Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths
By James Lewis
American Thinker 9/25/2008
Publicado: 02-25-2012 02:26 PM
powerline.com ^ | 2/25/12 | John Hinderaker
President Obama has proclaimed himself helpless in the face of gasoline prices, which have doubled on his watch. He is just fated, apparently, to be a lousy president. Now that it is a little late to try to blame his predecessor, he is out of ammo. Today Senator Jeff Sessions tried to buck Obama up with a letter containing suggestions as to how the executive branch might take arms against a sea of rising gas prices, unemployment and poverty:
The Honorable Barack Obama President The White House Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing today to urge your Administration to take overdue but necessary action to confront soaring gasoline prices. In the last three years, gas prices have doubled, draining the disposable income of millions of hardworking Americans. In 2011, the typical U.S. household already spent $4,155 on gasoline, almost 10 percent of their income. Yet some analysts now predict prices may rise this year to more than $5.00 per gallon.
In a speech this Thursday, you stated that “there are no quick fixes to this problem. You know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.” While we should explore a variety of energy resources—most especially those which do not put taxpayer dollars at risk—I respectfully disagree that we cannot utilize our remarkably vast untapped energy reserves to provide Americans with much-needed relief. I reject the defeatist view that says the nation that won two world wars, pioneered space travel, and overcame the Soviet Empire is now helpless in the face of high prices at the pump. We are not at the mercy of dictators, cartels, and events beyond our control.
Simply by removing the bureaucratic barriers imposed by your own administration we can begin to make progress. But we can go much further than that. Powerful action to harness America’s untapped oil and gas resources would place downward pressure on prices and speculation in the short-run and, by surging global supply, would serve to keep prices low in the future. Crucially, it would also provide millions of Americans with good-paying private-sector jobs; produce substantial royalties for local, state, and federal governments; reduce our enormous trade imbalance; and put an end to our huge wealth transfer from America to competitors oversees.
I therefore recommend the following proposals for immediate implementation:
1. Restore the bipartisan 2010–2015 offshore lease plan to ensure that the 31 lease sales called for in that plan are completed expeditiously. Your Administration only directed one lease sale in 2011 and has announced just one lease sale for 2012, far short of the number of sales that would have occurred over this period under the original 2010–2015 plan that your Administration discarded.
2. Take all necessary steps to accelerate the leasing and permitting process for domestic shale oil production. The United States has recoverable shale oil reserves estimated at 800 billion to 1.2 trillion barrels, meaning our nation has potentially three to four times more recoverable oil than any other country in the world except Canada.
3. Maximize energy production from federal lands. As I and 21 other Senators noted in a January 25, 2012 letter to you, actual oil production on federal lands is now just 714 million barrels per year, a 16 percent decline from what was projected just five years ago. This decline must be reversed.
4. End the de facto moratorium on permitting for offshore oil and gas production.
5. Direct the EPA, the Department of Energy, and other federal agencies to grant all necessary waivers and approvals to oil and gas refineries to facilitate maximum production at minimum cost. Refinery expenses comprise 11 percent of the price for gasoline that Americans pay at the pump, but your Administration has imposed numerous regulations that have driven refining costs up, not down.
6. Abandon your proposal to increase taxes and fees levied on U.S. energy production by more than $40 billion. These additional costs would be passed along to consumers, taking money out of their pockets and discouraging needed domestic production.
7. Approve the Keystone XL pipeline and grant necessary waivers, licenses, and permits, where possible, to ensure expedited completion of this important North American energy project. The pipeline would carry 700,000 barrels a day to U.S. refineries, which is nearly half what the U.S. currently imports from the entire Middle East.
America has the potential to fundamentally shift the balance of power in global energy production—to produce more energy, more efficiently and more cheaply, than your Administration has recognized. Such bold steps will broadcast an unmistakable signal to the world that not only places downward pressure on prices in the near-term but helps deliver a future of abundant, affordable energy. Moreover, unlike costly short-term stimulus, achieving energy independence would provide long-term relief to both struggling families and our indebted treasury.
I look forward to working with you on this important matter.
