THE CLOWARD/PIVEN STRATEGY OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Now that we are 10 months into this administration, it is important to review theories that were dismissed as ridiculous one year ago. The most important being Obama's socialist/marxist agenda, as witnessed by his appointees and the many destructive attacks on our system. Destroy the economy, bring the whole thing down; blame capitalism, blame big business.

Thank you, Mark Levin, who spoke of this yesterday again, saying: We are in the midst of a massive takeover, and it's all about collapsing the system. The 1960s retreads are in power, and they are advancing the Cloward/Piven Strategy. The CPS was first proposed in 1966, and is the strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. Take the threat of a Value Added Tax (VAT), a Nancy Pelosi pet.

Mark suggested this piece from last Feb, 2009 in the American Thinker:


The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
by Nancy Coppock, February 7, 2009

Using borrowed money for a band-aid bailout of the economy should seem backwards to most people. However, it likely is a planned strategy to promote radical change. Those naively believing that President Obama is simply rewarding his far-left base, and will then move to the political center, must wise up.

The assumption that Obama will need the nation to prosper in order to protect the 2010 mid-term election incorrectly assumes that he esteems free market capitalism. He does not. Rather than win through superior ideas and policies, the Democrat plan for success in the mid-term elections is to win by destroying political opposition.

Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left's war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.

According to Discover the Networks.org:

Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation... [Emphasis added.]

Making an already weak economy even worse is the intent of the Cloward/Piven Strategy. It is imperative that we view the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan's spending on items like food stamps, jobless benefits, and health care through this end goal. This strategy explains why the Democrat plan to "stimulate" the economy involves massive deficit spending projects. It includes billions for ACORN and its subgroups such as SHOP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Expanding the S-Chip Program through deficit spending in a supposed effort to "save the children" only makes a faltering economy worse.

If Congress were to allow a robust economy, parents would be able to provide for their children themselves by earning and keeping more of their own money. Democrats, quick to not waste a crisis, would consider that a lost opportunity.

The Cato Institute reports that the plan will harm a faltering economy, intentionally causing increased job losses leading to increased demands for the aforementioned programs. Even the jobs to be created are set apart to render social justice, not economic revival. Robert Reich believes new infrastructure jobs should not go to white construction workers. Meanwhile, workers at Microsoft, IBM, Texas Instruments, and the retail market find themselves experiencing the life of the welfare poor.

If highly educated and trained workers continue to lose jobs and business falters as a whole, where will these jobless workers go? Could this be construed as revolutionary social reorganization that puts the underachiever above the achiever? Where is the future economic strength when jobless professionals collect welfare and unemployment while dreaming of a minimum wage job? For whites, there's not even the hope of a good paying construction job.

Because these programs are financed with deficit spending, the effect of the Cloward/Piven Strategy becomes doubly destructive. Talk about a perfect storm! The Democrat stimulus plan is a mechanism whose goal is the destruction of the traditional American way of life. It is bitter irony that the American taxpayer will actually fund the destruction of his own ability to live according to the values of our Founding Documents. It is not alarmist to identify this situation as a coup d'etat.

As the flow of money from the top of the economy dries up, job losses and mortgage busts will mount exponentially. The Democrat stimulus plan provides for welfare expansion but not for a robust economy that creates high paying jobs. Is this what Obama means when he warns, "It's going to get worse before it gets better?" If we are not bailing out corporate America so they can regain profitability, we must conclude Obama is working toward another end goal. Recognizing these attack methods reveals the only logical response -- an unwavering wall of "No!"


Nancy Coppock publishes The Jackalope's Voice.

GRAMSCI REVOLUTION in AMERICA

As America moves farther and farther to the left, it is important to get inside the head of the extreme radical left. Recommended reading to learn how the radical mind works is Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsly, and more importantly Shadow World by Robert Chandler, on the strategy of Antonio Gramsci to transform his Christian nation into a Marxist state.

In today's climate of ramming through legislation opposed by the majority, these marxist principles are a must to understand, if we are to recognise the signs and get this country back on track.

Gwendolyn Kik wrote an excellent piece in Voice Out There, and a must read: (hat tip Debbie)

Ten steps toward an American progressive-socialist-marxist civil society:

1. change the popular consensus by destroying christianity, the traditional family, and exiting social mores

2. transform the culture by installing a radical Left mind control

3. attain political power by imposing strict control of the military and law enforcement

4. restrict freedom by socializing the economy

5. erase American sovreignty by embracing a world without borders

6. attain political power by winning democratic elections

7. dominate both Houses of Congress

8. restrict freedom of the press and expression

9. enforce a massive redistribution of wealth from the private and public sector

10. limit freedom of speech, religion, right to bear arms, and state’s rights p.309, Shadow World, Chandler

DISMANTLING AMERICA

Has it been only a year ago? Because of the turmoil over the last year, it seems like a lifetime. During that time, because of historic changes being forced on our country, it occurred to me that I should make a list, but it was too chilling and hard to face. We cannot lose sight of what has happened, or it will surely be repeated as time passes.

From the GOPUSA web site (hat tip Suzete007) is an excellent piece written by Thomas Sowell. Not only is he soothing to listen to, he writes with great passion and knowledge. I admire his no nonsense, pick-yourself-by-your-bootstraps kind of belief, and his own struggle for greatness.


Dismantling America
by Thomas Sowell, October 27, 2009

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.

---

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is http://www.tsowell.com/.

RULES FOR A RADICAL WHITE HOUSE

Every time this administration feels pressure, they attack. When they attack, they show their contempt for America, and attempt to marginalize their opposition. The fronts are adding up, but it all began way back during the campaign with Joe the Plummer.

