Archive for the ‘socialism’ 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.


Communism, Fascism, America, and God

Communism, Fascism, America, and God

Recently I have heard great debate over the direction this administration is steering the country. Terms like Socialism and Fascism have been thrown around at will. What exactly is the difference between the two and which is correct?

Communism and fascism are types of authoritarian rule, where the welfare and freedoms of the individual are subordinated to those of the state, and often a singular leader. In many cases a dominating military apparatus, as a way to stifle opposition, bolsters both fascist and communist rule. Both types of government grant the central government some degree of control over the economic means of production (as opposed to, say a free market, or laissez-faire economy as historically in the US), and At times social policy.

Fascism has strong corporatist fundamentals, where the government has considerable rule over private enterprise, but does not totally co-opt it (as in communism). The NAZIs considered themselves a “Third Way” between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism, in that rather than entirely nationalizing private enterprise and taking over production, the government had a very powerful influence.

Both Communism and Fascism are a totalitarian system. They required control of all aspects of the economy and culture as a whole and of the individual citizen. In order to achieve this they both used a combination of populist zeal built around a cult of personality for the leader, and fear. Communism was initiated first but the Fascists garnered insight from the Communist experience and put their techniques into practice. Communism seized all private property in the name of the state and placed all industrial and economic production under the direct control of the government, Fascism left some small business and large industries in the hands of the private sector as long as they provided the output the government required. In their basic philosophical beliefs the differences between communism and fascism are very small.

In rhetoric, communist and fascist leaders described their ideology with passion that on the surface seems concerned with wellbeing of the general populous. History, on the other hand, tells a different story. Hitler said ” We have endeavored to depart from the external, the superficial, endeavored to forget social origin, class, profession, fortune, education, capital, and everything that separates men, in order to reach that which bind them together”, while Marx believed “working men have no country.” Communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, both totalitarian in nature, while fascism has less central control over industry.

While neither socialism nor fascism have a place within the framework of the Constitution, it does seem that this administration is pursuing more national control of industrial and economic production. If history has thought us anything it is that these ideologies bring only suffering and pain to the people they were intended to protect. Are we headed toward a government that promises prosperity for the people while only ensuring security of the elite?

Scriptural references for Socialism and Fascism

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 4:34-37)

This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat. (Ex. 16:16-18)

In light of these passages (and others similar) some believe that “Christian” ideology depicts a government benevolent to its people. While there is no doubt that God would have his people choose to love through benevolent actions, no passage of scripture sets a government structure to force benevolence from its people. Benevolence to the creator is a matter of love. Throughout the Old and New Testament love was the central theme. John’s gospel depicts Gods love in giving His son to redeem humanity. With this benevolent gift, God CHOSE to give. It was a matter of choice. Just as love, true benevolence cannot exist without choice. Forced benevolence only breads resentment!

This is the End……

All of us who worried that Barack Obama was a socialist were crazy… right?

Let’s see. The government controls much of the banking/finance/insurance industries. The government effectively controls the auto industry. The government just fired GM’s CEO. The government is forcing the sale of a private American company (Chrysler) to a foreign corporation (Fiat). The government wants to control what kind of car your drive and know how and when you drive it. The government is working on controlling your health care, choosing what medical services you get and when you get them. The government is working on a Cap & Tax plan that will add new control and taxes, along with a smart grid system where the government can actually control the thermostat in your house. The current tax plan and policies are admittedly designed to be a “redistribution” from one wealth class to another. And the Treasury Secretary is asking for greater powers over corporations and companies, regardless of whether or not they received any tax payer dollars.

Doesn’t sound like the march to socialism at all, does it?

What is the government not doing? Stepping in to replace union bosses or work on union contracts. I wonder why.