Tag Archives: Saul Alinsky

Social Capitalism

I have struggled for two weeks to get this posting out. Even as I write, I cannot reconcile exactly where I should stand on the issue of supporting businesses that absolutely offend my sensibilities as a consumer. The genesis of this posting began when I read about all of the companies that pulled their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh Show. I am not here to defend or support what Rush Limbaugh said,  (he can do that himself), only that he has the right to say whatever he wants. What struck me as appalling was the speed and efficiency in which the left was able to mobilize to bring Rush down. We all know, or should know, the progressives have entire organizations dedicated to listening to conservative voices, waiting for the perfect moment to be offended so that they can snuff out free speech they disagree with.

I must say that I was quite awestruck by the fact that a minority of people, 20% liberal if we go by the latest Gallup survey I could find, could force companies into action despite the fact that 42% of Americans identify themselves as conservatives in that same poll. (Apparently 38% of the people have no idea what they believe in, will not take a stand and they’re called moderates.) With self-righteous indignation I was angered by the fact that companies like Carbonite and ProFlowers.com would acquiesce so quickly to such a small group of people and while I don’t have the purchasing demographics for these companies, I almost have to believe that there are more people purchasing their products and services on the recommendation from a Beck or a Limbaugh or a Levine than the left could ever muster up the support for. (Full disclosure: I tried Carbonite based on one of these recommendations – it didn’t work for me – and I give my wife a box of Sheri’s Berries, a subsidiary of Provide Service which owns ProFlowers, every year, again based on one of these recommendations.)

The original intent of this posting was to point out the fact that these 26 or 27 companies had made a choice. In the name of social Marxism, they would cave to this small but highly vocal group despite the fact that people that label themselves as conservatives are the actual majority of the population. I intended to point out the fact that they could get away with this because we, as conservatives wouldn’t do a damned thing about it. This was going to be a rallying call to all conservatives that believe in the free markets and our freedom of speech to get out there and vote with your purchasing power and call these companies up and let them know that you will not do business with a company that has zero regard for you and what you believe in. All I needed was a few days to think about the best way to articulate how we can make a real difference by supporting other businesses that care about all of their customers. We would take on the defense of our causes by employing the lefts’ tactics. Saul Alinsky would not be remembered if his tactics did not work. And then the wheels started falling off in my thinking….

I believe in capitalism. Not the crony-capitalism of the General Electric / General Motors variety, but true free market capitalism. And while I stand firm on what I’ve previously mentioned, I can’t say that I’m for using the progressive tactic of calling for boycotts every time I disagree with someone. (Note: To be fair, I just found out that some conservatives are also looking at the tactic in the research of this article.) I’m not even sure how effective boycotts are, when they’re actually implemented. Off of the top of my head I do not recall hearing of a boycott that was truly effective in hurting a business’s bottom line. But then again, it’s hard to measure the effectiveness of what a boycott can actually do when any group of fifty people can call, claim they were offended, threaten a boycott and meet their goal of suppressing freedom of speech in the name of tolerance. (Don’t spend too much time thinking about that last sentence; it’s mind numbing when you do.)

However I do believe in personal responsibility when it comes to making purchasing choices but even this has significant downside. I pride myself for the fact that I refuse to pay money to HBO because of what Bill Maher spews out about people – specifically conservative women and people of faith. He has the right to be on cable and say whatever he wants and I have the right not to support the company that supports him. It is hard for me to understand why anyone that calls themselves conservative would pay HBO for their services so that HBO can pay Bill Maher for his services so that Bill Maher can donate one million dollars to a progressive super-PAC. This is an easy case for me to make because there are several choices out there for watching movies and while I do have some movie channels, I rarely watch movies anyway.

What about products this author really likes? I’ll apply the same logic to ice cream. Ben and Jerry’s has some of the best flavors put in pints and they’re everywhere and easy to get. But according to an ABC News story, founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are giving money to the Resource Movement Group, a group designed to fund this year’s Occupy Wall Street protests. Their website openly supports everything I’m against. Using the same argument as delivered in the previous paragraph, every time I purchase a pint of Ben and Jerry’s, I’m paying Ben and Jerry to support and advertise for the OWS movement. So much for “Pistachio Pistachio” and “Everything But The…”. The argument for voting with your wallet remains as sound as ever but the practical application of that argument can be very difficult when the purchasers’ choice is to accept a product of lesser quality. I apologize in advance to the fans of Haagen-Dazs. I made the switch but they’re really not the same.