This poor guy was just a man on the street, who asked a question - lo and behold, came the infamous line "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" came to light. It is the shining example of what this administration is all about - straight out of "Rules for Radicals".

Well, America is not about socialism, and we are speaking out. Because of this, we are being attacked by this administration, and in order to shut up their opposition, our freedom of speech is in jeopardy. We don't want to be told what car to buy, what doctor we are allowed to see, what kind of television we can buy, or what we can and cannot teach our children.

The Heritage Foundation writes:


Rules for a Radical White House
October 21, 2009

Politico’s Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei report today:

President Obama is working systematically to marginalize the most powerful forces behind the Republican Party, setting loose top White House officials to undermine conservatives in the media, business and lobbying worlds.

With a series of private meetings and public taunts, the White House has targeted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest-spending pro-business lobbying group in the country; Rush Limbaugh, the country’s most-listened-to conservative commentator; and now, with a new volley of combative rhetoric in recent days, the insurance industry, Wall Street executives and Fox News.

Obama aides are using their powerful White House platform, combined with techniques honed in the 2008 campaign, to cast some of the most powerful adversaries as out of the mainstream and their criticism as unworthy of serious discussion.

We are in no way the first to point this out, but this Obama administration strategy is taken directly from the pages of Chicago community organizer Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals. It identifies thirteen rules for progressive activists including, “The thirteenth rule: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Explaining just how far progressives must be willing to go to marginalize their “enemies” Alinsky explains a few pages later:

Many liberals during our attack on the then-school superintendent, were pointing out that after all he wasn’t a 100 percent devil, he was a regular churchgoer, he was a good family man, and he was generous in his contributions to charity. Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard but 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.

And then in his final chapter, Alinsky reveals what progressives really think of the average American: “Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized, and corrupt. They are right.”

Contempt for average Americans, and the desire to marginalize their common sense questions is both at the core of the Progessive vision for governance and completely antithetical to the values of our Founding Fathers. Thomas G. West, author of The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, explains:

The Founders thought that laws should be made by a body of elected officials with roots in local communities. They should not be “experts,” but they should have “most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society” (Madison). The wisdom in question was the kind on display in The Federalist, which relentlessly dissected the political errors of the previous decade in terms accessible to any person of intelligence and common sense.

The Progressives wanted to sweep away what they regarded as this amateurism in politics. … Only those educated in the top universities, preferably in the social sciences, were thought to be capable of governing. Politics was regarded as too complex for common sense to cope with. … Only government agencies staffed by experts informed by the most advanced modern science could manage tasks previously handled within the private sphere.
…
The Progressives did not intend to abolish democracy, to be sure. They wanted the people’s will to be more efficiently translated into government policy. But what democracy meant for the Progressives is that the people would take power out of the hands of locally elected officials and political parties and place it instead into the hands of the central government, which would in turn establish administrative agencies run by neutral experts, scientifically trained, to translate the people’s inchoate will into concrete policies.

This is why you have Obama’s Energy Secretary telling auto makers how they must build cars. This is why Obama’s health care plan empowers a panel of health care “experts” to reorganize one-sixth of our economy from the top down. Commonsense questions like, “Won’t our electricity bills go up if we mandate power companies use more expensive alternative energy sources?”, and “Won’t our health insurance premiums go up if everyone is charged the same price and nobody can be refused coverage?” can’t be tolerated. People voicing such criticisms must be isolated and silenced. That’s what the White House campaign the Politico identifies today is all about.

A MAOIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE

When that little boy was coached to ask Obama "why do people hate you?", maybe a more accurate question would have been "Why do you hate America?". When you keep spending more money than you make, most intelligent people know it will lead to financial ruin.

So, bring down the country you hate, and "transform" it into the banana republic you vision it should be. In order to do that, you will need to apologize to the world for our short comings, kiss up to all dictators, insult our allies, and fill the White House with Mao Tse-Tung admirers. PajamasMedia writes:


A Maoist in the White House

The greatest mass murderer in history. How much more of this can we take?

by Roger Kimball, October 16, 2009

Jeremiah Wright. William Ayers. Van Jones. Where does the rogues’ gallery of Barack Obama’s radical friends end? These people are not liberals. They are not “progressives.” They are radicals who hate America and in many cases have advocated or even perpetrated violence in an effort to destroy it.

Thanks to Glenn Beck, the American public has now been introduced to yet another radical member of Obama’s inner circle: Anita Dunn, Interim White House Communications Director, former top advisor to Obama’s political campaign, and wife of Obama’s personal lawyer, Robert Bauer.

In a speech before high school students last June, Dunn spoke passionately about her two favorite political philosophers, “the two people I turn to most” for answers to important questions like “how to do things that have never been done before.” Who are these paragons? One was Mother Teresa. Dunn didn’t have much to say about her. Most of her enthusiasm was lavished upon her other favorite fount of political wisdom: Mao Tse-Tung.

Mao Tse-Tung. That would be the deviant monster who, quite apart from his disgusting personal life, engineered the mass murder of anywhere from 50 to over 100 million people. Estimates vary so widely because murder on that wholesale scale is difficult to tabulate, especially in a country as backwards as China was under Mao’s long reign. But there is little doubt that Mao has the grisly distinction of being the greatest mass murderer in history.

