Hat Tip: Carol
By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner
President Obama’s campaign is hammering on a Mitt Romney quote from 2007, to suggest–quite strongly–that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee would not have had the guts to approve the Usama bin Laden raid if he were president, according to a FOXNews article today.
The ad achieves a heretofore unmatched galactic level of hypocrisy and audacity, while revealing the true height of his campaign’s fear of the November election.
Since first becoming a U.S. Senator in January 2005, the most Liberal member of the U.S. Senate, voted against every measure that allowed Seal Team Six to finally send Usama bin Laden to his maker–one year ago this Wednesday.
If these [mostly] Democrat votes had carried the majority–there would be no such thing as the Afghan War, Gitmo, waterboarding, the Patriot Act, the Iraq surge and the Afghan surge.
In fact, just prior to the surge, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Democrats had the temerity to declare the Iraq War lost on the floor of the Senate, which was a huge slap in the face of our brave men and women in the U.S. military–the majority of whom are Republicans, who live by a creed of character, honor and integrity.
A stark contrast to the now totally disgraced “Occupy Wall Street” movement–openly adored by the Democrat party and funded by Labor Unions.
And as President Obama had no military or executive experience whatsoever before becoming president, the only action he likely took, other than asking questions, was to chose between the two different Seal Team Six-supplied warfighting scenarios–then autograph the order.
Once the deed was done, every mainstream media outlet banged the drums, calling Obama’s actions “gutsy and courageous”–when even he knows that it was actually the decade-long diligent pursuit of UBL by the very military he and Democrats attempted to foil at every turn.
Adding even more dishonor was the inclusion of Bill Clinton’s narrative in the ad, as it was President Clinton who was first pressed by the military to give a “go order” when they had UBL in the cross-hairs–but Clinton failed to act…perhaps because he was too busy sharing a cigar with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Toping off this tower of rich irony is the fact that while President Obama is doing the important work of performing slow jams on Jimmy Kimmel’s late night comedy show, V.P. Joe Biden has been tapped as the foreign relations spokes person for the campaign…
While appearing on Special Report with Brett Baier last Thursday, regular panel member and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer awarded Joe Biden the record for being wrong on the most issues in foreign affairs ever, over the past 30 years, according to the archived video of the segment at time line April 27, 2012, on the Theodore’s World website.
“… And the list starts with the nuclear freeze in the early ’80s against Thatcher and Reagan and Cole which is one of the follies of the era. He supported it.”
“He was against aid to the Nicaraguan Contras which in the end brought democracy and ended the Sandinista rule at the time. He was against Reagan’s expansion of the defense budget, which bankrupted the Soviet Union and led to the end of the Soviet Empire. He was against Reagan on Strategic Defenses, which is the big advantage that we have now in the missile age.”
Krauthammer concluded by saying … “And look at where he was on Iraq. He opposed the first Iraq War–the Gulf War that liberated Kuwait that everybody agrees was a good thing. [Then] he supported the Iraq War which he, not I, says was a terrible mistake. And then when the surge happened, he opposed the surge in Iraq, which rescued a losing war and ended with our leaving with our heads held high and some promise in the future.”
The ad ends with a written question: “Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?”
Barack Obama’s shot at Governor Romney’s proven, CEO-level decision-making record will likely ricochet—resulting in yet another self-inflicted wound.
By: Arlen Williams
Sabotage is our word, since we recognize the intentionality of the neo-Marxist, globalist, central bankster plan. Listen, please listen, to the words of Pierre Poilievre.
Caption at YouTube for “Pierre Poilievre – Economic Freedom Speech – Enhanced Version“:
On April 4, 2012, Pierre Poilievre, MP for Nepean-Carleton, spoke on behalf of the Government on Budget 2012 and stood up to defend Economic Freedom for all Canadians.
Well said, Pierre. Just be careful of unbridled transnational finance and trade, too. However “free” it may seem, there is rapacious destruction there too, used against the free People of free nations. For example, mercantilism and reverse mercantilism are also tools in the bag, not just communism and communitarianism. And not all that is protection is protectionism, as our Constitution afforded and instructed, by our original mandates for taxation, here in the States.
Austrian School? Why don’t we read Adam Smith again.
