Sites To Visit:
The United States is a representative republic founded on the principle that multiple parties are essential to maintaining freedom, ensuring counterweights to oppression within our society. But what if one of our parties decided that they wanted to eliminate the other as a viable competitor. How would they do it? What would be their strategy to eliminate political competition within the United States and established a one party system? There are really only two options that would be viable within the context of the United States. Violent overthrow, the most commonly used method for power consolidation would never happen here, so it must be done in one of two other ways.
Option One: The most reasonable course of action, and the one that most Americans see occurring every day, would be to attempt to convince enough Americans of the power of that party’s ideas and its policies such that on a national, state and local level the ideas and policies of the opposition party would receive little support. There’s a clear historical ebb and flow in the United States that shifts power from party to party. At times Republicans at other times Democrats win the White House and/or the Congress only to lose that power at some point down the road. We’re talking about an option in which there is no down the road and one party maintains its power base in perpetuity. This is very hard to achieve, and unlikely to happen naturally, so it brings us to Option Two.
Option Two: The second option, unlike the first that is open to public debate and decisions, requires subterfuge and disguise in order to succeed. Rather than convincing the electorate of the power of the party’s ideas, this option involves making voters who oppose it irrelevant in the context of local state and national elections. It requires ensuring that more votes get cast for the party than would be cast against it at all levels. How?
1. Import voters who support it, adding them to the existing supporters who when aggregated outweigh and outvote the opposition party. Illegal immigration is one means to achieve this by bringing in millions of people from outside the country, using the power of the federal government, and taxpayer money, to disperse them throughout the country, in all states, counties and cities. The inevitable goal of this illegal immigrant seeding would be to make them American citizens and grant them the right to vote as soon as possible. These millions of voters would likely overwhelm the opposition party.
2. There is a potential however that this tactic alone might not work, and so a second parallel effort would seem like insurance. Another method of buying votes and ensuring long-term support would be to go to the prisons were large numbers of minorities are incarcerated. By using Presidential Pardons to free these prisoners and changing policy within the United States allow felons to vote once they’ve served their time, another guaranteed pool of supporting votes would be in hand.
3. The above two tactics would seem very viable means of ensuring electoral support, but why stop there? What if a party could also use the federal government to resettle vast numbers of voters (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) from party strongholds into opposition States, Counties and cities and in so doing swing the vote of those counties? Such a policy has never existed in this country in the past, the closest thing being forced busing. In this case it is meant as a long-term resettlement plan at the expense of the taxpayers in the counties into which minorities get moved.
4. A fourth tactic would be icing on the cake. A policy of enabling voter fraud, when exploited by a political party, would further tip the scales. Enabling this policy would require opposition to voter ID laws and the expansion of voting from election day to as many days leading up to the election as possible. It would also be important to expand absentee voting to allow party supporters the opportunities to multi-vote in every election.
Option Twowould be opposed if Americans knew it was underway, so it would require subterfuge, disguise and the cloaking of the policies within lofty terms of morality and fairness, Saul Alinsky 101. It would need cleverly tested statements such as voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor and are racist attempts to return to Jim Crow laws (instituted by Democrats by the way). Comments about expansion of voting opportunities enabling the maximum amount of participation in the democratic system, an essential element to any thriving democracy, would also certainly be thrown about. Resettling people from high-density minority areas to other parts of the country would be touted as righting discrimination and slavery. False statements made while stealing away America’s republic.
As far-fetched as this hypothetical Option Twois, I submit that it is in fact well underway. President Barack Obama and the Democrat party are using tactics mentioned above and probably many others to completely eliminate any viable GOP opposition. What would be the end state if they succeeded? What could possibly be the good that would come to America by creating a single party state? Given the progressive desire to force-feed their way of life and their way of thinking it’s clear what the intent is.
It’s also clear what must be done in opposition. The truth of this effort must be spread, understood and exposed to the light of day. It must be vehemently opposed by every freedom loving American. The rule of law must be upheld, and that starts with securing the border and enforcing America’s immigration laws. The Progressive coils must be unwound. We are at a crossroads America. The future of our Republic depends upon the actions of the American people. The 2016 presidential election is a GOP must win. Freedom is down to it’s last out, in the 9th inning. The future of our country and liberty depend upon it!