Yet this is the man that one of Obama’s closest advisors commends to an audience with warmth and enthusiasm. In 1947, she tells her audience, Chiang Kai-Shek seemed to hold all the cards: he had the army, the airforce, and yet Mao went on to victory, telling people, as Anita Dunn told her listeners, “You fight your war and I’ll fight mine.” Don’t believe me? Listen:

N.B.: Anita Dunn is not just an Obama hanger-on. She is part of his inner circle, one of his top aides, along with David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, and Robert Gibbs. What does it mean that someone in that position proffers one of the greatest monsters the world has ever seen for emulation?

Anita Dunn calls Mao a “political philosopher.” In fact, as a real philosopher, the late, great Leszek Kolakowski, understood, Mao’s real achievement was as “one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, manipulator of large masses of human beings in the twentieth century.” His violent peasant revolution mouthed Marxist slogans, but at its core was less Marxist than a particularly rebarbative form of anarchic and anti-intellectual tyranny. “The obfuscation of Western admirers of Chinese Communism,” Kolakowski observes toward the end of his magnum opus, Main Currents of Marxism, “is scarcely believable.” I wish he were still here for Anita Dunn.

In the 1960s and 1970s, many American universities, along with some other Western redoubts of privilege and irresponsibility, harbored a few deluded characters who declared themselves Maoists and were fond of toting around his pathetic compendium of absurdity, “The Little Red Book.” These creatures were the sorriest detritus of our own cultural revolution. Some destroyed themselves. Others grew up, in whole or part, and were absorbed by a rich and forgiving society into the tissues of American life. Only now is it clear that some of the most radical and benighted have subsisted long enough in the outer corridors of power to find themselves suddenly translated into its inner sanctum, the White House and other top agencies of the United States government. It is an eventuality that would be risible were it not repulsive and, indeed, frightening.

So, we have a self-professed admirer of Mao Tse-Tung in a top job at the White House. Where does it end? Where?

Follow up:

The Maoist Explains Herself: Egg, Face, at the White House
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn tries her best to spin her way out of her praise of Chairman Mao.
by Roger Kimball, October 18, 2009

Damage control time!

–She didn’t mean it.
–She was only quoting a Republican operative.
–Fox News is mean to Democrats.
–Glenn Beck is an extremist.
–The President is trying to clean up a big mess left by George Bush.
–Can’t we just change the subject?

When Glenn Beck aired a video of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn praising Chairman Mao — one of her “two favorite political philosophers” — in front of an audience of high school students, the conservative blogosphere lit up like a non-denominational sustainably harvested Kwanza tree. I wrote about it [above]. Andrew McCarthy added some historical background here. Peter Wehner had this to say. Et, I need hardly say, cetera.

There’s one part of the left-wing reaction to the obloquy heaped upon Anita Dunn that should not be allowed to go unchallenged. It might go like this: “George Bush quoted Mao [or Stalin, or Hitler, or some other bad guy]: does that make him a Maoist [or Stalinist, a Nazi, or whatever]?”

As Fausta Wertz points out, Anita Dunn offered a variant of this exculpatory strategy when she claimed, in reaction to the tsunami of criticism her remarks occasioned, that she was only quoting Lee Atwater.

Let’s say that Mr. Atwater had quoted the bit from Mao that Anita Dunn quoted — you fight your war and I’ll fight mine, etc., etc. So what? Lee Atwater did not identify Mao as one of his two favorite political philosophers. He did not stand before a room full of high school students and praise the revolutionary tactics of the greatest mass murderer in history.

Bottom line: it is one thing to quote a tyrant. It is another to endorse his view of the world.

Probably, Anita Dunn would be as horrified as the next person by Mao’s savage wholesale butchery. The same could be said of most of those college students who carried around Mao’s Little Red Book and proclaimed themselves on the side of Revolution. Sure, many exhibited a creepy fascination with violence. But these privileged American kids would have run screaming from the room had they had to confront the merciless slaughter perpetrated by Mao and his merry band of utopians.

That’s neither here nor there. What the left-wing excuse factory wants is for the American people to overlook the radicalism of the people populating Obama’s inner circle, of which Anita Dunn is a prominent member. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me once again remind readers of what Obama promised in his campaign. I don’t mean the long string of broken promises about helping the middle class, pulling out troops from Iraq, prosecuting the war in Afghanistan with vigor, etc. Those were just campaign promises, i.e., vote-getting expedients that events have led Obama to renege on.

No, I mean the one big promise that he has every intention of fulfilling: the promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” That is what Obama and his lieutenants are about. They are egalitarians — not, perhaps, quite so radical as Chairman Mao, but (as the case of Anita Dunn shows) they have plenty of admiration for Mao’s goals. Obama himself has criticized the U.S. Constitution for being merely a “charter of negative liberties” that fails to promote “redistributive change.”

This is the point: last November, the American people thought they were electing a “post-partisan,” “post-racial” President who would work to restore unity and self-confidence to the country. They woke up on November 5, however, to find that they had elected someone who was deeply ambivalent about America, who distrusted its founding principles of limited government, individual liberty, and local responsibility. Like his radical friends — Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Anita Dunn — Barack Obama wishes to transform the United States according to a model whose basic shape was supplied by the utopian schemes of the 1960s. That’s why Anita Dunn said that Mao was one of the thinkers she most often turned to for wisdom about big-think political problems. It’s not that she admires his penchant for industrial strength homicide: rather, she admires his success at fomenting an egalitarian revolution. It’s not what we bargained for when we elected Barack Obama. But that’s what we’ve got. The question is how much worse will things have to get before the penny drops, before the scales fall from the collective eyes of the electorate? When will voters begin that long countermarch through the institutions in order to take back the country? If not now, when?