I’ve “war gamed” these issues with several different people over the past couple of weeks and the conversations ranged from, “whatever we do doesn’t make a difference anyway” to “well, if you’re going to stop buying Ben and Jerry’s, you should stop buying Unilever products as well since they own them”. If this is the case, I’ll need more time to get rid of my Lipton iced tea. I really don’t know what the “answer” is. My next jeans purchase will not be Levi’s. My next pint of ice cream will not be Ben and Jerry’s. My wife will get something that’s not Sheri’s Berries next Valentines Day. But is it even possible to stop doing business with every single company that pulled their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh show to make the point that we are the majority and respect the freedom of ideas – even if we don’t always agree with those ideas?

20% of the population has figured out a way to set the agenda for the entire country. They set the tone and decide what the rest of the country is allowed to say and how they are to say it. I read somewhere that Vladimir Lenin was able kick off the Russian Revolution with 10% of the population. We might want to figure this one out.

Authors Note: In my research for this posting I read a little about the history of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream. It is one of the greatest capitalism stories I have ever read all the way to the point that they even won the title of U.S. Small Business Persons of the Year, awarded by President Regan. And yet they support the anti-capitalist movement. Figure that one out.

Advertisements

Why Left Fears Hitler Comparisons

The left cannot afford to have Obama compared with Hitler

Last week, a two hundred-member Iowa Tea Party group erected a billboard in downtown Mason City, Iowa, depicting three people under the headings of “National Socialism”, “Democratic Socialism” and “Marxist Socialism”. Underneath the headings were pictures of Hitler, Obama, and Lenin. Immediately the left went into attack mode because, according to it, the billboard compared Obama to Hitler. There were no complaints about comparing him with Lenin and there is a good reason why not.

After more than a hundred-and-fifty years of the abject failure of socialism all over the world, it is essential that the left deny the lessons of history, in order to sell its failed policies. As its grip on America’s education system grew during the last half of the twentieth century, the left began to revise American history in education curricula at every level. Contexts and facts concerning important historical characters and events important to the development of America were changed to present them in a negative light. Since World War Two, the left has worked diligently and successfully to place Hitler to the right on the political spectrum in the minds of the American people.

Historically the American left has shown an admiration for socialism as it gained strength in other parts of the world. In the late nineteenth century, it worked to spread the teachings of Marx and Lenin in America. After the communist revolution in Russia, many Americans traveled to Russia to study its social and government structure, returning to America with glowing reviews. During the Great Depression, a lot of the American Left transferred its admiration from Communist Socialism to the National Socialism of Germany.

After World War Two, the left again switched its high regard for socialism, this time to Asia. The left’s love affair with socialism and communism reached its height during the Viet Nam era. It was during that period that the left adopted the doctrine of “politically correct speech” from Communist China as an effective means for controlling political and social debate in America. Self-respecting socialists of the sixties and seventies delighted in quoting passages from Mao’s “little red book”.

National Socialism as practiced in Germany fell out of favor with the American left during and after World War Two because of the genocide and cruelty of Germany’s concentration camps. Germany simply went too far even for the most dedicated American Socialist. Since then, the left has worked to convince the American people that the atrociousness and brutality of Nazi Germany were the product of right wing political policies. Aside from the revulsion toward Hitler in the American mind, there is another reason why the left cannot afford to have Obama associated with German National Socialism.

During the twentieth century, communism and socialism spread throughout Europe, Asia and to a limited degree, South and Central America. Totalitarian socialism, for the most part, has been spread through revolution or military conquest, with one major exception: Nazi Germany. Only three totalitarian socialist leaders of any consequence have risen to power through the democratic process. Hitler, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Barack Obama. Admittedly Chavez and Obama are still works in progress, and the outcome for Obama is far from certain, however, the similarity in their rise to power cannot be denied other than by closing our eyes to history.

With each passing news cycle, it is getting more difficult for the national media to camouflage the true agenda of the Obama Administration. In order for American socialists (progressives) to reach their ultimate goal of a Socialist America, it must accomplish three major objectives, the dismantling of our capitalist economy, the fragmentation of our common culture and the destruction of our Constitution. In the eighteen months Obama has been in office, he has made amazing progress toward all three of these objectives.