Recent race riots in America focused attention on poor black communities and the meme that US police departments are racist and doing everything they can to single out innocent black men for arrest, incarceration, or frequently to murder them. What this event, or series of events, has also done is expose another Alinsky tactic being employed by Democrats and their progressive supporters.
What Americans hear from the left and from race baiters like Al Sharpton is how terrible and racist the police are. We see only one depiction of the police from “Minion Media” descriptions and its one that most Americans don’t agree with or recognize. Most of us understand the vast majority of law enforcement officers are brave, honorable men and women who dedicate their lives in protection of the communities they serve. It’s a dangerous line of work, often thankless, but they do it because they love this country and they feel a calling to serve much like those in the United States military. So why is it, that in discussions about the police, the Democrat party can only attack, denigrate, and destroy our Police? The result of this relentless denigration, officers are under attack, singled out and executed in growing numbers. The radical leftists in this country are so anti-police that in Ferguson Missouri, and most recently in Baltimore the US Attorney General’s officewas sent in with the goal of federalizing those departments in the name of social justice. So far, more than 20police departments have met the same federal control.
When so much that the left in America does draws its inspiration from notorious America-hater Saul Alinsky, it’s no wonder that this relentless attack upon police is a tactic straight out of the his Rules for Radicals. Alinsky teaches that once you pick a target you must demonize it, never admitting to, or allowing, any positive qualities of that target to get discussed.
“Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil. He knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree.”
It doesn’t matter how much they must exaggerate, lie, or outright fabricate events in order to create that devil, their radical ends justifies the means.
This is Part-3 of my 3-Part series on Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
Alinsky Part 1
Alinsky Part 2
In Part-3, Alinsky’s tactics are summarized, along with his goal, or Objective. Just as President Obama told “Joe The Plumber” that he wanted to redistribute American wealth, Alinsky’s Objective was taking power from the Haves and giving it to the Have-Nots. Sounds like Hillary Clinton’s statement that the U.S. economy needed to “Topple the Wealthiest 1%”.
Although couched in his own terms, Alinsky teaches many “tactics” that come straight out of the Department of Defense’s Joint Doctrine, Joint Publication 3, called Principles of War.
Ex. If your numbers are small, “conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does.” Joint Doctrine – Economy of Force, Mass, and deception.
Alinsky’s 13 Rules of Power Tactics:
- “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
- “Never go outside the experience of your people.”Joint Doctrine – Simplicity
- “Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.” Joint Doctrine – Surprise
- “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”
- “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Democrat politicians and their supporters are constantly ridiculing anybody who challenges them. Look at the lengths that they’ve gone to destroy Gov. Sarah Palin, even perpetuating a myth that she said that she could see Russia from her house. Hand in hand with ridicule, according to Alinsky, is Satire.
- “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.”
- “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Joint Doctrine –Mass, Maneuver, Economy of Force
- “Keep the pressure on.”Joint Doctrine – Offensive
- “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
- “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”Joint Doctrine – Offensive
- “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
Alinsky teaches fighting as dirty as possible. “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
- “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
- “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” This one tactic is probably the most well known element of Alinsky’s teachings, and is one of the most used by the left. It not only attacks a defined enemy, but is used to find the next target…that being anybody or organization that comes to the defense of the original target. Is this intimidation why so many are silent when progressives go on the attack?
Although Saul Alinsky died in 1972, his Objective and teachings are gaining power in today’s radical left, progressives and the Democratic Party machine.
See Hillary Clinton/Saul Alinsky Letters. From Hillary: “Dear Saul, When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out, or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”
This is Part-2 of my 3-Part series on Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
Alinsky Part 1
Alinsky Part 3
What is an Organizer? Alinsky writes that “The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach-to create, to be a “great creator, to play God.”
“The function of an organizer is to raise questions that agitate”
“He is challenging, insulting, agitating, discrediting. He stirs unrest, dissatisfaction and discontent.”
“The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy”.”
Given Alinsky’s own words, it isn’t hard to see why so many on the left considered then Senator Obama a savior. As a self-professed professional “community organizer”, an Alinsky acolyte, Obama was, in leftist circles, literally a “great creator”.
Alinsky teaches that there are three types/groups of people in the world (Alinsky’s Words in Bold and Italics):
– “The Have-Nots” Democrats exploit this group of Americans the most, advancing progressive policies designed to make and keep them dependent upon government. Minorities, women and children top their list.