Read more articles by Roger Kimball here

IF OBAMA HAD TOLD US BEFORE HIS ELECTION

OBAMINATION

Hindsight being 20 20, if we knew then what we know now, would Obama be in the White House today? Many of us knew what was ahead, but most did not want to see it. We were evil to say or feel such nonsense. Wow ..... Really?

The more government starts running your life, from the Coke you drink, to the kind of car you can drive, to the amount of power you can use in your home, to the emergency surgeries you cannot have - the more you should be alarmed. It's just not the government's job to tell you when to blow your nose, and tax you to death to do it.

The lovely and brilliant Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum has some things to say about that:


If Obama Had Told Us Before His Election
by Phyllis Schlafly, October 16, 2009

If Barack Obama had campaigned on what he has actually done in his first 300 days in office, would he have been elected? That's the question so many are asking today.

If Obama had told us he would appoint 34 Czars, reporting only to himself and not vetted or confirmed in the constitutional way, building a powerful unitary executive branch of government, would he have been elected? What if he had told us that his Green Jobs Czar had been a Communist, that the Science Czar wrote in a college textbook that compulsory "green abortions" are an acceptable way to control population growth, and that the Diversity Czar has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to "step down" in favor of minorities?

If Obama had told us he would take over the automobile industry faster than any socialist dictator ever nationalized an industry, fire the CEO of General Motors and replace him with a Democratic Party campaign contributor, would Obama have been elected? If Obama had campaigned on closing down thousands of profitable car dealers, nearly all Republicans, would we have believed that this vindictive financial retaliation against those who didn't vote for Obama could happen in America?

If Hugo Chavez, the Communist who nationalized most of Venezuela's industries, had said before the election that "Comrade Obama" would nationalize the U.S. automobile industry and "end up to his right," would anybody have believed it? If talk shows had warned against such a socialist takeover, would the Obama-loving media have accused them of McCarthyism?

If Obama had told us he would spend $3 billion in a Cash for Clunkers program that would use taxpayers' funds to buy mostly foreign cars and grind up the used American cars traded in to make them unusable, would he have been elected?

If Obama had told us that his Stimulus package is a sham because it does not create private-sector jobs (as a tax cut would do), so that the unemployment rate has risen to nearly 10 percent, with 15 million Americans unemployed plus another 11 million underemployed, could he have been elected?

If Obama had told us his Supreme Court pick would be a woman who said repeatedly that a "Latina woman" would make better decisions than "a white male," that his pick for chief State Department lawyer would be a transnationalist who wants to integrate foreign law into law binding on U.S. citizens, and that his pick for Regulations Czar argues that animals are entitled to have lawyers to sue humans in court, would Obama have been elected?

If we had known that Obama would be totally incompetent as commander-in-chief of his chosen war in Afghanistan, and would not speak to the general in the field for 70 days, ignoring his dire report for six weeks, would Obama have been elected?

If Obama had told us he would have the government guarantee 90 percent of all U.S. mortgages, imposing $5 trillion in off-budget debt on U.S. taxpayers who had faithfully made their own mortgage payments, would he have been elected? And what if Obama had told us he would have the taxpayers take over 80 percent of all student loans at a cost of $1 trillion over the next decade?

If Obama had told us that he would make the U.S. government a major shareholder in Citigroup (one of the world's largest banks), would you have believed he could get away with this socialist takeover?

If Obama had admitted that his health care plan would include the same provisions for which he ran negative TV ads against Hillary Clinton (a federal mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance) and against John McCain (a tax on high-cost employer-based plans), would Obama have been elected?

And what if Obama had told us that his federal health plan would pay for all abortions without regard to the Hyde Amendment, and provide full health care (including private doctor visits) to immigrants without requiring proof of legal residence?

If Obama had campaigned on increasing federal spending and debt from a multi-billion-dollar level to multi-trillions, would he have been elected? And what if Obama had told us that his promise to "spread the wealth around" would balloon his first year's budget deficit to $1.6 trillion?

If Obama had told us that his promise to "spread the wealth around" meant wiping out the Republican welfare reform of 1996 and increasing annual welfare spending by 39 percent to almost $1 trillion a year by the end of his first term, would he have been elected?

If Obama had declared during his campaign that his first major speech abroad would be to the Muslim world, and that he would proclaim in Muslim Turkey that "one of the great strengths of the United States is . . . we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation," would he have been elected?


Read previous Phyllis Schlafly columns

HE'S NOT JIMMY CARTER

Conservatives, don't get over-confident in the diving numbers of Obama. He is nothing like Jimmy Carter, whose polls also began to tumble. We are dealing with a far more devious man, and cannot take our eye off of him for a minute.

The American Spectator has an interesting piece:


He's Not Jimmy Carter
By Quin Hillyer, September 3, 2009

Conservatives are taking too much solace in the precipitous drop in Barack Obama's approval ratings, and too many of us are overconfident that his administration is merely a replay of the hapless presidency of Jimmy Carter that was easily swept out in a landslide election.

Today's situation is far different, far more conducive to our political adversary's political power, than that which faced Carter. And Obama is an entirely different breed of cat. He's more ruthless, more tactically savvy, and has far more dangerous objectives. A drop in his poll ratings isn't as serious a setback for him as similar occurrences were for the peanut farmer from Plains.

In short, conservatives should beware. The political battle we're in is far more difficult than any the conservative movement has ever faced. It will take all our energy and all our smarts to win it.