The time is overdue to revisit the entire realm of finance and insurance, well regulated to be truly free and thereby to adequately serve at the pleasure of the People, but that is not the work of this entry.
dedicated to What if Jack
By: Rene Guera
Playing Pin-the-Tail-on the-Donkey (i.e., Obama)
Conservative pundits don’t stop attributing to Obama personality-qualities of all sorts, e.g., “arrogant”, “narcissist”, “clueless”, “over the head”, “boy-President”, “incompetent”, “detached”, “liberal”, “progressive”, “liberal-leftist” and so forth. And then their readers, listeners and viewers go into parrot mode, repeating and repeating all that nonsense.
Now, the question then rises: why do conservative pundits resort to pegging on Obama all those appellatives in their futile attempts to pin-down/characterize him? Will it be necessary to get into an ontological analysis of Obama to determine his idiosyncrasy?
Not at all! There is absolutely no need of anything of that order, only a simple exegesis of his ideology will be necessary.
To get to an expansion on the previous statement, please first peruse the next synoptic chart:
Having gone through that chart, the answer will seem very simple; first of all, it is not a matter of idiosyncrasy to define Obama; secondly, none of those characterizations describe Obama, for the reality is that he is a very astute, sagacious, purpose-and-objective minded, consummate hardcore-Left operative that belongs in the “Western-Marxist” strain of the Marxist-Leninist sector of the ideological spectrum of the Left and who perfectly knows all what he is –purposely and maliciously– doing, and for which ulterior objectives.
He always knows what he is doing, for what purpose and with which ulterior hardcore-Left objective, which, if significant, must — per his Marxist-Leninist ideology– to the destruction of free-entrepreneurial America, and even to her physical destruction.
The thing is that –not known by the vast majority of Americans– every single Marxist on Earth actively pursues the destruction of free-entrepreneurism in America; however Marxist-Leninists go far beyond: absolutely every single Marxist-Leninist on Earth actively seeks the PHYSICAL, complete destruction of America, which they would try at the slightest opportunity they could get access to. They see America as the main obstacle to the imposition of world-socialism and, the latter, only as the steppingstone toward world-communism.
But conservative-pundits don’t “get it”, particularly when futilely attempting to understand Obama accurately.
And there may be some theories to explain the cluelessness that conservative pundits manifest when calling those names on Obama, which look more like cute hypocorisms and nice names of endearment in comparison to what he really is a most schismatic, venomous and incendiary –most malevolent, in short– Marxist-Leninist operative.
Such theories may be the following three:
- They don’t know absolutely anything about leftist ideology.
- They know but, for public consumption, they use on him all those innocuous cognomens, lest people would either get confused or not believe it if he were called for what in reality he is. In support of this second theory, the sad reality is that most of Americans are so ignorant about ideological history, particularly regarding the Left, that most think that Marxism refers to the antics of the Marx brothers, the famous comedians of the 1930s, Groucho, Harpo and Zeppo Marx.
- They know, but they are pusillanimous cowards who tremble at the idea of upsetting the public employee that has been temporarily put in place –by virtue of the crass idiocy of all those non-leftists that voted for him– in charge of the executive branch of the federal government, and nothing more. Obama is not the monarch that many conservative pundits fawn over, fear or “respect” because, as Hannity idiotically contends, “I respect the office of the presidency, thus, I have to respect the occupant”. (By the way, since Hannity respects the Catholic Church, he must respect all those pederasts and pedophiles that infest that religious institution.)
All factual evidence, however, points to theory number one as the valid one; conservative pundits –with very few exceptions– are crass ignoramuses in terms of leftist ideology. Theory number three is the runner-up.
Hence, they look like majestic fools, playing Pin-the-Tail-on the-Donkey –the cute children’s game– trying to pin on Obama any of those nonsensical characterizations. And those conservative pundits “play” the game-analogy with the aggravating circumstances that, first, the picture of the donkey (i.e., Barack Hussein Obama’s) is not tacked to any wall, but, without they knowing, to the ceiling of the room; and, second, the ceiling is higher than the 180 m.-high ceiling of the atrium of Dubai’s Burj Al Arab hotel.
And they will keep making fool of themselves all along, which no one should care; except that by not identifying whom Obama exactly is, those conservative pundits are helping him in the destruction of America. For all practical purposes, those conservative pundits are accomplices of Obama; they are inflicting a crime of laesa patria on America.