Very truly yours,
Jeff Sessions U.S. Senator
The sight of Barack Obama confessing impotence in the face of what is really a rather simple problem of supply and demand is pathetic. It used to be that only our enemies considered the United States a pitiful, helpless giant. Now our own president takes that view. November can’t come soon enough.
02-25-2012 05:07 PM - editado 02-25-2012 05:09 PM
Publicado: 02-26-2012 09:00 AM
Gingrich rails against Obama at California GOP convention
The Republican candidate says the president is ‘fundamentally dishonest’ and ‘lives in a fantasy world.’ Most of the speech is a point-by-point attack on Obama’s recent energy speech.
By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times
February 26, 2012
Reporting from Burlingame, Calif.
With his competition focused on the chilly Midwest, Newt Gingrich wooed California’s Republican faithful Saturday, banking on a Republican contest so chaotic that the most populous state in the country could actually matter when voters go to the polls in June.
“You cannot follow the recent Republican practice of writing off our largest state and imagine that you are going to run an American campaign,” the former House speaker told delegates to the state party convention, meeting outside of San Francisco. “There will not be any lockdown before we get to California.... I want you to know as the nominee I will campaign consistently in California.”
That was as close as Gingrich came to acknowledging Republican front-runners Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum during a withering 48-minute luncheon speech in a packed hotel ballroom. Instead, he trained his sights on President Obama, who he said is “fundamentally dishonest” and “lives in a fantasy world.”
Although most of his address was a point-by-point attack on Obama’s recent energy speech in Miami, Gingrich also took the president to task for his response to the inadvertent burning of Korans at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan.
Two American military officers were killed in a heavily secured compound by an unknown assailant Saturday, during nearly a week of angry anti-American protests. On Thursday, Obama had personally apologized for the burning of the holy books.
“I find it very offensive as commander in chief that he is apologizing to the Afghans when in fact he should be demanding an apology from [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai,” Gingrich said to much applause.
It was part of a litany of Gingrich-Obama contrasts the former Georgia congressman spelled out to cheers Saturday afternoon, a warm reception that belied a recent poll showing him trailing badly in California, No. 4 in the four-man field.
“If you believe the world is dangerous and America should be strong, then Newt Gingrich is your candidate,” he said. “If you think the U.S. is inevitably weak and guilty and we should run around the world apologizing and appeasing, then Barack Obama is your candidate.”
Do you want $2.50-a-gallon gasoline, an “American energy policy” and “never again bow to a Saudi king”? Then Gingrich is your man, he said. Ditto if you like job creation, paychecks and religious liberty.
And what does a vote for Obama mean? Food stamps, he thundered. Dependency. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with its liberal bias and “religious bigotry.” Gas that costs $10 a gallon, an anti-energy energy secretary and “weakness requiring us to depend on foreigners for our energy.”
The specter of $10-a-gallon gas was the focus of Gingrich’s ire Saturday. He derided Obama’s energy speech as “factually false, intellectually incoherent, deeply conflicted on policy and in some places just strange.” He called the president “a genuine left-winger,” as anti-liberty as he is anti-oil drilling.
Obama “believes in small cars,” Gingrich said. “He believes in an anti-American energy policy. He believes in high prices. He believes in government control. The challenge is he’s running for reelection. The American people actually want the car and truck they like. The American people are pro-American energy.”
While Obama has rejected the controversial Keystone pipeline — which would bisect the United States en route from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico — Gingrich said Saturday that he would authorize the oil pipeline on his first day as president. (Some criticism of the pipeline has come from Republicans in Nebraska, through which it would pass.)
Noting that Obama said there “are no silver bullets” for the high price of gasoline in America, Gingrich said “there is a pen. Big difference.
“A presidential pen could today sign approval of the Keystone pipeline,” he said. “That’s 700,000 barrels a day. A presidential pen could today sign approval to go back to the Gulf of Mexico. That’s about 400,000 barrels a day. A presidential pen could today approve areas of Alaska that we know have oil.”
In three signatures, Gingrich said, “you would have 2.3 million barrels a day additional energy in the United States. So I would say, we’re not looking for silver bullets. We’re looking for presidential leadership.”