Marshalling the socialist elements that have been growing in government for the past seventy-five to one-hundred years, Obama has focused single-mindedly on getting the nation to a point of no return during his four years in office. Following the Marxist-Alinsky playbooks, so succinctly summed up in Emanuel’s famous quote, “never let a good crisis go to waste”, he has used the EPA, the Justice Department, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Treasury Department to inflict, what may be irreparable damage on both the Economy and the Culture.

Nowhere is the Obama agenda more transparent than the events surrounding the Gulf Oil Spill and the lawsuit brought against the state of Arizona over its immigration law enforcement bill. His exploitation of both these events to fracture our culture and damage our economy cannot be denied. Even after losing two consecutive lawsuits concerning his moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, he refuses to accept the court’s decisions. Rather than accept the federal government’s constitutional requirement to protect our borders, he chose to file a lawsuit against Arizona to prevent it from protecting its citizens from the effects of a foreign invasion across its borders.

The damage already caused by the Obama policies will take years and maybe generations to heal. The only good news in the gloom brought about by the election of Obama is the slow but sure awakening of the American people. In less than four months we will find out if America is capable of recovery, or if we have reached the point prophesied by Benjamin Franklin, becoming so corrupted as a people that we cannot be ruled by any means other than despotism.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Blueprint for Revolution

minute-man-2-lithoIn just four short months, President Barack Obama has unofficially suspended the Constitution and the rule of law.  Without the authorization of Congress or the consent of the people, he has nationalized America’s premier industrial business and placed generations of citizens yet unborn under the burden of unsupportable debt.  In the process, he has declared de facto war on capitalism.

Adhering to the philosophy of Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx and following the lead of Hugo Chavez, he seems to be on a path that will place him in complete control of the government within a very short time.  By appointing a series of Czars, with unprecedented powers reporting only to him, above the heads of Cabinet departments authorized by Congress, he has effectively taken control of the key government bureaucracies, most of which are unconstitutional to begin with.

George Washington, in 1796 warned of the danger of a charismatic leader getting control of a dominant political party in a time of crisis, and using his position as a springboard to despotism, to the detriment of liberty and freedom.  With uncanny accuracy, he described the ascension of  Barack Obama.

The election of Obama to the office of President is shaping up to be the most colossal mistake ever made by the American electorate in the history of our nation.  There are three seemingly insurmountable obstacles to correcting that mistake; (1) the unsupportable optimism of the American people that refuses to believe any President could ever aspire to a position of totalitarian power, (2) seventy-five years of conditioning by the incremental advances of liberalism that prepared us to accept totalitarianism without being aware of it, and (3) the blasé temperament of the average citizen that keeps them in ignorance of political reality.

We can accept the yoke of socialist tyranny, or we can cast off that yoke before it becomes so entrenched it cannot be removed without armed revolution.  Based on the speed with which Obama has moved to consolidate his power during his first months in office, waiting until 2012 or 2014 to take decisive action will condemn future generations to a wretchedness never before experienced in our history. Fortunately for us, the Founding Fathers left us the means of correcting our mistakes in choosing leaders, without the use of violence or resorting to arms.

Success depends on the American people deciding they value their liberties more than the idle promises of socialism.  Reversing the damage administration policies have already done, and will continue to do, to our economy and our freedom will require elected representatives with a level of patriotism not seen since the Continental Congress of 1776.  It will require the replacement of most of our elected officials, including those who “bring home the bacon” to our own communities.

The first step is to elect only candidates with a clear understanding of and fidelity to the Constitution.  In addition, they must have the courage to stand in opposition to those who insist on ignoring or violating the Constitution even when it seems politically unpopular to do so.  If we are to turn control of Congress back to the people, we must reject any elected official of whichever party, that has shown an ignorance of the Constitution or a willingness to ignore it in order to support unconstitutional policies for political expediency.  The 2010 elections are critical to our future as a free republic.