If they knew leftist ideology thoroughly, thise conservative pundits would easily know who Obama really is. And if they knew deeply what being a Marxist-Leninist means, they would readily explain to themselves, first, where all what Obama is doing today is coming from; and, secondly, foretell with precision what his next moves will be and where he will go with it.
The Dark-Sky-Snapshot Analogy
With the hardcore-Left practically in control of governance at almost all levels of governance at almost the entire nation, not knowing leftist ideology is like if, on a day of menacing clouds, you peeked out of your imaginary home in Silicon Valley -the heart of high-technology of the world and now threatened by Obama’s destructive fiscal and economy policies, and chosen only to facilitate to visualize this other analogy- and all you can see is that dark, lugubrious sky.
As you see some rays of sunlight sneak through the black clouds, you HOPE that the weather will CHANGE, and then you wonder how it’s going to be in an hour, or in three hours, or for the rest of the day, or tomorrow, or for the rest of the week; you are left only hoping that those dark clouds go away and, not even knowing where they come from, fretting –wriggling hands and crackling knuckles– that maybe more ugly weather may be in store.
With no robust knowledge of leftist ideology, you only see the Obama’s malfeasance of the day, i.e., a snapshot of today, and no more. And, maybe, in your either sheer naiveté or crass ignorance of hardcore-Left ideology, you believe that what he is flogging us today with is only one instance of malevolence, hoping that he will comport himself well next time, as an utmost public-servant and an utmost statesmanship. Or maybe you have a faint hunch that it all obeys to a pattern, but you aren’t sure or don’t know with exactitude what pattern that is…and you are left dangling, unprepared to fight back, unprepared to defeat him this time and, worse, at what he may throw on you tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and the next week, and so forth.
…But if you know leftist ideology it is like if — on that imaginary dire day of menacing clouds– you peek out of your home in Silicon Valley and, yes, all you see is that dark, lugubrious sky. But, then, you immediately turn on your computer, and then go to the Weather Channel website and click on the satellite map for the West Coast, and then you get the whole perspective.
You immediately realize that that lugubriously cloudy sky is not an isolated instance, but part of that monstrously huge weather system coming your way from far in the Pacific Ocean, and that it is coming to cause immense wreckage, and that there is much more to come along with lots of much more wreckage.
Now, you don’t have to wonder how is going to be in an hour, or in three hours, or for the rest of the day, or tomorrow, or for the rest of the week.
Now you know!!!
You know the nature and origin of those dark clouds -where they come from- and that they will not go away today, for more is coming, and you prepare and plan your activities accordingly, so as to try to ameliorate the damage that such huge weather system will unload on you. And, although you cannot change and defeat the weather –or the climate (as in manmade “climate-change” or “global-warming”), for that matter– you can, at least, prepare to survive it.
But, fortunately, in ideological/political scenarios, you definitely can make the “weather” change, and the “climate”, also…that, if you know leftist ideology well. You would know how to fend off, jiu-jitsu, and soundly defeat all the “weather” and all the “climate” that Obama and the DemocRats are viciously victimizing America with.
If you know well leftist ideology, you can explain to yourself –and to others– where in particular each destructive deed by Obama comes from and gauge its gravity and foretell where he will end. And you know also the extent of the “huge weather system” of Obama’s destructive intentions, and you can also extrapolate accurately what Obama has in store for America, and what his next moves will be. All this would behelping you to prepare more aptly to fight Obama’s destructive policies.
Knowing Leftist Ideology Opens a Comprehensive Perspective of Obama
For example, when marketing his “Buffet-Rule” tax hike, Obama doesn’t stop “justifying” it by saying, among other things, something of the order that the rich don’t need all that money they get.
To the ideologically uneducated ear, that sounds outrageous tax-hiking bullying, but there is much more to it.
First of all Obama is advancing the notion that it’s the government who is to decide how much you need, and secondly, he is telegraphing his hardcore-Left base that he is making good on his vow to keep fully engaged from the White House in “…fundamentally transforming the United States of America”…per Marx’s dictum, that is: “From each [forcefully, of course]; to each [rationed, of course] according to his NEEDS [as the government sees fit]”.
Obama is talking vintage Marxist concepts and lexicon, but all what conservative pundits see is tax hikes.