Although many in the audience were still undecided about their presidential choice, his talk of cheap gas resonated with Judy Thompson of Vacaville, a retired associate warden who worked for the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
She drives a 10-year-old car with 200,000 miles on it, gets $400 in Social Security each month and drives 40 miles or more a day volunteering at a charity that houses homeless veterans and working for Assembly candidate Mike Hudson.
“If we could afford to buy new cars, we probably would,” said Thompson, who supports Gingrich. “I stay busy, but I might have to cut back because of the cost of gasoline.
Publicado: 02-26-2012 10:26 AM
WOOOOW! EL CONSERVADORCITO SI!YAMAME-YES! ELOGIANDO AL TRIPLE TARRUO SINVERGUENZA PICAFLOR DESBARATADOR DE MATRIMONIOS GINGRICH, JAJAJAJAJA, YOU ARE PATHETIC, BIG TIME, IDIOT!
Publicado: 02-26-2012 12:31 PM
Hitler se inspiró en los gulags de Stalin para crear con campos de concentración nazis....Obama copia los planes quinquenales soviéticos. Así, prometió a los ilegales darle la amnistía en los primeros 100 días, ahora dice que todavía le quedan 5 años para burlarse de ellos.
Tocqueville wrote “..socialism makes people a mere agent, a number…Democracy seeks equality though freedom, while socialism seeks equality though restraint and servitude”.
Normally, progressives will try to hide their claims and goals in dubious sounding fluff code words. "Economic justice" and so forth. But not here. The call has actually been made for a planned economy. I did a little bit of searching, and I think this may be the first sign of it. So if history is our guide, they're going to call more and more for a planned economy in the future. It's what the progressives really want.
This thing is loaded with fallacies from front to back. First off, if they're "planning for the 1%", then they are necessarily planning for everybody. It's impossible to do the kind of separation that they're implying, this is just a way to sell it better. Second off, right out of the gate, the fallacy is thrown out that 'all economies are planned to some extent', to which they build up as a false either/or; either the government is going to plan it, or the banks plan it. Individuals do most of the planning on their own, when the government is not involved, and the banks don't care enough to do systematic planning, as long as whatever your venture is is making money. It's only when you start not being able to pay your bills, do the banks come sniffing at your doorstep. But with this either/or fallacy as the basis of the whole interview, it follows that the rest is fallacious as well.
For those seeking further background into how dangerous governmental planning is, see "The Road to Serfdom", by Friedrich Hayek, pages 1-283.
A medieval serf worked 3 days for his lord. If you aggregate all the taxes you pay, not just income taxes, you work 4 days. Is this what you want in your life? The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek stands in opposition to the idea of a partnership between government and business in state capitalism.
It is an important book today because now economists and politicians are debating how to solve high unemployment and long-term disequilibrium in the financial markets. Government monetary and fiscal policy seem ineffective.
The answer in Hayek’s book is less government. If politicians try to influence the economy, it will result in a loss of freedom and prosperity for the poor and the rich. The Government bureaucracy gains power like the feudal lord once did. Once this system is in place, the process is almost irreversible. It comes in increments so you do not notice it.
Hayek is a classical liberal, which means he is essentially libertarian. This is not to be confused with Democrats that are liberal in a more socialist sense.
I enjoyed reading the Austrian school of economics very much. It is not intended to be a new Religion, but rather simply a development of Western philosophy and an extension of enlightenment ideals, the same ideas in which the United States was founded and the founding fathers hoped to protect.
The purpose of this book is to give a summary of Hayek’s book Road to Serfdom.
How does a freeman became a serf?
One thousand years ago it was by force or economic hardship, such as crop failures. Further, serfdom was inherited. That means if your children would be born into your situation of payment to the feudal lord. In Hayek’s book he argues the road to serfdom is though central government planning or managing of the economy. High taxes and large government will have the same effect as it did 1000 years ago.
Anything I write here in the Summary of Road to serfdom does not do it justice, you have to read the book yourself.
Road to Serfdom Chapters
Road to Serfdom Summary
Hayek wrote the book after the WWII, when the world was rebuilding from German fascism and was threatened by Communism.