First, consider the differences in political circumstances between Obama and Carter. Unlike Carter, Obama does not face a Kennedy-led left wing of his party that despises him. Unlike Carter, Obama did not take office by an incredibly slim majority vote so close that a few thousands votes in two states would have swung the whole election. Unlike Carter, Obama took office in the middle of a crisis he could blame on his predecessor and coming off an unpopular war that he could blame almost entirely on the Republican Party. On the right, Carter faced a conservative movement (even if not a Republican Party) unified and energized by an inspirational leader -- but no similar, single spokesman today galvanizes conservatives like Ronald Reagan did then. Carter also did not have a nationwide movement kept together by a tool like the Internet, and did not have billionaires behind his general aims the way Obama has George Soros.

Finally, Obama has the advantage of a more ethnically diverse nation that has far less of a common culture and less of a common appreciation of shared socio-political history and values. Why is that an advantage? Because it gives him more leeway to make outlandish claims, and still have huge pluralities believe him, than Carter could ever hope for.

More important than all that, though, is that Obama's personal skills, aims, and training are like nothing we have ever seen before in the White House. Every other president before him has intended at most to achieve change within the American political system. Obama wants to change the system itself. He is a radical's radical, with an authoritarian impulse. His Alinskyite training means that social unrest doesn't unnerve him; it plays right into his hands. Social unrest is both his modus operandi and his mid-term goal. The more unrest, the greater the crisis; the greater the crisis, the more excuse he has to use and consolidate central power in order to completely remake society.

And unlike Carter or most other Democratic presidential nominees of the past 45 years, Obama has tremendous oratorical skills. Sure, Bill Clinton could please lots of audience members with small promises, but he did not possess half the ability to inspire people (however misguidedly) that Obama does. Obama has the talent to raise demagoguery to an art form.

Already we see a cult of personality around Obama, one deliberately encouraged by the Obama political operation. Already we see him push for centralizing, fascistic economic powers. Already we see him creating "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the regular military, complete with uniformed youths (and even senior citizens) formed into "cadres." And in order to make AmeriCorps less answerable to the public, Obama fired the Inspector General trying to blow the whistle on nefarious AmeriCorps activities. Now he is using AmeriCorps and the National Endowment for the Arts to politically agitate for his "recovery agenda."

And that's not to mention the Big Brother-like data-mining and reporting of "casual conversations" to a White House website, or the creepy address to all the nation's school children -- or the continued public trashing, by the permanent Obama campaign known as Organizing For America, of ordinary citizen protesters as "Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists."

Obama also is politicizing the Census; giving contracts to ACORN; letting a recognized hate group like the New Black Panthers go free; undermining the CIA at every turn, radicalizing the Supreme Court; re-orienting the civil rights division of the Justice Department; appointing more "czars" than anybody can keep track of and who, unlike Cabinet members, do not answer to Congress; resisting transparency on TARP bailout funds; refusing to enforce financial reporting requirements on union political organizers; and doing all sorts of other things designed, as are the items above, to consolidate power, tilt the deck, and rig the political rules in his favor for the long haul.

In foreign affairs, his radicalism is even more apparent. He keeps undermining allies while embracing enemies. He deliberately undercut the brave protesters in Iran. He stubbornly continues to punish Honduras and its citizens, via economic and travel sanctions, because Honduras actually followed its own Constitution in removing a harshly anti-American president from office -- when he should have been rewarding Honduras for its commitment to the rule of law. Yet while he punishes friendly Hondurans, he refuses to punish radical leftist Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa when Correa's government tries to shake down an American company for $27 billion. It's all very bizarre. One wonders what exactly his agenda is. But it's clearly something the likes of which we've never seen. Again, the comparison with Carter's foreign policy is telling. Carter's was full of woolly-minded, pie-in-the-sky idealism, but it didn't deliberately mollycoddle sworn enemies. Obama's, on the other hand, portrays Obama to the world as if Obama himself is more admirable than the nation he supposedly represents -- a nation for which he continually apologizes. This attempt, so far quite successful, to garner personal, worldwide glorification is another gambit for power. Again, it makes him nobody for domestic political adversaries to trifle with. It gives him tools never enjoyed by the Jimmy Carter who was burned in effigy by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his pals in 1979 and 1980.

To defeat Obama's radicalism will take plenty of political savvy on the right. Until the 2010 elections, discontent should simmer, but not boil over. Civil unrest will not win the day; it will only help him. The one, and perhaps only, opportunity to stop his juggernaut will be in those mid-term elections. Every bit of conservatives' efforts should be directed at building a massive voter turnout to defeat Obama's leftist allies in 2010. The TEA parties and town hall protests and all the rest should be aimed at building a political infrastructure and political arguments sufficient to win those elections. The energy of conservatives should climax then and only then. Anything premature, anything over the top, will allow Obama to more effectively mobilize his own troops in the supposed name of order and stability.

Finally, it will help Obama that, probably by design, the bulk of the "stimulus" funds remain unspent. What will happen is that at just the right time, those funds will spur a false recovery -- a "recovery" hailed by the establishment media as proof of Obama's wisdom. The recovery won't last, because it won't be real. But that won't matter. Timed just right, it will allow Obama to claim the economic high road -- something Jimmy Carter never was able to claim. Relieved Americans who are apolitical could easily be swayed to "stay the course," just as Americans stayed the course with Ronald Reagan in 1982. But Reagan's course led to greater freedom; if Obama's course is stayed and he consolidates power in 2010, the diminution of freedom may be well-nigh irreversible.

In short, the wonderful conservative success in August should not hide the reality that our backs are still against the wall. Obama still owns the upper hand. If we make any major mistake, he will use that hand as a fist to smash the conservative movement to bits. Clear-eyed about this possibility, conservatives must keep fighting. Uphill. Against the wind. And without a Reagan to lead us.