The second step is to establish a very real threat of recall for any elected or appointed official who violates his or her oath of office by violating or ignoring the requirements of the Constitution by usurping authority not delegated to them by the Constitution.  Many states have provisions for recall in their constitutions.  The Founders incorporated a similar provision in the Constitution, although it remains unrecognized by the average citizen and unacknowledged by the average politician.  The recall provision in the Constitution by which officials may be removed from office is seldom used other than in partisan political squabbles between the two parties.  However, that does not mean it is not a valid instrument for enforcing fidelity to the Constitution. The authority for recall is found in Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution,

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Politicians have done a good job of misleading the American people into believing the grounds for impeachment is limited to criminal activities such as treason, bribery and other forms of corruption.  They are able to do this because few citizens understand the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  However, those who debated and eventually agreed on the wording of the Constitution were quite familiar with the phrase.

Ilona Nickels, of C-Span gives us some insight into the meaning of the phrase.

“High crimes and misdemeanors” entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment — treason and bribery — were not enough. He worried that other “great and dangerous offenses” might not be covered, and suggested adding the word “maladministration.” Madison argued that term was too vague, so Mason then proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a phrase well known in English common law. In 18th century language, a “misdemeanor” meant “mis-demeanor,” or bad behavior (neglect of duty and corruption were given as examples), while “high crimes” was roughly equivalent to “great offenses.”

In 1974 during the “Watergate Scandal” of Richard Nixon, the House Judiciary Committee identified three categories in which Congress had issued articles of impeachment in the past:  “(1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.”

The sole purpose of impeachment is for the removal from office of officials who fail to fulfill their oath of office or effectively execute their duties.  That impeachment is unrelated to criminal activity is further indicated by the clause in Article 1, Section 3,

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

In the next election, voters need to execute a wholesale replacement of elected officials in both parties, to be followed by holding those elected accountable for enforcing adherence to the Constitution.  Fidelity to the Constitution is not a political question; it is a question of freedom.  Those who argue that the meaning of the Constitution is a matter of interpretation are being intellectually dishonest and endeavoring to advance their own agenda ahead of the welfare of the American people.

A Conservative Manifesto

liberty-bellWhen your competition “whupps” your butt time after time, perhaps it’s time to take a look around and see what it’s doing that you are not, and what you can adapt to your own ends.  In the political world, socialism has been beating conservatism in election after election and on issue after issue since 1932.  One of the reasons for this may be that most Americans outside of the socialist movement do not really take them seriously.  In fact, I believe it is safe to say that most Americans do not even know what socialism is, other than a vague sense that it’s a more or less a benign political movement similar to communism only not a dangerous.

If you take socialist policies one by one, it’s fairly easy to find some benefit from them and to the average person they seem to be more helpful than harmful; for example, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, head start, etc., etc.  Few of us can refuse a “free lunch”; therefore, we accept the benefits and ignore the consequences.  However, we are rapidly getting to the point where we can no longer ignore the consequences of socialism.

We have just elected a socialist President and a socialist majority in Congress.  Yeah, I know we elected them as Democrats, but so what?  It’s easy to be a socialist and belong to the Democratic Party.  Quite a few socialists are even members of the Republican Party.  Socialism has nothing to do with which political party one belongs to.  It has to do with what political and economic policies one subscribes to.  And if you have a working knowledge of socialism, you know that most democrats are socialists.

The benefits of socialist policies only continue as long as there is capitalist money to pay for them.  Socialism by itself, without capitalism, can only generate enough material goods for the bare necessities of life.  That’s not just a theory.  It’s the verdict of a hundred years of global history where socialism has been tried.

Since the number one goal of socialism is the destruction of capitalism, logic says that with each incremental advance of socialism, capitalism diminishes.  It is easily provable that the prosperity of America is the product of liberty and capitalism.  It is equally provable that most of our economic woes and social ills are the consequence of the creeping socialism that has been permeating our society for the past eighty years or so.

The only effective antidote to the socialist movement in American is the conservative movement.  For decades, the conservative movement has coasted along as the base of the Republican Party, perhaps slowing down the socialist movement but seldom beating it and never stopping it.  That role for conservatism is no longer adequate for the circumstances we face today.  Socialism cannot be accommodated, it must be defeated.

In order to defeat them, we must first understand who they are and how they operate.  The socialist movement gained a foothold in America through the industrial union movement during the thirties and forties.  It achieved its successes utilizing the tactics immortalized later in the book by Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”.  With the decline of the Industrial sector of the economy, socialist dominated unions simply moved into the public sector.  Today the bulk of union membership is in the public sector rather than the private sector.  The maturation of the union movement in America gives us a perfect model for the progress in the lifespan of socialism.