The first part of the book deals with planning and democracy and planning and the rule of law. In these chapter’s Hayeks thesis is that in order for people to plan the economy they need to be empowered. They need power over other men. Without this legal power then, government planning would be ineffective. The obstacle is democracy.
The important point is that, if we take the people who’s views influence developments, they are now in this country in some measure all socialists. It is no longer fashionable to emphasize that “we are all socialists now”, this is so merely because the fact is too obvious. Scarcely anybody doubts that we must continue to move towards socialism.
The successful politician owes his power to the fact that he moves within the accepted framework of thought, that he thinks and talks conventionally. It would be almost a contradiction in terms for a politician to be a leader in the field of ideas. His task in a democracy is to find out what the opinions held by the largest number are, not to give currency to new opinions which may become the majority view in some distant future.
Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends.
- The implication for Obama’s economy is even at the agency level planning needs power or dictatorship to work. It could come in the form of a housing czar or a financial banking regulation czar or national health care board, but it needs a concentration of power. This is what Hayek warned against.
- There can be no compromises with democracy and socialism. This is the grand lie of a social utopia. Social programs means the destruction of freedom. This has been the great lesson of the 20th century.
- People have to see be aware of the cost and read history.
02-27-2012 11:49 AM - editado 02-27-2012 01:44 PM
George W. Bush: Drill more to lower gas prices (BUSH PROVES AGAIN HE'S SMARTER THAN OBAMA)
JENNIFER EPSTEIN 4/27/11
President Bush's July 2008 decision to lift the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling caused oil prices to drop from "$147 straight down to $33 a barrel in six months."
Former President George W. Bush wants to see more oil drilling to combat prices at the gas pump that are nearing $4 a gallon, he said Wednesday.
“I would suggest Americans understand how supply and demand works. And if you restrict supplies of crude, the price of oil is going to go up and it affects gasoline,” Bush said on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” before telling host George Stephanopoulos that he’s not too interested in talking about policy or politics.
POLITICO Influence: Insiders react
“You know, I really appreciate your giving me the chance to opine on the issues of the day, but as you know I made the decision to support causes I’m interested in without feeling like I’ve got to get an opinion on every issue,” Bush said. “So you’re still going to try, nevertheless. You haven’t lost a step, Stephanopoulos.”
Bush has largely steered clear of politics since leaving office more than two years ago, saying last year that Obama deserves to be able to govern “without criticism from me.” And in January, he said he had no plans to campaign or raise funds for any candidates or to become a TV talk show political commentator.
But before the former president begged off discussing policy in an interview about a bicycle tour he’s taking with wounded veterans, he did weigh in on reports that his successor will appoint Leon Panetta to be the next defense secretary and Gen. David Petraeus to take on the job of Central Intelligence Agency director.
“You know, both of them are good men,” Bush said. “I have the great respect for David Petraeus, I got to know him well. I also got to know Leon Panetta, not as well as I did David. Both of them are good public servants and I wish them well.”
Then, he paused and asked Stephanopoulos about the picks, which were reported by The Associated Press just minutes before Bush went on air. “Is it gossip or truth?” he said, as the host assured him that President Barack Obama will make the announcement later this week.
“Well, just because you’re reporting it, as you might recall, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true,” Bush said, chuckling as Stephanopoulos reassured him again. “OK, that’s good.”
BAJO BUSH EN LOS PRIMEROS 26 MESES EN EL PODER LA GASOLINA SUBIO UN 7%, EN EL MISMO TIEMPO CON OBAMA SUBIO 67%
Under President Obama, the American Petroleum Institute notes, leases on federal lands in the West are down 44%, while permits and new well drilling are both down 39% compared to 2007 levels.
This is why Obama and Democrats must be sent home.
RASMUSSEN POLL: Obama Approval at 45%, Lowest in Month—President Falls Behind Romney and Paul... Romney 45% Obama 43%... Paul 43% Obama 41% Obama 45% Santorum 43%
Publicado: 02-27-2012 01:44 PM
Here Comes Obama's 3 AM Phone Call
By James Lewis
In the next 60 days Obama's presidential career will finally meet that concrete wall of reality. He will either fail or survive. Trouble is, he might take many innocent people with him if he fails.