OBAMA'S CIVILIAN TROOPS WERE TRAINED BY AYRES

"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." Ronald Reagan

An excellent piece in PajamasMedia describes the long & successful process of dumbing down America through the school system:

Obama’s Civilian Troops Were Trained by Ayers
Obama's election and the health care reform push would have been impossible without the dumbing down of academia.
By Mary Grabar, August 27, 2009

The blitzkrieg of changes that Obama has implemented — the nationalization of auto companies and banks, the demonization of the bourgeois (auto executives, physicians in private practice, insurance executives), the arm-twisting behind closed doors — are of the kind we’d expect of Hugo Chavez, pal of Obama’s pal, Bill Ayers.

But young people, educated in a system that allowed Bill Ayers to become a “distinguished professor” of education, heed the siren call of Obama’s Organizing for America and MoveOn.org. I saw them collecting information and signatures at one of the fake town halls given by my Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson here in Atlanta on August 10.

In fact, it seemed that out of the tiny percentage of people in their late teens or twenties at this gathering, which exceeded the overflow hall showing the proceedings on screen, most were Obama zombies. None would give their full names to me; some were from outside the district. All insisted that they had signed “nondisclosure agreements.” One hostile girl with pink hair admitted to being paid for her efforts. One young man who gave his first name only smirked when I told him I write for Pajamas Media: “Isn’t that the place that had Joe the Plumber on?”

Obama would like us to forget about Ayers, whom he dismissed as some “English professor.” We are to forget that they attended New York colleges at the same time, ended up in Ayers’ hometown of Chicago, sat on educational foundations together, had mutual friends, and held a kick-off political campaign in Ayers’ home.

Obama would also like us to ignore the language written by a euthanasia society that calls for five-year reviews of “end-of-life” plans in HR 3200. Those who rightfully see such provisions for what they are endure ridicule, much in the manner of those who condemned communists. Those writing op-eds about life “not worth living” today display a lack of awareness that their language mimics the language of Nazi doctors who got their practice runs for the Holocaust by quietly gassing the very young, the mentally challenged, and the handicapped in the privacy of their hospitals. They too had medical “review committees” of white-coated bureaucrats signing orders for death.

But history teachers will tell you that even Advanced Placement high school students are under the illusion that the concentration camps were places that the U.S. sent its own Japanese citizens.

When I write about Bill Ayers, I am often greeted with the retort that the focus on one kooky professor is a waste of time, that we have bigger problems.

But were it not for the “Destructive Generation” instantiating themselves in our schools, the election of Barack Obama would not have been possible. Had we had a generation who understood history, we would have had voters who understood the vacuity of his rhetoric and the implications of “spreading the wealth.” They would have understood how his writings on Saul Alinsky displayed his propensity for stirring up racial animus, demonizing the opposition, and threatening executives with “pitchfork” mobs (that he would rouse up). We would have seen how his teaching a course on “critical race theory” would naturally lead to a nomination of a Supreme Court justice who sees herself as a “wise Latina woman” who can “empathize.”

They would have seen that Obama’s alliance with Bill Ayers, who has been working on behalf of “education” in Venezuela, would lead to a cozy meeting with Hugo Chavez. While Venezuelans protest against a government takeover of the schools, we allow Bill Ayers to spread his poison to future teachers while paying him an annual salary of $126,000.

Like South American dictators who promise peasants a few hectares through redistribution, Obama promises such things as “free” medical care, education, and new cars to his followers. Like Chavez, he appeals to the peasants — literally the illegal ones streaming into the country, promising rights of citizenship.

The historian Richard Pipes notes that the Russian revolution succeeded in large part because of the uneducated peasants. And in this country, the early communists targeted immigrants who spoke no English and were unacquainted with American values.

Today’s communists, like Bill Ayers, work in our schools aiming to keep American students in the same level of ignorance and tribalism as the peasants of Russia and South America.

They began their nefarious deeds in the 1960s. With help from the Soviet Union, they fomented hatred of the United States and then successfully groomed a generation to colonize the schools. The SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), of which Ayers was a member, spelled out their strategies in their position paper, the Port Huron Statement. Employing the old Soviet strategy of “boring from within,” they focused on “an overlooked seat of influence”: the university. Divested of their history, literacy, and ability to reason, their students became the mob that elected Barack Obama.

I am not the only one to witness the increasing inability of college students to reason. Douglas G. Campbell, writing in Academic Questions, relates a common experience in the college classroom. The former career military officer, while discussing military culture, was accused of being “brainwashed by the military” by a student who had no experience in the military or knowledge of it. When asked what informed her opinion, she could not reply. In frustration she repeated the classroom mantra, that she was “entitled to my opinion.” When she broke into tears, accusing Campbell of being a Nazi, she gained the sympathy of her classmates. I’ve had a similar resistance to facts and logic in the classroom.

Campbell cites a couple of books on pedagogy that he had to read in a mandatory program at his college. One by Stephen D. Brookfield, Becoming a Critically Reflective Thinker, advocates a Marxist methodology called “critical pedagogy,” by which “students are helped to break out of oppressive ways of thinking and acting that seem habitual but that have been imposed by the dominant culture.”

The “dominant culture” that Brookfield refers to is the Western one. It relies on standards of truth, objectivity, and fairness. It uses the syllogism, where a premise based on truth leads logically to a conclusion. Our “dominant culture” also emphasizes fairness, such as notions that people of a certain race are not inherently wiser or that those who demonstrate merit should be rewarded.