I am not anti-union.  During some fifty plus years in the workforce, I was a member of several unions: the Teamsters, IBEW, and the Sheet Metal Workers, to name a few.  As a union member, I received above average wages with better than average benefits like healthcare, job security, etc.  However, all the companies I worked for either went out of business or moved to another state in order to rid themselves of the union expense and tax burdens.

Perhaps the best example of unionism is to be found in the automobile industry.  For more than three decades the automobile industry, headquartered in Detroit was the backbone of the American economy.  “What’s good for General Motors is good for America” is a slogan I have heard many times over the years.  Today the City of Detroit and the state of Michigan is among the most depressed areas in America.  General Motors is losing billions of dollars every quarter, and not just because of high gasoline prices and a sluggish economy.  The industry can no longer support the demands of the autoworker unions and government regulations.  The result is that much of automotive manufacturing has been taken over by foreign manufacturers operating overseas or in “right-to-work” states. Other heavily unionized industries like the steel, mining, railroad, and manufacturing have met the same fate.

Aside from unions, a more successful example of socialism can perhaps be found in its organization.  The socialist movement in America does not have a monolithic organizational structure.  It is rather a decentralized, diverse association of various single-issue groups with a unified purpose.  Some of the groups that form the base of the socialist movement are the environmentalists, feminists, civil rights groups, unions, community organizing groups, and the Democratic Party. In addition, the socialist movement has a large following in academia, primary and secondary education, government bureaucracies, media outlets, and the entertainment industry.

The political activities of the socialist movement are best illustrated by the Democratic Socialist of America.  The DSA is the largest and most successful socialist organization in America and is the American affiliate of Socialists International.  Unlike the Socialist Party USA, and the Communist Party USA, the DSA does not run political candidates in elections.  Instead, it supplies advice, financial and manpower support to other party’s candidates for public office, usually Democrats.  In Congress, it works through the Democratic Progressive Caucus.  The DSA endorsed and supported Barack Obama in his bid for the Illinois Senate and in his unsuccessful run for the U.S. Congress.  He was also a member for a short time of the now-defunct “New Party” set up by the DSA leadership to promote candidates for public office.

If there is a secret to the socialist movement’s successes, it probably is to be found in two facts.  First, it has a consistent, written set of principles, policies, objectives and strategies found in the Communist Manifesto of 1888 and the Alinsky book “Rules for Radicals” published in 1972.  A concise summary of socialist strategies can be found in the Q & A section of the DSA website. Second is their decentralized political activity that allows it to operate “below the radar”.  The best known of its political action groups is ACORN with its nationwide network of community organizing and training groups.

What can conservatives learn from the socialist’s successes? One of the most important features of the socialist movement is its relationship with the Democratic Party.  It moderates its negative image among the American people by keeping an “arms length” association with the Democratic Party, promoting its agenda through surrogates with no documented ties to any of the socialist groups.  Obama is one of the few exceptions.  Another is Senator Bernie Sanders who is a member of DSA.  The only demonstrable connection between most of the Democratic leadership and the socialist movement is a shared agenda.

This arrangement allows for the defeat of socialist surrogates at the polls without diminishing the prestige or influence of the socialist movement.  For example, if Barack Obama had lost the election, it may have been a setback to the socialist movement, but the American public would have been unaware of it and its influence over the Democratic Party would not be lessened at all.  On the other hand, the defeat of John McCain created serious repercussions for the conservative movement.

Another important feature of the socialist movement is the uniformity provided by its written documents.  A socialist is a socialist, whether sitting in a congressional office or teaching a class at Harvard or the University of Chicago, or providing a commentary on MSNBC. They are all consistently promoting the same agenda.  Contrast this with members of the conservative movement. We have conservatives, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, plus any number of shades and degrees of each.  In addition to those in the Republican Party, there are also those in the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party and the occasional independent party, often working at cross-purposes with each other.

That’s why I propose that conservatives adopt a universal set of uniform principles, policies and objectives that will permit us to present a consistent message to the electorate.  The good news is that we do not have to convene a convention or spend months in debate and drafting of documents to come up with a conservative manifesto.  That work has already been done.  The documents I propose as a Conservative Manifesto are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.  Both are plainly written and easily understood.  All we have to do is educate the general public and ourselves as to their contents and importance.