– “The Have-a Little, Want-Mores” This group of Americans is basically the middle class.
– “The Haves” During the Obama administration Democrats branded these Americans as the “1%”. President Obama himself seems to believe that you become the 1% when your income grows to $250K/year. Most of the Democrat Political leadership (Clintons, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Deblasio, Gore, etc.) is extremely wealthy, as are their donors (George Soros, Hollywood Actors/Actresses/Directors, Union Bosses, etc.). As shown in my previous Alinsky post, there is no such thing as hypocrisy to Alinskyites.
Look for progressive policies couched in these three groups. It’s essential that they be pitted against one another, agitated, insulted, discredited and stirred up for the organizer to move his/her agenda. Division, not unity, is Alinsky’s calling card.
COMPROMISE: The clarion call of the progressive, and an essential component to a successful radical. How often do we hear politicians, in both parties, talking about compromise, as if that is the only thing that matters. Compromising where one’s principles must be abandoned, one’s security is dimished, or one’s country weakened, isn’t a good deal at all. Obama’s Iranian negotiations stand as a prime example.
“to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.”
“Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society.” Alinsky teaches how to create it. Ferguson, MO is a case study in how it’s done, and how devastating its effects can be.
My final blog in this Alinsky series will contain the specific tactics Alinsky teaches organizers to employ.
Saul Alinsky is the criminal mastermind behind today’s Democrat Party machine and his radical lessons are in play each and every day. Many people have heard about his book Rules for Radicals, but most don’t want, or have time to read it, and for good reason. Well, now you don’t have to. A series of 3 posts will summarize his major teachings, which constitute the progressive movement’s American “play book”, and they follow it religiously!
Alinsky Part 2
Alinsky Part 3
This is what Americans are up against folks. Sun Tzu, the great Chinese strategist said:
“Know your enemy as you know yourself and you will never be defeated in a thousand battles.”
We need to de-cloak Alinsky in order to understand why progressive democrats can take such seemingly hypocritical, and Anti-American positions.
Alinsky teaches his disciples (ex. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton…) that morality is open to one’s interpretation. Mold morality to cloak one’s radical actions and intentions. Could this be the reason behind why progressives attack Christianity?
Specifically Alinsky Preaches that:
Machiavelli’s major weakness was his blindness “to the necessity for moral clothing to all acts and motives.”
“All effective actions require the passport of morality.”
“Morality, so-called, becomes the continuum as self interests shift.”
“Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”
Alinsky teaches 11 variations on Machiavelli’s “The Ends Justify the Means.” With this many variations, what actions CAN’T be justified? Practical examples in the Democrat Party abound. How about Harry Reid justifying his lies on the Senate floor during the 2012 campaign when he claimed that Romney did not pay taxes? Reid’s “ends justify the means” morality: “Romney didn’t win, did he?”
Alinsky’s 11 Rules of Ethics of Means and Ends: Nuances to “The Ends Justify the Means”
- “One’s Concerns with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.”
- “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”
- “In war the end justifies almost any means.”
- “Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”
- “Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”
- “The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.”
- “Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”
- “The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”
- “Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”
- “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”
- “Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”,”Of the Common Welfare”,”Pursuit of Happiness”, or “Bread and Peace.”
Latest – 15 March, 2017: “A citizen’s initiative called Stop Operation Soros has also published a white paper alleging U.S. money has been funding violent riots in the streets, as well as a Macedonian version of Saul Alinsky’s far-left handbook Rules for Radicals.” Fox News
What is Radicalism? The fact that this word, and its usage by the White House, has become confused is intentional and the result of political correctness run amuck. If you asked most Americans what radicalism is, they would immediately think of 9-11, and radical Islamic terrorists. They would think of brutal organizations like ISIS, Al Qaida, Boko Haram and the murderous, terrorist acts recently committed throughout the world in their twisted efforts to further Islam. The Boston bombers, the attackers at the U.S. Navy Yard in Washington D.C., Major Nadal Hasan and the Fort Hood Shootings would likely also come up since they occurred here in America. Most recently, the attacks in Canada, and in Paris would get mentioned. All of these attacks have one, very simple thing in common, they were committed by radical Islamic terrorists.