But in our schools, from kindergarten through graduate school, a different culture reigns. From textbooks, to teaching strategies that encourage collective thinking, to dorm room indoctrination, students are pressured to give up independent, logical thought for nonsensical theories, group work, and consensus building. They are bullied emotionally and pressured with grades to adopt the thinking of the classroom. At the same time, they are denied exposure to the Western heritage.

Bill Ayers, much admired by fellow education professors, eschews content and discipline. He bristles at the idea of being restricted by a curriculum, policies, or assessments and openly uses his classroom to promote his radical communist views by assigning books that promote communism. His own books are used by professors in colleges of education. A tamer version of his pedagogy is popular among teachers, who while not openly advocating communism nonetheless focus on “social justice” issues through collective thinking.

Conservatives who have seen through these techniques but simply dismiss these kooky professors do so at their peril. They may be protecting their own children through homeschooling and private education, but they are reaping the products in the voting mobs that elected Barack Obama.

Now we are faced with, among other things, the prospect of “death panels” under socialized medicine.

The health care town halls and tea party rallies are the pulse signs of an American spirit that has not yet died. But these gatherings are populated largely by those who are in, or approaching, the age of mandatory “end-of-life” counseling proposed in HR 3200.

As a baby boomer, I viewed such a session at my “town hall meeting” as a group of fresh-faced Emory medical students debated an experienced orthopedic surgeon.

One young student, a Doogie Howser type, cocksure in his white coat, was convinced that he was on the right side of compassion and “social justice.”

The surgeon, who was not wearing the doctor’s coat, argued against the government encroachment into the relationship between doctor and patient. He admitted that there are problems with health care currently, but argued quite logically and ethically against the extreme measures of the bill. He cited his experience of working in a government (VA) hospital. He said that competition means good service for patients and gave examples and reasons.

The med student accused him of “trying to make a profit.” (The good doctor had said he treats at least a couple of children of illegal aliens a month for free.)

As the surgeon understandably became increasingly frustrated in the debate, the med student used techniques that are now common in the classroom: emotional sabotaging tactics under the cover of “conflict resolution.” Acting as if the surgeon were an unreasonable child (or more likely senile), the student said, “Let me crystallize this …” The tone was condescending. It would have been a comic scene were it not for the fact that this future doctor does not seem to understand how HR 3200 violates the Hippocratic Oath.

(The several doctors who spoke at the tea party rally in Atlanta on August 15 all invoked the Hippocratic Oath. But they were all middle-aged. No medical students showed up.)

The medical student at the town hall did say to the experienced orthopedist, “I respect your opinion,” but he dismissed the opinion.

Obama himself on television and through expansion of government programs, like Americorps, encourages our young people to “volunteer” in “community service” programs paid for with tax dollars.

While the economy tanks, the government job sector is growing. Young people are encouraged to educate themselves for jobs in nonprofits and government agencies. They build up their academic resumes with “community service” that does nothing for their intellectual growth.

The visions of modern-day brown-shirted civilian troops have predictably been dismissed as evidence of overworked imaginations of right-wing extremists.

Well, maybe they won’t be wearing brown shirts. Maybe they’ll be wearing white coats.

Voight: Is Obama Creating a Civil War in America?

While we enjoy the last few weeks of summer, America is voicing concerns over the State of the Union, or as Obama describes we-we-ed up.

Guess the majority are we-we-ed up, including my favorite, Jon Voight:


The Washington Times
Voight: Is Obama creating a civil war in America?
By Jennifer Harper, August 21, 2009

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

A Hollywood conservative has headed East. It's "Freedom Concert" time for Jon Voight. The Academy Award winner will join Sean Hannity in Cincinnati and Atlanta this weekend to honor fallen soldiers and present college scholarships to surviving children. Mr. Voight -- a warrior himself in many ways -- has been cogitating about the state of America, meanwhile.

"There's a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?" Mr. Voight tells Inside the Beltway.

"We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can't see this is probably hoping it isn't true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation."

Be outraged, Mr. Voight advises.

"Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don't know what that method is, I implore you to get the book 'Rules for Radicals,' by Saul Alinsky. Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods," he continues, citing a television campaign critical of the Republican Party and contentious town-hall meetings about health care reform.

"The real truth is that the Obama administration is professional at bullying, as we have witnessed with ACORN at work during the presidential campaign. It seems to me they are sending down their bullies to create fist fights among average American citizens who don't want a government-run health care plan forced upon them," Mr. Voight says. "So I ask again. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?"

Martin Luther King Vs. Saul Alinsky ... In Ten Rounds

Watching the hypocrisy in the White House and the leftist elites these days can make one wonder if one has completely lost one's mind. This is why I love history. It's irrefutable!

In the American Thinker, Kelcy Allen writes a wonderful piece denouncing these elites:


The Ideological Fight of the Century
By Kelcy Allen

How in God's name, and I mean that literally, can liberals lay claim to Martin Luther King? Isn't it the Liberal Left and their ACLU who want to ban the Ten Commandments? Isn't it liberal Democrats who want to take "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and off U.S. coinage? Isn't it the modern American Left who vehemently calls for the separation of Church and State? Isn't it only Democrats who want God taken out of public discourse?

Where did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stand on these issues? Wasn't he an ordained minister, like 24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, who themselves had seminary or Bible school degrees? Didn't he hold prayer vigils and constantly invoke the name of Almighty God, and wasn't he often pictured in public while embracing his Bible? Where in Hell, and I mean that literally, did the new liberal Left Democrats come up with such stupefying duplicitous hypocrisy?