Please copy and e-mail the following link to a friend: http://constitutionsentinel.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/a-conservative-manifesto/


Jesus, Obama and Community Organizing

Obama has made his experience as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side the centerpiece of his campaign for President. Backers of his campaign expressed offense in response to Sarah Palin’s remark in her speech at the Republican Convention, “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.”

The morning after Palin’s speech, Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe sent out a fund-raising e-mail.  In it he said, “They insulted the very idea that ordinary people have a role to play in our political process.  Let’s clarify something for them right now. Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies.”

That may be effective campaign rhetoric but it sheds little light on the activities or goals of the professional “community organizer”.  In fact, it is somewhat misleading.  When a citizen gets fed up with conditions in his or her community, whether caused by the local school board or neighborhood gangs, or when they get enough of the neglect by their local governments and decide to join with their neighbors in demanding action on the problems from their elected officials, that is legitimate “community organizing”.  This type of organizing is American to the core and is protected by our Constitution.

However, that is not the type of community organizing Barack Obama was engaged in.  The professional community organizer is not so concerned with problem solving as with the act of organizing.  In fact, many times the organizer has no prior connection to the community being organized and has no idea what the problems are that need solving before canvassing the neighborhood to see what they can stir up.  So it was with the organizing career of Obama.

Community organizing as a profession originated from the settlement houses made popular in the early part of the twentieth century to aid immigrants in their acclimation to the American culture.  Jane Addams, (1860-1935) is credited with being the founder of the settlement house movement.  Counselors for these centers came to be known as “social workers” and provided a recognized and valuable service to their communities.

Community organizing is an offshoot of the original profession of social worker.  From the beginning, it has been closely associated with the socialist movement in America. The Democratic Socialists of America lists community organizing, along with feminism, environmentalists and the Congressional Progressive Caucus as being among the groups making up the socialist coalition.

Saul Alinsky of Chicago is credited with being the originator of the term “community organizer”.  His 1971 handbook, “Rules for Radicals” has become the “bible” for organizers who apply his methods to their work.  Most professional organizers today are part of a national network of groups carrying out various “community organizing” activities.  Some of the best-known groups making up this network are the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Direct Action and Research Training Center (DART) and the Industrial Areas Foundation.

Obama worked for a group affiliated with the Industrial Areas Foundation, a direct outgrowth of Saul Alinsky’s Chicago efforts.  After graduating from Columbia, Obama set his sights on becoming a community organizer.  He was eventually hired by Jerry Kellman of the Developing Communities Group in Chicago.  When Kellman left the group a year later, Obama became the director.

After two years as director, Obama decided that the most effective means for reaching his goals was through politics and law.  Consequently, he enrolled in Harvard Law School.  After earning his degree, he returned to Chicago and entered politics through a “get out the vote” drive while working for a law firm representing community organizing groups.

You will notice that whenever mentioning Obama’s work as a community organizer he is said to have worked for a “church based group”.  This is common with community organizers.  Among the first task a community organizer undertakes is to organize the local churches and business establishments as a part of their efforts.  In Obama’s case, the church organizational structure already existed from the efforts of Saul Alinsky and those who came after him.

The association between churches and community organizers serve two purposes.  It opens up doors to the community at large and provides a spiritual element to their work. Often organizers who may or may not be religious in their own lives will join a leading church in the community to add legitimacy to their efforts.  That is what brought Obama to be a member of Trinity Church.

It is common for left wing groups to use Christian jargon to promote their agenda, while at the same time, condemning any expression of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the public square.  They routinely appeal to Christian principles for promoting their socialist programs, implying that to oppose them is non-Christian.  In the past couple of weeks a new mantra has gained currency among Obama supporters; “Jesus was a community organizer”.

I do not presume to know the mind of Jesus although I have been a Christian since the age of twenty, fifty-four years ago.  However, based on the biographies written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the early history of the Christian Church written by Luke in the Book of Acts, and the epistles of Paul, Mark, Peter, John and Jude, I can safely say without fear of contradiction, Jesus was no socialist and certainly was no community organizer.

There is no record of Jesus or any of the Apostles ever asking anything from government. Great crowds followed Jesus wherever he went, but he never encouraged them to petition Caesar to solve their problems.  The ministry of Jesus was directed toward turning men and women to God and the acceptance of himself as personal savior and messiah.