Why then is the Obama Administration conflating the global threat posed by radical Islamists with “extremism” by hosting an 18 February Summit on Countering Violent Extremism while the rest of the West is focused on Islamic terrorism? The answer goes back to the beginning of President Obama’s first term.
I retired from the USAF in August 2012, serving my last ten years in the Pentagon. I watched the systematic purging of references to Islam, Islamic extremism, etc. from government and military documents and plans beginning shortly after President Obama’s first election. They were replaced with lessor domestic threats, generic examples or outright profiling of conservative thinking people and groups. This is no revelation. Many news organizations, and members of Congress such as Representatives Michelle Bachmann and Louis Ghomert, testified to the same changes, as reported in the “Washington Examiner”. The clear result was focus on the existential threat became blurred. Rep. Bachmann stated:
“This is truly censorship by our government, the government purging itself of documents, Bachmann said…We are not only seeing documents purged. We are seeing trainers purged and we are seeing the FBI library purged.”
Representative Ghomert voiced his concerns:
“We’ve got material being removed more because of political correctness than in the interest of truth and properly educated justice officials. We are blinding our enforcement officers from the ability to see who the enemy actually is”
Examples of efforts to redefine the threat include:
1. A Judicial Watch FOIA request that exposed a compliant FBI.
“The Obama administration labels conservatives “extremists” to delegitimize opposition to its radical socialism and to justify government oppression against them. And the Obama administration’s refusal to plainly identify and focus on radical elements within Islam demonstrates a willingness to overlook real threats to our security in the name of political correctness.”
2. DHS issued a report in 2009 titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic And Political Climate Fueling Resurgence In Radicalization And Recruitment.” The first key finding of the report was: “The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.” Among the definitions of rightwing it includes “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority…”
That definition covers a large part of the American population, and would include all of this Nation’s founding fathers, George Washington among them.
3. 72 types of Americans the US Government now considers potential terrorists, based upon government documents.
4. Here’s an excerpt of what the White House is teaching regarding extremist threats to America:
Source: (DoD Training Materials, obtained by Judicial Watch)
– Definitions: “When a political ideology falls outside the norms of a society, it is known as extremism”
– Extremist “A person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist
causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages
to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.”
– The activities of the founding fathers to break away from British rule are cited as “extremist ideologies”.
Some of the “Traits or behaviors that tend to represent the extremist style”:
1. Character assassination
Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal with the facts or
2. Name calling and labeling
Extremists are quick to resort to taunts (e.g., pervert, racist, and crackpot) to label and
condemn opponents and to divert others from listening to their arguments.
3. Irresponsive sweeping generalizations
Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments with little to no evidence
4. Inadequate proof behind assertions
Extremists tend to be very fuzzy about what constitutes proof for their assertions
5. Tendency to argue by intimidation
Extremists tend to frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into
accepting their premises and conclusions.
6. Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping cliches
For many extremists, shortcuts in thinking and in reasoning matters out seem
necessary to avoid troublesome facts and compelling counterarguments
7. Assumption of moral superiority over others
8. Tendency to personalize hostility
Extremists often wish for the personal bad fortune of their enemies and celebrate
when it occurs.
a. Nationalism -The policy of asserting that the interests of one’s own nation are
separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations.
I bet most Americans would put the interest of the United States, and our allies, above those of other nations. This philosophy was the basis behind NATO, the ANZUS PACT, and countless other alliances that the US was a signatory to.
This brings us to the 18 February Obama Administration Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.
One violent movement stands apart in the world. Islamic Jihadists are intent on overthrowing the world order and creating a radical utopia, i.e. A Caliphate. Islamic Terrorists must be focused upon separately, not in a watered down “all the above” type throwaway summit. The fact that the Obama Administration is intent on doing the opposite tells us all that we need to know. It is trying to change the national, and possibly international, lexicon to focus on extremism in general, taking focus away from the existential jihadi threat.
– DHS released another Intelligence Assessment focusing on the threat from “right wing sovereign citizen extremists”.
Let the buyers beware! What would America look like if the Democrat Party were unchecked to enact every policy that it fights so hard to institute? The first places to look for answers are in the American cities that democrat politicians owned lock, stock, and barrel for decades.