An African-American (emphasis on "American") conservative political group called RagingElephants.org, placed an ad over the last 4th of July holiday weekend beside a freeway exit in Houston, Texas. The large roadside billboard stated, "Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican!" I believe they were trying to point out that MLK was originally a member of Abraham Lincoln's emancipating Republican Party. While King may not have been a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, we can say with certainty that the American political Right has now moved so far left that President John F. Kennedy would be a mainstream Republican and Martin Luther King would fall smack dab in the middle of the right-minded conservative Christian camp!

The Liberal Democrats of today can no longer honestly claim MLK as their ideological leader nor can they reasonably call him their political ally. If we look clearly at the guiding philosophy which shapes the mindset of the new breed of Left-Democrat, Martin Luther King is nowhere to be found. The foundation of today's liberal Left politicos is not that of King, it is none other than the rankling divisive strategy of mid-century Marxist-oriented Chicago community organizer Saul Alinsky, an avowed and proud atheist. The very heart of the liberal Left in America now pounds to the beat of Saul Alinsky's cacophonous bellowing, not to MLK's calm appeal for harmony.

If a verbal fight were to take place pitting the unifying voice of Martin Luther King against the divisive rhetoric of Saul Alinsky, who would win -- King's right-minded moral dogma of unity and fair play or Alinsky's amoral left-leaning diatribe of division and crotch-kicking? If there were a ten round "Ideological Fight of the Century", on whom would you bet your future?

Our current leaders on the Left are so steeped in Alinsky's ideology, either by once following him personally, by pro-actively studying his principles and philosophy during college, or by embracing and purposefully initiating his tactics in their activism and speeches, that they are de facto dedicated to Alinsky. These Left leaders who include Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Gerald Kellman, Arne Duncan, and President Obama, among a long list of others, use Alinsky's ‘sacred' divisive political playbook far more often than the ‘accursed' Right imaginarily thumps their Bible.

So, as they say in the sporting world, "Let's get ready to rumble!".......

Round One: Saul Alinsky opens with, "To hell with charity...morality is but rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self-interest."

Martin Luther says, "Now is the time to make real the promises of Democracy."

Round Two: Alinksy fires, "Ours is a world not of Angels but of ‘angles'. Reconciliation is when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation".

MLK parries, "Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children".

Round Three: Alinsky jabs, "Radicals...have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt...they are right."

King fades right, "...Even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream."

Round Four: Alinsky hits below the belt, "Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Ridicule is a man's most potent weapon. Keep the pressure on. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side".

MLK recovers, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."

Round Five: Coming out with a salvo, Red fires quickly, "Men don't like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives -- agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values. People won't act for CHANGE, but they won't strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution."

MLK, the ‘peace-maker' dodges, fades, and counters, "There is something I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads to the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds."

Round Six: Alinsky lands a left, "The radical realizes that constant dissension and conflict is and has been the fire under the boiler of Democracy."

The preacher counters with a right, "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline."

Round Seven: As he methodically circles the canvas, a chorus of dissonant jeers erupting from protesters rises to a fever pitch, encouraging the activist-radical as he swings away, "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. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution."

MLK isn't buying the ‘divisionist' strategy. He floats like a butterfly, and unloads a unifying barrage of lefts and rights, "With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood."

Round Eight: Both fighters are showing resilience. Angry, and coming from his corner as mad as a hornet, Alinsky fires a devastating left jab, "Remember, we are talking about revolution, not revelation!"

But, just ducking under the punch, it's King who scores and stings like a bee, "This will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning, ‘My Country ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing...Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride -- from every mountainside, let freedom ring.'"

Round Nine: Obviously slowed in the last round, perspiring heavily, and a bit wobbly on his feet, Alinsky nevertheless manages to unleash a quick, concise flurry, "What the present generation wants is what all generations have always wanted -- a meaning, a sense of what the world and life are -- a chance to strive for some sense of order."

But the real crowd favorite, as always, is able to thrust and parry, jab and move, and he connects with a slow-building, counter-attack which stuns Alinsky: "From every mountainside, let freedom ring. And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Round Ten: Damaged but not down, Saul 'Red' Alinsky, the Socialist-Marxist antagonist, plods forward, and with all the false vitality garnered through deception and deceit draining away, he manages a few, slow last-minute punches, "Lest we forget at least an acknowledgement to the very first radical: From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins-and which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom....Lucifer!" (Satan).

Ignoring the impious eulogy, Martin Luther King, the premier heroic American protagonist of our time, comes quickly over the top with a crushing finale, "And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together." Alinsky drops like a rock! It's over -- it's MLK by K.O.

Ringmaster: Saul Alinsky was a devious and cunning propagandist who in 1972 wrote "Rules for Radicals" which espoused his above mentioned destructive ‘fight dialogue'. He was a divider and a secular liberal who played on emotion and advocated change, Marxist CHANGE, yet our liberal politicians who studied him and our mainstream media who revere him, nonetheless aggressively apply his strategies today.

Martin Luther King was a unifier who believed in the Ten Commandments and the Constitution, and he understood our forebears came to a new land expressly to seek Liberty and escape religious persecution. He also fully comprehended that the original intent of the separation of Church and State was meant to keep the government out of the Church, it was not the new Left's inverse and twisted definition where ‘God' is not allowed anyplace in government nor anywhere remotely close to the public square.

The Left in America no longer believes what Martin Luther King believed, they cannot say what he said, and they cannot do what he did! In America today liberals and most Left Democrats and certainly the media, will not tolerate nor defend God and they will try to sue you if you do, while right-minded conservatives, like Martin Luther King, Jr., depend wholly on God.