So far, the most hyped-up and unqualified president in US history has shown no capacity at all to act, in the face of a do-or-die challenge. This is the ultimate test of character, the one that John F. Kennedy met well enough in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. This is the test that Jimmy Carter failed so miserably that Ronald Reagan beat him handily in the following election. This is the same test of reality that every single Democratic Administration has tried to avoid; it's the reason why Bill Clinton refused to do anything about Osama Bin Laden when he had four separate chances to take him out.
This time, abject apologies to ranting Pakistani mobs will not make a smidgen of difference. Even Axelrod's disinformation campaigns can't save Obama now, because that 3 am phone call is almost sure to come by April Fool's Day of 2012, when the real fool will stand revealed to the world.
On or about April 1 of 2012, that 3 AM phone call will reach the White House. We know what it will be -- which is itself a sign of stunning incompetence in this White House. None of this information should ever be public. Ever.
But this administration has chosen its Secretary of Defense to publicly leak the most closely guarded secret of Israel's back-against-the-wall defense against Iranian nuclear weapons.
Such public leaks amount to near treason in time of war. Imagine if someone leaked General Eisenhower's plans for the D-Day invasion in June of 1944. FDR would have fired them instantly, or if they were foreigners he would have felt justified to have them killed. Hundreds of thousands of American and Allied lives were at stake on D Day. In Israel today, hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives are at stake. Don't expect countries fighting for their national survival to act any differently.
The Israelis have now publicly retaliated against the Panetta leak. They have accused General Dempsey, our top general, of publicly taking the Iranian side in the confrontation. But General Dempsey is not the target. The General knows better. The real target is his boss in the White House.
This is the moment every sane person knew had to come, ever since Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski knowingly allowed the radical suicide regime of Ayatollah Khomeini to overthrow the modernizing Shah of Iran. That was the single most self-destructive decision by any American President in modern history.
Jimmy Carter empowered the first Islamic throwback regime since Kemal Ataturk modernized Turkey in the 1920s.
Since Khomeini, Islamic radicalization has only accelerated, culminating in the 9/11/01 attack on New York City. Obama's equally suicidal "Arab Spring" has now brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, instead of our long-time ally Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak's predecessor Anwar Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Obama knowingly chose to support Sadat's assassins.
So much for America's loyalty and word of honor.
Now Egypt is in economic and political despair, along with the other "Arab Spring" countries. The Saudis are ordering their own nuclear weapons, because they cannot trust the United States to protect their vital interests any more.
Obama thrives on crisis and chaos. He is a gambler and a con artist who follows Napoleon's slogan of "audacity, audacity, always audacity." But Napoleon met his Moscow winter and his Waterloo. The only question is when Obama will crash into his own brick wall of reality.
April Fool's Day would be a very suitable target date for the coming Iranian nuclear crisis. The Administration has already started to undermine Israel's case for defending itself by claiming, dontchaknow, that the Iranians are not making nukes after all. They are just making highly enriched uranium, folks. Nothing to worry about. False alarms, all you fools! It's just that Zionist plot again.
Obama's string puppets at J Street and other Soros fronts are bound to start anti-Israel propaganda again, aided by the New York Times and its ilk. But the Iranians just said (again!) that they are bound and determined to "wipe Israel off the map."
It will make no difference. The Israelis are sensitive to hate propaganda by the international left, except when survival is at stake. Then they act to survive. That used to be US policy as well, until the fantasy-ridden Democrats took over the country. Today Obama is cutting our defense budget and reducing US nuclear weapons to the lowest level ever, even while nuclear proliferation breaks out all over the world. Good timing, BHO.
The conventional wisdom is that Israel must attack Iranian nuclear sites soon, because Ahmadinejad is moving his nuclear industry into deep mountain tunnels on an emergency basis. Once his nuke industry is deeply bunkered it is essentially invulnerable to conventional weapons. It is the point of no return.
The conventional wisdom also claims that Israel cannot maintain a long-term bombing campaign. Only the United States can do that. But the US is refusing to be the cop on the block, leaving the defense of the world's biggest oil supply to ... nobody. No one else has the power to do it. Which is why the Saudis are nuking up.