“Ah,” they adduce, “but the bottom line is that it is tax hikes; that’s what counts!”
Obama is cleverly using those tax hikes (which will not make even the slightest dent in the trillionaire deficit) only to condition Americans to, imperceptibly, accept the Marxist notion that it is the government the one to decide what one needs.
The case is that you speak and understand Americanese–the language you inherited from our Founding Fathers– whereas Obama speaks and means Leninese –the lexicon he inherited from Lenin & successors. You hear something from him and your brain, which is wired for Americanese, interprets it –logically, although sounding maybe a little bit odd to your untrained ear, sometimes making you scratch your head– as Americanese; but in reality it is pure Marxist-Leninist phraseology, the venom Obama continually spews in torrents from his mouth.
And beware that, as the consummate and seasoned Marxist-Leninist he is, he means what he says, a contention that is supported by his public statement that he doesn’t like bluster.
“Yes, Virginia, it is much more than just tax hikes…” it can be accurately and veridically said, rephrasing the famous Christmas fable of the mythological little girl, Virginia, and Santa Claus…only that this time the case being made is true.
Obama is fundamentally transforming American morality regarding taxes. He knows well and practices masterfully what his other teacher –Antonio Gramsci, the creator of Western-Leninism aka “Western–Marxism– taught him:”…when one succeeds in introducing a new morality in conformity with a new conception of the world, one finishes by introducing the conception as well; in other words, one determines a reform of the whole…”
And, here is another example of the crass ignorance of conservative pundits: The other day, in a live interview on the Fox News Channel, Herman Cain referred to the maligning of Romney’s wife by hardcore-Left DemocRat operative Hilary Rosen as “poorly chosen words…”
What a cretin!
Rosen is a Marxist, and most likely even a Western-Leninist (i.e., “Western-Marxist”), which Cain would have known…had he read Trevor Loudon’s book “Barack Obama and the Enemies Within“ (ISBN-10: 0615190743), which every serious conservative pundit should keep handy, for it virtually is a “Who’s Whom” regarding the domestic hardcore-Left around Obama.
And, had Cain bothered reading also some of the pamphlets by Lenin –the Maximum Guide of Obama and the ideological-marrow of the DemocRat Party– Cain would have readily realized on the spot that it was all along with the Leninist teaching: “Drive the bayonet through your enemy’s humanity as deep as you can and, if hitting hard-bone, pull it back and try again a couple of centimeters apart…or, if necessary, pull it altogether, to try again another day, and if necessary, on other target.”
Given the “hard-bone” that Rosen and the entire DemocRat apparatus encountered in the public’s backlash, they pulled back…to try another day, maybe on another target.
Lenin also taught them to always take two steps forward, and when facing insurmountable opposition, take one step back, which is the core message in his purposely-antithetically-titled 1904 book “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back”, with particular emphasis in the conclusions in Chapter R “A Few Words On Dialectics.”
That woman and the Obama campaign knew perfectly what they were doing; clueless, except for one or two of them, most of our pundits still don’t know.
Hence –there it is, for all to see– the vital importance that non-leftists, and particularly conservative pundits, become aware of and thoroughly familiar with hardcore-left ideology.
How to Learn Leftist Ideology at a Layman Level and Fast
I don’t harbor even the slightest pretension to teach conservative pundits anything about the ideologies of the Left; they could somehow get a good conservative scholar versed in the subject to prepare a crash course in the form of a one or two hour lecture accompanied with projection-graphics and printed material.
However –in the case of those who run talk-radio or TV-opinion shows– their producers must dig deeper, for they are the ones who must keep sifting minutely for their bosses what Obama and the rest of the hardcore-Left talks or does.
In the interim, there is the option of buying the “Rosetta Stone of Leftist Ideology”, as the following four books by politologist and ideologist Donald F. Busky are sometimes called; read them and use them as a handy reference library:
- Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union
- Communism in History and Theory: The European Experience
- Communism in History and Theory: Asia, Africa, and the Americas [including the USA, Canada and Mexico]
- Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey
Those four books will give you a decent exegetic summary of what you otherwise would find on scores of floor-to-ceiling shelves of books by either ideologues introducing and expanding on, and scholars analyzing, the several ideologies of the Left. I assure you that reading those books, or at least to use them as a ready reference, is a solid beginning.