He did teach the Christian duty of helping those less fortunate, giving to the poor and coming to the aid of those in need.  However, this was taught as the personal duty of Christians as individuals, or collectively of the Church.  Never did he suggest taking from “rich” non-believers and distributing to the poor, or taking from Christians and distributing to non-believers.  The concept of “wealth redistribution” is a socialist concept not Christian.

Christians in the early church did practice a form of wealth sharing for a short time.  In Acts 2:44 Luke records “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”  Again in Acts 4:32 we read, “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed were his own; but they had all things common.”

This arrangement, however, due to the fallen nature of man, did not work out too well and had to be eventually abandoned.  There were too many who took advantage of the largess and instead of working depended on others for their sustenance.

By the time Paul penned his second epistle to the Thessalonians the practice had been abandoned and Paul wrote to the Church, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.”  ~II Thess. 3:10-12.

In addition to not being a Christian principle, socialism and “community organizing” as practiced by the professional organizers is not sanctioned by the Hebrew Bible either.  It is a direct violation of the Tenth Commandment:  “Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”  ~ Deuteronomy 5:21

Socialism and community organizing depends on the envy and resentment of the success of others in order to succeed.  The primary goal of the community organizer is to agitate this resentment to the point where members of the target community are ready to take action.  In the words of Saul Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals, the objective is to “rub raw the sores of discontent”.  By the way, Alinsky dedicated his book to “Lucifer, the First Radical”.


Obama’s America

Barack Obama continued his tirade against America on Friday before “carbon-footing” across the Pacific to Hawaii for a short vacation. A new poll indicates that about 70% of Americans are getting tired of Obama‘s constant presence in the media. After a year of 24/7 praise from the media coupled with a year of 24/7 condemnation of America by Obama the message is beginning to wear a little thin.

In his speech, Obama continued his most recent theme, bemoaning America’s addiction to oil and promising to break that addiction by giving us a substitute: an energy “methadone cocktail”, consisting of wind, sun, ethanol and electricity. What strikes me most about Obama’s campaign as I look over the transcripts of his various speeches are the similarities of the America Obama sees in 2008 and the America his predecessor, Saul Alinsky saw forty years ago.

In his Friday speech in Elkhart, Indiana Obama started with,

“We meet at a moment when this country is facing a set of challenges unlike any we’ve ever known. Right now, our brave men and women in uniform are fighting two different wars while terrorists plot their next attack. Our changing climate is putting our planet in peril and our security at risk. And our economy is in turmoil, with more and more of our families struggling with rising costs, falling incomes, and lost jobs.”

Shortly before his death in 1972, Saul Alinsky granted an extensive interview to a writer from Playboy Magazine. In discussing his upcoming plans for organizing America’s middle class Alinsky had this to say:

“They’re oppressed by taxation and inflation, poisoned by pollution, terrorized by urban crime, frightened by the new youth culture, baffled by the computerized world around them. They’ve worked all their lives to get their own little house in the suburbs, their color TV, their two cars, and now the good life seems to have turned to ashes in their mouths. Their personal lives are generally unfulfilling, their jobs unsatisfying, they’ve succumbed to tranquilizers and pep pills, they drown their anxieties in alcohol, they feel trapped in long-term endurance marriages or escape into guilt-ridden divorces. They’re losing their kids and they’re losing their dreams. They’re alienated, depersonalized, without any feeling of participation in the political process, and they feel rejected and hopeless. Their utopia of status and security has become a tacky-tacky suburb, their split-levels have sprouted prison bars and their disillusionment is becoming terminal.”

Obama’s descriptions of America are not as elaborate or detailed as Alinsky’s, but the premise has not changed. Obama’s evaluation has been updated to accommodate the intervening forty years of agitation by environmentalists but the idea is still the same. “America stinks, and it’s up to us to set it right”.

“The despair is there; now it’s up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change. We’ll give them a way to participate in the democratic process, a way to exercise their rights as citizens and strike back at the establishment that oppresses them, instead of giving in to apathy. We’ll start with specific issues — taxes, jobs, consumer problems, pollution — and from there move on to the larger issues: pollution in the Pentagon and the Congress and the boardrooms of the megacorporations. Once you organize people, they’ll keep advancing from issue to issue toward the ultimate objective: people power.” —Alinsky

The entire Presidential campaign of Obama seems to be a twenty-first century continuation of the organizing work of Saul Alinsky on a national scale. The tactics are the same; trash the dominant institutions and agitate his followers to demand change. To both Alinsky and Obama the great American experiment in self-government is a failure. Instead of seeing a nation of unlimited opportunity and freedom, they see an America of despair and oppression.

