Patriots, Alinskyites, and Scapegoats

Like true statesmen akin to the Founders they put everything on the line for the sake of country. In rational circles that’s called patriotism.

Ted Cruz, Tea Party, etc: Alinskyites’ Favored Scapegoat
by Allan Erickson @ ClashDaily.com

Many of us hit the streets in 2009 in protest because we could readily see this president was leading the nation in the wrong direction: massive spending inevitably leading to increased taxation, financial mismanagement tanking the economy, enormous growth in government to the injury of liberty, exploding debt and deficits putting posterity in the crosshairs, centralization of power and the erosion of our constitutional republic.

Those protests created a Republican majority in the House, the only thread holding the country back from the brink, avoiding complete collapse these last few years. Recently, more conservative Republicans decided to take a stand and fight to the finish, primarily over the criminal excesses and destructive power of ObamaCare, but also for the sake of economic health and national security overall. Like true statesmen akin to the Founders they put everything on the line for the sake of country. In rational circles that’s called patriotism.

From the beginning the group protesting government tyranny, inspiring conservative activism, has been vilified. What became known as the Tea Party was immediately and viciously attacked by Obama Democrats everywhere, especially in media. There is no rational reason for these attacks, other than the perceived threat. Oligarchs everywhere fear and hate liberty lovers. You cannot establish central, domineering authority unless you clean out those pests, by any means.

It should not surprise anyone the disciples of Saul Alinsky routinely take his advice and apply it by isolating opposition figures and attacking them mercilessly with ridicule and condemnation. Anyone familiar with spiritual warfare has been frequented by such tactics. As Alinsky accurately pointed out: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage,” especially with the aid of enormous power in media helping hammer home the message.

Ridiculing the Tea Party and anyone associated with it became the full time work of Obama Alinskyites and media. Political crucifixion became the favored pastime. Scapegoating and condemning the Tea Party became a profession for Leftists, and politicians and celebrities. A vicious war was waged, the overall aim, crushing traditionalism, a continuance of war being waged by the Left for decades. Expecting reasoned debate, bipartisanship or cooperation in this atmosphere is expecting what never was and never will be. Deep divisions leading to gridlock were created by vicious ridicule from the Left, demonization that only escalates as circumstances deteriorate across the board.

Through it all, common sense Americans simply stayed the course, calling out for reform, reminding the powerful that fiscal responsibility, free markets and constitutional republic have always served us well, and would again, if given a chance. Obama and his Alinskyites insist the door be closed forever on those opportunities, that the shining city become Detroit universal.

The truly disheartening development was seeing Republicans turn against the Tea Party, almost from the beginning. Consumed with the D.C. culture, addicted to power and money, these RINOs made a choice. To avoid the ridicule and condemnation and maintain their positions of privilege, they made a deal with the devil. They agreed to accommodate, even promote, the Obama march toward tyranny. They made their bed with the enemy and turned on their friends, blaming and condemning Tea Party Americans. Having sold out, they nonetheless asked for money and votes, helping condemn and ridicule the Tea Party while pretending patriotism.

And so today the Tea Party is blamed for the slim down, the sequester, the debt, and deficits, for looming bankruptcy and default, for downgrade and decline, when in truth, the Tea Party has been the only force for good willing to stand for principles that could be our salvation if we had more courageous leaders like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Mike Lee willing to fight for their application.

It is the height of irony, that the ones promoting proven solutions are falsely accused of creating problems, and lynched without trial, all in the name of achieving the “fundamental transformation of America”, translation: complete destruction of our way of life.

Images: William Holman Hunt (1827–1910); English: The Scapegoat; Current location: Lady Lever Art Gallery, Port Sunlight, Merseyside, England, United Kingdom; Source/Photographer: Козёл отпущения; public domain

_______________________________________________

 

Have you ever wondered what an Alinskyism is?
by Norman E. Hooben

Saul Alinsky was is probably the most influential character in American politics during the last half a century. Without getting into his life story suffice it to say that he has injected more hatred for the American way of life into the Democratic Party than any one person. Even Hillary Clinton admired this man so much that she wrote her college thesis about him. Saul Alinsky is famous in the world of liberal academia because his methods fall in line for the ultimate destruction of this Republic. For it was the Communists who took on his tactics to get control of the American educational system...just look at who controls Harvard (John Harvard would be appalled), Yale, Georgetown, UCLA, et.al. ...and the politicians they develop.
Alinsky wrote a little red book titled, "Rules For Radicals" and we can list some of them here. But before we do, I can summarize most of the book with one sentence, "Tell them one thing but do the opposite." Most Alinskyites (Alinsky followers) have been doing this since FDR (and before), Johnson did, as did Carter, Clinton, and now Obama. Take FDR for example...during his campaign he was against everything his opponent was for and yet almost all of FDR's policies were that of the guy that lost.
All of the politicians I've mentioned have the ability to preach a good sermon while expressing their patriotism and yet not one of them has ever done one good thing for the Republic for which we (the people) stand. Everything gets progressively worse over the long run (huh, is that why they like to call themselves progressives), especially the national debt and the dwindling loss of freedoms (i.e. by instituting numerous rules and regulations either by fiat, dictates by unelected government agencies, Executive Orders, and occasionally by an actual law passed by both Houses and signed by the president. I might add in this parenthetical space that it would not be illegal to disobey an EO for the president does not have the authority to make laws. You as a citizen have the responsibilty to obey laws and EO's are not laws.)
Now before Obama came onto the national scene the most influential Alinskyite was Bill Clinton who's major agenda was is one world government. He spoke of his new world order on many occasions and most of his legislative wishes were to enhance that outcome; the new world order! While the Clintons were raised in an America that they knew was founded on Judeo/Christian principles and understood that fact while at the same time despising anything to do with organized religions, their Alinsky-like influence on the American voter was accepted because they preached a good sermon. Obama however, was not raised in the traditional American household or neighborhood. His entire life has been infuenced by Communists (of which he was a member of the New American Party), Marxists, and Islamists. Obviously he was groomed for the position he now holds and he got their by making use of Alinskyisms...say one thing but do the opposite. The Judeo/Christian definition of that would be a lie. The Clintons understood that. The Islamic or Muslim defintion of that would be....aah lets see, anything you want it to mean as long as the desired outcome fits your agenda. And that's exactly what Obama is doing here: ↓ see video ↓

 

Obama is preaching a good sermon but does not believe a word of it. Remember, Obama does not have a conscience so lying with every other breath does not bother him in the least...he's after one thing; his agenda! Although his agenda includes a one world government absent of all organized religions except Islam. He's even friends with the guy that wants to place the flag of Islam over the White House, but that's another story. Meanwhile I promised I'd list some of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals...here they are:

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

By the way, even reporters have trouble getting the point across to a complacent society of voters as evidenced by the following:

Reporting for World Net Daily, author/researcher Jerome Corsi recently reported, “President Obama is continuing President George W. Bush’s effort to advance North American integration with a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty. ~ See Obama Continues Bush's Sellout Policy

If Corsi would emphasize the point by outright telling his readers that Obama lied instead of using such words as, "a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty"... "Placing the program under the radar of public opinion." Does the average reader voter really comprehend the enormity of such words as "a public relations makeover" or " deflect concerns" ? Why doesn't he come right out and say, "Obama is lying."? And that, my friends, sums up an Alinskyism, say a bunch of words that sound good and nobody will ever know what they really mean once you've said them...confusing huh!