Now, having stressed ad nauseam on the prime importance of knowing well the ideology of the entire spectrum of the Left, and with the intention not leaving you entirely empty handed on leftist ideology itself, I resort to the four very synoptic diagrams ahead to at least offer you a varnish –very thin, beware– on leftist ideologies.
Meanwhile a website is being constructed where, in the near future, you will be able to learn to some decent level of detail –and from an analytical and critical perspective– the most important nooks and crannies of Left’s ideologies and modus operandi (i.e., “praxis”, as Marx called the latter).
If those four diagrams and charts turn out difficult to read due to the compression they go through when sent out, please copy them and then paste them to a jpg-file viewer software application, such as, for example Window’s “Paint” or Microsoft Word, and view them using the magnification features of the applications or use the Windows Photo Viewer utility that comes along with Windows.
The first of the diagrams explains synoptically the taxonomy of the spectrum of the Left at its full extent, that is, encompassing, both, the softcore-Left and the hardcore-Left. Some conservative information is included, mostly for juxtapositional purposes.
The second diagram explains synoptically the ideological genealogy of the hardcore-Left, for the hardcore-Left –fully incarnated in the DemocRat Party– is the most pressing anti-American enemy-within to contain and, more importantly, to definitely defeat to ideological/political insignificance in America and, consequently, in the World. (Realize that the powerful redemptive qualities of the Tea Party movement are under carefully observation by, and inspiring, the forces of freedom throughout the world; in Europe and the Americas, increasingly more governments are getting in the hands of either conservative or at least slightly right-of-center sectors.)
The third diagram shows synoptically the milestone hardcore-Left ideologues and operatives that framed Obama’s hardcore-Left mindset, adherence and praxis.
The fourth diagram shows, synoptically, the structure of the Left in the U.S.A.
By the way, know that a good portion of the hardcore-Left ideological-marrow of the Left is in nowhere else but in the U.S. Congress Democrat Caucus. And some of them are so brazen that have come “out of the closet”, having formed what they call The Congressional “Progressive” Caucus (CPC). Please read the enormously important column about the CPC by Accuracy in Media’s renowned columnist Cliff Kincaid at http://www.aim.org/aim-column/breitbart-disciple-exposes-red-influence-in-congress/
Every year the Correspondents Dinner is held in Washington D.C. and the President is supposed to display his entertaining side as well as a major comedian is asked to more or less host and either make or break his or her career. Last night it was Jimmy Kimmel.
It’s not often that we get to see the most powerful man in the world tell jokes about eating dogs, craving cigarettes and imposing his rumored “radical socialist agenda” on the country. And yet, last night in Washington, D.C., we were treated to just that. Wait, let’s not forget the toilet flush. Did we really need to envision the president sitting on the toilet, seconds before he was to address the White House Press Corps?
See: Top Jokes From Obama’s Stand-Up Routine on the Blaze
“Saturday night‘s White House Correspondents’ Dinner was well-attended — most of the familiar faces that endure the daily press briefings and follow the president around the country put on their formal attire and squeezed into a packed Hilton ballroom to watch Barack Obama open the show for Jimmy Kimmel. There were also a healthy number of famous faces from the showbiz world: Big money Obama donors George Clooney and Steven Spielberg were there, along with Kim Kardashian, Lindsay Lohan, and members of the cast of ‘Glee’.”
As Kimmel said: “Everything (everyone) that is wrong with America!
The Obama portion of the presentation lasted 17:36 and featured the president making jokes on topics including:
- Where he was born (this one starts at 3:20, and he actually winked after saying, “And I, of course, was born in Hawaii.”)
- Eating dogs (several jokes on this topic – the biggest flop starts at the 8:35 mark of the video and has almost 30 seconds of uncomfortable reactions) – “The Difference Between a Hockey Mom and a Pit Bull? A Pit Bull is Delicious”
- His rumored, radical, second term agenda
- Mitt Romney’s wealth, two Harvard degrees, and lack of hipness
- Hillary Clinton’s beer drinking in Colombia (“she won’t stop drunk texting me from Cartagena.”)