According to the 2010 census, the top 10 poorest cities with greater than 250,000 people,
and the last year that they had a Republican mayor are:
- Detroit, MI. 32.5% below poverty level. (1961)
- Buffalo, NY. 29.9% below poverty level. (1954)
- Cincinnati, OH. 27.8% below poverty level. (1984)
- Cleveland, OH. 27.0% below poverty level. (1989)
- Miami, FL. 26.9% below poverty level. Never.
- St. Louis, MO. 26.8% below poverty level. (1949)
- El Paso, TX. 26.4% below poverty level. Never.
- Milwaukee, WI. 26.2% below poverty level. (1908)
- Philadelphia, PA. 25.1% below poverty level. (1952)
- Newark, NJ. 24.2% below poverty level. (1907)
All of these cities owe their poverty to Democrats. Pictures of Detroit, for example, show the totality of the betrayal to both the citizens of these cities, and the rest of America, for their decay weakens us all.
Now that the Detroit visual is clear in your mind, what other “wonderful” Democrat Party, America transforming policies would we suffer from?
- America’s borders would remain wide open to anybody, from any country, with any intent who wished to enter.
- Democratic politicians would continue to welcome illegal immigrants onto America’s welfare rolls, enabling them to illegally vote (6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010), and eventually grant them citizenship. America is, after all, responsible for stealing the rest of the world’s wealth, Democrat political ideologues say.
- America’s energy wealth would be locked up in favor of expensive imported energy, and anemic renewables.
- American wealth would be sent to other countries as carbon tax penalties.
- In order to become more efficient, Americans would be crowded into major urban centers, as most of our land would be turned over to mother nature. These desires are engrained under the name Agenda 21.
- Government intrusion into every facet of life would go unchecked. So many are already here (from government salt bans to mandating your light bulbs and how much your toilet can use).
- Obama care would quickly give way to socialized medicine. Quality medical care would be a thing of the past, in favor of equally poor, VA style medical treatment for all.
- Christianity would be relegated to a back room religion, in favor of statism, along the lines of every communist country on earth.
These are just the beginning, unfortunately. At it’s fullest, and completely unchecked level, progressive Democrat policies would create an America that looked like Cuba, Venezuela, or any other communist country. This may sound extreme to some, but that doesn’t change the facts. Look at who controls the money flowing into the Democrat Party, and you’ll see the ones calling the shots, and setting their agenda.
Trevor Loudon’s nearly 700-page book, The Enemies Within, details the growing Marxist, communist and progressive influences in the Democrat Party. View videos of Mr. Loudon making the case agains the Democrat Party. Elections in America are no longer a question of policies; they are a question of liberty vs. statism. We now see Sen Bernie Sanders, Socialist, running for the Democratic presidential nomination. The fact that he can even run shows how dramatically the Democrat Party moved to the left!
There is a curious connection between Democrat administrations that links Bill Clinton’s to Barack Obama’s. The link is the illegal use of the federal government as a weapon to attack their enemies. The American people, particularly conservatives and TEA Party Patriots, are living through the Obama administration’s IRS targeting scandal. This abuse of power involved using the IRS as a weapon to audit, and intimidate hundreds of conservative organizations. Congressional investigations into the scandal continue to uncover evidence, drawing closer to the White House. Every American should shudder at the thought of the IRS getting sent after them, no matter what party they belong to. In America, under our Constitution, we are free to have, and voice our opinions. Freedom of speech is so important that it was the foundation of the First Amendment. The death of that fundamental right would spell the death of America.
Before the IRS targeting scandal came Clinton’s Filegate.
Filegate was a Hillary Clinton scandal that involved the White House asking for, and receiving, over 900 Republican leaders’ FBI files for political opposition research. Excuses were offered, and after a decade the Clintons escaped culpability, despite that fact that “the President’s friend and close advisor, Anthony Marceca, had requested the files”. As terrible as this scandal was, at least it wasn’t so brazen as to target average Americans as the Obama Administration IRS targeting scandal did.
The modus operandi of the progressive left is to intimidate and destroy one’s enemies. Saul Alinski 101! Both Presidents, Obama and Clinton, used the same tactics, and taxpayer dollars, to go after their political enemies. Such authoritarian abuses must stop. Governments should fear their people, not the other way around. Given that Hillary was already part of one intimidation scandal as First Lady, is there any doubt, that she wouldn’t do it again should she become President?