said it well when he stated: “Love comes when manipulation stops; when you think more about the other person than about his or her reactions to you. When you dare to reveal yourself fully. When you dare to be vulnerable.” Let us be a people who reveal ourselves fully, and better yet, reveal Christ fully.