- Celebrity attendees like Kim Kardashian and the cast of Glee
President Obama‘s presentation started with a little sketch that poked fun at his recent ’hot mic‘ episode with Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev by having the audience believe that we were listening to the leader of the free world complaining about having to be at this dinner, while sitting on a toilet. That portion ended with a flush and Obama craving a cigarette.
I watched it twice on TV with twitter up reading the comments of people live tweeting. At least the people in my circle found it to be pretty and tasteless (on both sides), but Kimmel deserves some kudos for his ‘If You Don’t Have Any Guns, You Can Ask Eric Holder to Get Some for You’: Jimmy Kimmel’s Full Routine as well as his attack on Jay Carney for knowing 3-Hillary Rosens.
But my take is that Obama played it cool and delivered a perfect Saul Alinsky Speech. If you are concerned about America and want to help turn things around or if you are politically clueless and want to get a better handle of what is going on, if you haven’t already, you need to read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals plus understand the Cloward and Piven strategy, both major parts of Obama’s playbook. Mix in a little George Soros string pulling and you are headed in the right direction. Then do a little reading and digging into who BHO’s family and friends are and who he is connected to and everything will look different!
I think Alinsky would have been proud!
“Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.” –Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky
Obama helped fund ‘Alinsky Academy’: “The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy…. Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization…. ‘Midwest describes itself as ‘one of the nation’s oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.’… Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing.”
Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties…. Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.
“Obama is also an Alinskyite…. Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project…. Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing.
While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.” (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)
The Alinsky Tactics (and of course they can be combined) from the Progressive Bible Rules for Radicals:
“Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. … Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.” p.126
Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat…. [and] the collapse of communication.
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.)
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
5. “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.”
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time….”
8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative.”
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
I think Alinsky would have been proud of Obama’s Correspondence Dinner speech… of his whole presidency.
President Obama used Alinsky’s Tactic #5 “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.”, to perfection.
He took everything that his opponents: the right in general, patriots, the GOP, people paying attention, etc. are fighting, bringing to the forefront and trying to educate the American people on and ridiculed them by ridiculing each point one by one through making it a joke… thereby making it look silly to the uninformed that anyone would question something that was so trivial that the President himself would make fun of.
Obama belittled the topics of eligibility; the hot mic incident where he essentially told the Russians to wait until he was re-elected and would have unbridled power to do what he wants; made light of eating dogs; threw in his digs at Romney for being rich and an elitist, at Gingrich for losing the GOP Primary and Hillary for drinking and partying in Cartagena; high-fived all his Hollywood celebrity friends; and basically told us to hang onto our hats for a radical second term… including reinstating ObamaCare if it was struck down and that it would be raining men during his next term (interpreted by most in the know as paratroopers and other military, including UN troops, on American soil).
Obama is the master… he told us in 2008 and wrote in his books all that he was planning to do but most of America wasn’t listening and like with Hitler… nobody read his books. And for those who were paying attention, Barack Hussein Obama’s comedy routine was only funny to those who again have not been paying attention.
“Again, thank you for inviting me. You have prepared food, so I will not be rude, I will stay and eat. Let’s have one good meal here. Let’s make it a feast. Then I ask you, I plead with you, I beg you all, walk out of here with me, never to come back. It’s the moral and ethical thing to do. Nothing good goes on in this place. Let’s lock the doors and leave the building to the spiders, moths and four-legged rats.” – Conclusion of Robert Wenzel’s April, 2012 speech delivered at the New York Federal Reserve Bank
By: Tom Tancredo
President Obama’s taxpayer-financed re-election campaign roared into Colorado last week after tax-payer financed stops in North Carolina, Iowa and elsewhere. But give the man credit: Obama has achieved a near impossible contradiction by embodying and popularizing a new oxymoron. The abuse of Air Force One as a campaign platform is both stunning and blatant—and a transparent hypocrisy that only Obama could get away with.
President Barack Obama waves after speaking at the Coors Events Center on the CU-Boulder campus.
(Photo by Casey A. Cass/University of Colorado)
The occasion for his Colorado campaign stop was another shot fired in his war on youth. That war has not received as much press attention as the Republicans’ alleged “war on women,” but that is not hard to understand. The first is real but ignored by the press, while the other is a rhetorical fabrication that serves the interests of the Obama campaign. No surprises here.
The “youth vote” is supposedly deep in Obama’s pocket, and suggesting otherwise is too heretical to disturb the slumber of the herd of lambs that passes for a bulldog press these days.