Israel will act as in defense of its right to live. The left will predictably turn reality upside-down, the way it always does. They keep their brains in the darkest place they can find. Nothing will change those facts.
The United States is the only nation with the power to knock down the Iranian threat with reasonable safety to itself and other countries. We have done it before. If Israel acts without our active help, the risks of great casualties on all sides will be much, much greater. In 1973 Golda Meir came close to using Israel's own nuclear arsenal when invading tank divisions from Egypt threatened to overrun Israel's cities. That decision was barely averted when Israeli tanks broke through the Egyptian lines.
Obama is by far the most mentally fixated president in the nuclear age. Nobody else has come even close to having his mental blinders, not even Jimmy Carter. Obama has little regard for human life, which is why he whipped up regional chaos in the "Arab Spring," by demanding the resignation of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. Obama is happy to empower radical Islamist regimes, just like Jimmy Carter. With a solid phalanx of media liars, Obama has been able to evade responsibility for three years of solid misgovernment in foreign and domestic affairs.
But the coming crisis cannot be evaded. Obama and his propaganda media will spin and spin -- before, during, and after the coming crisis between Israel and Iran. Obama wanted above all to force Israel to retreat back to 1948 or face a nuclear Iran. It was a choice between slow genocide and fast genocide.
It looks like Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, the left and the right of Israel's parliament, called Obama's bluff. No American president has ever allowed an international crisis to come so close to the brink. Obama has now allowed the Middle East to deteriorate so far that he has lost control. He now owns whatever is going to happen. His fingerprints are all over it.
Around April 1, the biggest fool of the 21st century will stand revealed to the world.
After that, the American people will have to decide.
Publicado: 02-27-2012 09:11 PM
Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths
By James Lewis
American Thinker 9/25/2008
"... the community organizer ... must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression.' Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.
"THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model."-- Hillary Clinton, BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969.
"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...."-- The Nation.
A psychopath is a person without conscience; someone who constantly breaks the moral rules of the community. Saul Alinsky was a "community organizer" who found a career that fit that personality disorder. In the Orwellian upside-down world of the Left, community organizers disorganize communities. That is the meaning of revolution, to overturn whatever exists today in the raw pursuit of one's own power.
Alinsky boasted about his close alliance with Frank Nitti, Al Capone's second in command in the Chicago Mob during the 1930s. Al Capone's Mob were domestic terrorists, and not for any noble cause either. They poisoned the Chicago politics of their era. Alinsky's close alliance with Frank Nitti tells us something crucially important today. Alinsky was also a lifelong ally of the Stalin-controlled Communist Party, at a time when Stalin was known to have murdered tens of millions of people. He was proud of building a bridge between organized crime and the power hungry Left. That tacit alliance may continue today.
Alinsky's personality fits the definition of a psychopath -- someone who has no guilt or shame toward others. But Alinsky also discovered how to teach psychopathic behavior to college students. That is the key to his success: To persuade hundreds of thousands of ignorant young people that it is much more moral to be immoral. Or, as Bill Ayers famously said, "Bring the Revolution home; kill your parents."
Bill Ayers is now a highly influential professor of education. That is not an accident; it reflects a deliberate program of radical agitation and propaganda through the school systems. If you want to know who brought down American education, Bill Ayers is part of the answer.
A lot of the Boomer Left is marked by psychopathic behavior, in politics and in the rest of life. That is why the actions of the Left are so shocking to many of us.
Alinsky's disciples -- including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- have a warlike political **noallow**. They learned politics as war from the Master.
Obama is so well-trained in Alinsky tactics that he used to teach workshops on it. That is why Obama can knowingly violate Federal law against usurping the presidential power to negotiate with Iraq before ever getting elected. Actual election to head of state by the voters means nothing, just as it means nothing to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who
have negotiated with Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in clear violation of law while serving in Congress.
Teaching hatred for the normal majority is the key to power for radicals.
But Alinsky taught that you can't easily hate millions of people. To do that effectively you need a one-person scapegoat to focus all your hatred on. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." That is the politics of personal destruction, and it doesn't matter if the target is black like Clarence Thomas, or a woman like Sarah Palin, or a severely wounded war veteran like John McCain.