They would have us believe that their solutions would result in a nation of equality, justice, security and prosperity for all. Instead, the closer they come to success in implementing their remedies the closer we come to becoming the nation of despair and oppression they seek to change.

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend: illinoisconservative.com/Obama’s America


Obama and the "Alinsky Model"

The career accomplishment by Barack Obama of which he is most proud seems to be his three-year stint as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. It is mentioned in his speeches and interviews more than his lectureship at the University of Chicago or his service in the Illinois Senate. For most Americans that part of his career is of little significance. To the audience he is attempting to reach it is highly important, however.

Most of us have little knowledge of community organizing other than watching clips of their protests in TV news reports. Political protests have been going on for as long as there have been governments to protest. However, structured community organizing did not start in America until the end of the nineteenth century. The emphasis in early community organizing was to provide community support for new immigrants arriving from Europe.

Its function was primarily social work carried on around community centers such as the Jane Addams center or Hull House. In the early twentieth century, community organizing began to lose its “social work” emphasis and took on a more activist revolutionary aspect heavily influenced by European immigrants from countries caught up in that continent’s various Marxist movements.

During the first half of the twentieth century organizing mostly centered around union activity and improving the lives of workers as a counter measure to the excesses of the rapidly expanding manufacturing and mining industries. Community organizing took on its modern form under the leadership of Saul Alinsky (1909 – 1972) in Chicago. He is by far, the best-known and most influential community organizer in American history.

Alinsky began his work in the Chicago neighborhood surrounding the stockyards, known as the “back of the yards”. From the early thirties until his death in 1972 Chicago was his home and base of operations. In 1971, the more famous of his two books was published. Titled “Rules for Radicals”, the book outlined his views on organizing and became the handbook for a generation of 1960s radicals.

During his career, he also took on the task of training other organizers. His Industrial Areas Foundation Training Institute has turned out hundreds of professional organizers over the years, and thousands of leaders from labor unions and communities across America have attended workshops at the Institute. The “Alinsky Method” has become the model for most community organizing groups in the United States and in other countries as well.

Two of these groups were the Developing Communities Project where Barack Obama served as director during his organizing career, and the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute, where he served as an instructor and consultant.

Alinsky’s influence extends, not only to community organizing, but to the Democratic Party as well. Hillary Clinton’s College thesis was written on the organizing work of Saul Alinsky and the political tactics of the Democratic Party over the past decade could have been taken directly from his book “Rules for Radicals”. You can also see the influence of the Alinsky method in the campaign rhetoric of Barack Obama. In “Rules for Radicals” Alinsky gives this advice for working inside the political system.

“There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”

It is this “attitude toward change” that Obama and the Democratic Party is attempting to bring about through their constant trashing of George W. Bush, the Republican Party, our economy, foreign policy, conduct of the War on Terror, Homeland Security, and every other action of the Bush administration.

The community organizing movement is not a monolithic group. It is made up of a number of independent groups tied loosely together by common ideals and goals. Among the best known are Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Direct Action and Research Training Center (DART).

What almost all community organizations have in common is their adherence to socialist principles and their promotion of victimhood. In laying the groundwork for a new community organization, organizers are trained to canvass the community to identify its most prevalent problems. After identifying the problems, they then hold community meetings where they convince attendees the root cause of their problems are in some way connected to the inherent unfairness of capitalism.

Whatever the problem, it is always caused by someone or some group other than the group experiencing the difficulty. Slums, drugs, poverty, crime and so forth are all caused by unscrupulous financial institutions, uncaring property owners, local politicians, or greedy corporate profiteers. The final steps in the process is to convince participants it is the responsibility of someone else to fix the problem—usually government—and then organize demonstrations, strikes, protests, boycotts, etc. to coerce businesses, governments and/or individuals to comply with their demands.

Community organizing is often credited with teaching communities how to do for themselves. Sometimes they do, but more often than not, they actually teach them how to coerce society to do it for them. When Obama speaks of his community organizing experiences, he is appealing to the tendencies of his audience to cheer when “Robin Hood” takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Somehow, I cannot see how this experience particularly qualifies him to be President. Perhaps, there is something I am missing?