But let’s consider the crown jewel of the Obama campaign’s “youth appeal,” his pandering to college students who have large and growing student loan debts.
This past week Obama came west to speak on the campus of the University of Colorado at Boulder. What was the message offered by this paragon of social conscience? It was a straight-forward appeal to naked, monetary self-interest: “Help me persuade the Republicans in Congress to extend the low interest rates on your student loans.” How does that stack up against John Kennedy’s appeal to join the Peace Corps?
And how will this change to lower interest rates be managed without increasing the federal deficit? Obama proposes to fund this gift to students by increasing taxes on the people who create the jobs in our economy—small business. Again the hypocrisy: students are asked to rally for lower interest rates on their student loans by ignoring or denying the very predictable impact on jobs—their parents’ jobs, their neighbors’ jobs, and yes, their own future jobs.
In contrast to his 2008 “Hope and Change” appeal, the Obama campaign is now reduced to appealing to youth’s fears— well-founded fears of graduating with dismal prospects for a good-paying job. According to a recent survey, over half of recent college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed. Will they blame George Bush or Obama’s anti-economy?
What’s that old saying among salesmen? “Sell the sizzle, not the steak.” But college graduates with an average of $25,000 in debt — and their worried parents — want more than sizzle on their plate, especially if the “Obama sizzle” is the Blame Bush mantra that has lost its flavor. Obama hopes students and their parents will forget not only Obama’s anti-jobs policies but also the fact that college tuition has risen 25% in the three years since his election.
The missing steak is starting to be noticed by young voters. Obama’s pollsters are telling him about declining enthusiasm among the under thirty audiences compared to the feverish activism of 2008. Here’s a hint to David Axelrod: Students would not be so worried about the loan rates if they had any confidence in the Obama anti-economy.
“Follow your dreams,” Obama told the students assembled in Boulder last week. Well, it may be news to Obama and his team, but here in Colorado, few students have dreams of becoming community organizers funded by federal government grants.
College students have dreams of good jobs in the real world, but unfortunately for Obama’s campaign, those dreams are threatened by Obama’s anti-economy. Young voters are discovering that it is literally true that Obama does not care about job creation—unless it is a government funded job. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in economics to follow the dots between Obama’s planned tax increases and declining job creation in the world of America’s job creators, small business.
In any other era, a political appeal to naked self-interest on a college campus would be deemed crass and embarrassing, but to Obama, college youth are just one more voting block to be bribed with government goodies. But young people understand that after adding $5 trillion in new federal debt, Obama’s anti-economy is just not working.
What if you’re under thirty and NOT going to college? Good luck getting a good blue collar job in Obama’s world, where unemployment in the construction trades is above 20%. But, hey, Obama’s EPA is hiring more lawyers, and we all know how “jobs-friendly” they are!
When a young voter in Michigan or Ohio or Florida fills up the gas tank on his Mini Cooper, is he thanking Obama for deliberately driving up gas prices to $5 a gallon? Or is he asking himself, “Do I really need a president who hopes for European gas prices of $8?”
Obama’s war on youth is the war of low expectations: instead of a nation of young entrepreneurs, Obama wants a nation of young bureaucrats — government clerks, poultry inspectors and IRS agents. Yes, Uncle Obama can help you get a government grant if THAT is following your dream. But young Americans’ dreams are bigger than that.
“Hope and change”? Today’s young voters are starting to look at Obama’s anti-jobs economy and realize they need to PRAY for change.
In 2008, Obama’s promises seemed fresh and appealing to young voters. But in 2012, they will look instead at the cold reality of Obama’s abysmal performance.
It is our distinct honor to now carry the commentaries and reports of Tom Tancredo, former Representative to Congress of the State of Colorado and 2008 candidate for U.S. President. His CongressmanTomTancredo.com regularly features his articles, as does WorldNetDaily.
Former Congressman Tancredo currently serves as chairman of Rocky Mountain Foundation, co-chairman of the anti-illegal immigration Team America PAC, and honorary chairman of Youth for Western Civilization. He speaks frequently on cable news, talk radio, and on college campuses – where his mere presence has led leftists to riot on multiple occasions. His book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security was published in 2006.
Photo from 2008 with USSR flag added by Gulag Bound