That is why Obama is now instructing his followers to "get in theirfaces" of those Americans who are not down for his cause. Obama acts like a nice guy, but he is a political warmonger. He's been very clear about that: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That's the language of gang war.
The "comedienne" Sandra Bernhard suggested that Sarah Palin would be "gang-raped by blacks in Manhattan" if she dared to go there.
"Black Studies" is deliberately designed to whip up black rage and victimhood. Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis is a case in point.
Alinsky called ordinary Americans "the enemy." Normal people don't declare war on all of society. But Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals that 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 ... "
Normal, decent America is the enemy for these people.
Obama and Hillary are lifelong followers of Alinsky. They use his tactics and ideology. That is why American politics became the politics of personal destruction when the Boomer Left came to power.
These claims require proof; but we have been looking straight at the evidence since the first Clinton term. Bill Clinton fits the diagnostic description of psychopathic personality, now relabeled "antisocial personality' in the DSM IV, the official diagnostic manual for psychiatry. Three out of the
following seven criteria nails the diagnosis:
1. Failure to conform to social norms ...
2. Deceitfulness ... or conning others for personal profit or
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness ... ;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility ... ;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing
having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
I would give Mr. Clinton credit for Numbers 1, 2, 6, and 7, and possibly 3 (impulsivity) and 4 (irritability and aggressiveness). Dck Morris, who advised the Clintons for 20 years, describes dramatic scenes that certainly fit the description. Or Bill's inability to stick with a meeting agenda, impulsively running endless bull sessions at the White House. As for 5, his picking up women opportunistically and in a way that put his career, not to mention his family life and American security, at risk. The Monica affair showed an impulsive, reckless president who got into power by endless lying and conning.
Liberal Democrats used to be normal Americans before the Boomer Left rose to power. Hubert Humphrey and HarryTruman had a strong sense of American morality. They despised the Stalinist Left and fought to keep them out of the Democrat Party. They were sensitive to ordinary shame and guilt, the emotions that make us civilized. When Bob Dole asked "Where is the shame?" in the 1996 presidential election, the answer came out: Not in the modern Democrat Party. People without guilt or shame make merciless power mongers.
Normal people slow down in School Zones where kids might run across the street -- not because they're afraid of getting a speeding ticket but because they can't stand the thought of hurting kids. They don't need to cheat compulsively on wives and husbands to prove how irresistible they are. Normal people have internalized some modesty and humility, and are capable of respect and love for others. A common feature of psychopaths is the inability to feel authentic love and respect for others.
True psychopaths are often charming, seductive, and treacherous. They make natural con artists. Many psychopaths are extremely manipulative -- and what is more manipulative than stirring up hatred among victim groups to empower
oneself? That is Jeremiah Wright, the diabolical Father Pfleger, James Meeks, and by his own definition of radicals, Saul Alinsky.
The worst are "malevolent psychopaths" -- people who sadistically hurt others. Hitler and Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, and probably many famous Western intellectuals fit the description of malevolent psychopaths. That is tragic and shocking. Historian Paul Johnson presents compelling evidence for malevolent psychopathy in the life of Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, and many others in his important book Intellectuals.
Western intellectuals have been the home team of Leftist radicalism for a century now.
But the single most important point about Alinsky's "community organizing" strategy is that normal people can be trained to act like psychopaths: To become convinced that a "higher morality" allows them to act without conscience. As Alinsky wrote admiringly about V.I. Lenin, well known as a large-scale murder leader:
"Lenin was a pragmatist; ... he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot box but would reconsider after they got the guns!"
That is a laugh line, believe it or not.
Alinsky called this "pragmatic radicalism." He differed from his Communist friends only in being more practical and less ideological. Alinsky was a radical because it suited his personality, because it was fun, brought him power and
influence, and made him feel good. He was very clear in saying that, and he inspired the Boomer Left to follow his lead.
Alinsky dedicated Rules for Radicals:
"... to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."
If that doesn't send a shiver down your back, you haven't been paying attention.