Posts Tagged ‘Rules for Radicals’

Saul Alinsky Was RIGHT In The Liberal’s Book He Dedicated To Lucifer: Christians Need To Start Living Up To The Book Of Rules

August 2, 2013

I was working out in my gym training legs.  I noted that the hack squat machine was in use, so I went over to the squat rack.  I did five good, hard sets.  During that time, the guy on the hack squat machine had done maybe ONE set because he was so occupied with his cell phone and his texting.  Right next to a sign that reads, “Cell phone use is prohibited while using equipment.”

Well, I wanted to use that hack squat machine, but the rude dude was still wasting his time on it.  So I went to the seated calf machine and did six good, hard sets of calves.

You guessed it: when I was done with that piece of equipment, the rude dude was still wasting his – and worse yet MY – time on the hack squat machine.

So I went over to the leg press machine right next to the hack squat machine.  And I was mostly done with the five sets on that before Mr. Cell Phone finally left.

Because I was right next to the hack squat machine, I was able to readily note two other facts: he didn’t re-rack his weight – in spite of the fact that he was literally “exercising” directly under a giant banner with two foot high letters that read, “Re-Rack Your Weight”; and he didn’t wipe down the machine after using it in spite of the sign right next to the banner that read, “Wipe down your equipment after use.”

Basically, there was no possible way this guy could have been more rude or more discourteous.

Well, here’s the rub: this guy, Mr. Cell Phone, is, rather amazingly, a “pastor.”  His church is virtually right next door to the gym.

I thought about confronting him for his unbelievable rudeness, but he’s a black guy.  And you know how THAT tends to go now that Obama has healed the racial divide.

The Bible tells Christians to confront brothers who are acting shamefully.  But tragically, in these slimes that are the times, it’s seriously risky to dare to treat certain people like “brothers.”  And I didn’t want to be the source of a rift – no matter how right I would have been – that very likely would have degenerated into a charge of “racism.”

All I can tell you is that man publicly shamed the name of Jesus Christ.  And it doesn’t really matter what color this “reverend’s” skin is when he acts like that man acted.  At least, not to me.

I wear a Cross or a Star of David every time I work out – and frankly virtually every time I appear in public.  There have been more than a few times that I’ve thought about saying or doing something and changed my mind because of the symbols I was wearing around my neck.

So I don’t even BRING my phone into the gym; I ALWAYS re-rack my weight every time I use a piece of equipment; and I wipe down the equipment I’m using TWICE – once before I use it (because there are a lot of rude people like Reverend Cell Phone) and once again after I’m finished.

I try to publicly live up to that cross – even though I have to confess that I’m not thinking very nice thoughts about the incredibly rude and ungracious people all around me.

When I gave my life to Jesus Christ, I very quickly quit smoking.  Why?  Because I thought of the image of myself trying to tell somebody about how Jesus Christ changed my life with a stinking cigarette hanging out of my tobacco-stained teeth, and it was enough of a visceral disconnect that I knew what I had to do.

More recently, I’ve lost over seventy pounds over the last 11 months.  And one of the driving forces to my success was the fact that I am named “Michael” and it was time to start LOOKING like the archangel I was named after.  Because in this postmodern, secular humanist culture that Hollywood liberalism has bequeathed us with, how you look very often determines more than anything else how people perceive you.  And I recognized that it was time for me in these last days before the Antichrist that it was long-past time for me to shape up in every way I could.

But all that said, it’s time for me to have my own mea culpa: I have too often resorted to name-calling in my articles and in my responses (to hateful comments).  And I was wrong to do that.

Anyone who has read much of what I’ve written has likely come upon terminology such as “turds” and “cockroaches” in my descriptions of the left.  I’ve been called much, MUCH worse myself – usually before my own use of such terms – but that doesn’t justify my behavior.

I’ve also been guilty of calling liberals “idiots” or “stupid.”  And while it is true that many liberals ARE ignorant and frankly stupid people, it is also quite true that some of the most brilliant minds routinely believe the most stupid things, such that George Orwell pointed out that “There are some ideas so absurd that only an ‘intellectual’ could believe them,” because no ordinary man was capable of being such a fool.  And thus it is not always easy to tell whether you are talking to a “stupid idiot” or a “brilliant idiot.”

I won’t call liberals “stupid” anymore because they may be very intelligent people who are merely a) evil and b) deluded.  Which is to say they might be very brilliant moral idiots – but not “stupid.”

Saul Alinsky – in his “Rules for Radicals” (which was dedicated to Satan and which Obama once taught in his days as a community organizer) has one rule in particular that liberals have loved to apply to me:

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their 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.”

I’ve had many liberals follow up on my response to hateful comments by liberals such as this one – “You are such a moron. I cannot waste anymore of my time talking to someone who is lost in an alternate universe. I only hope that you get hit by a truck or die a horrible death. You are an enemy of America scumbag. THATS A FACT” – by attacking me as a terrible Christian in my response.

I’ve noted to these liberals who follow the crash and then pile on:

It’s kind of strange.  I wrote an article never ONCE hoping anybody got hit by a truck or died a horrible death.  I never degenerated into that level of viciousness.  And nobody else did either.  Because that level of pure hate doesn’t happen UNTIL THE LIBERALS SHOW UP.

Here’s the liberal game plan for those who haven’t learned it.  Liberal A comes along and just viciously personally attacks the conservative.  Often they show up in rabid packs and just dump hate on the Republican.  And then, when the conservative responds with anger of his own, well, that’s when liberals like YOU show up.  The sanctimonious, self-righteous ones who pointedly ignore the hate that their own side just dished out and instead personally denounce the “hate” of the conservative.  That hateful, divisive conservative shouldn’t have responded angrily to all that liberal hate.  It’s wrong.  It’s evil, even.  And that sanctimonious, self-righteous liberal often proceeds to then attack the Republican’s Christianity.  Which is of course an even MORE hateful attack than the liberal haters that got the conservative to respond with anger, of course, but what does that matter?

And if you were to keep reading Saul Alinsky’s book where he gives his rule to “make opponents live up to their own book of rules”, you find that this leftist who called upon his fellow liberals to demonize others as evil really couldn’t have cared LESS about morality applied to himself or his liberal movement:

The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means. It is this species  of man who so vehemently and militantly participated in that clasically  idealistic debate at the old League of Nations on the ethical differences  between defensive and offensive weapons. Their fears of action drive them to  refuge in an ethics so divorced for the politics of life that it can apply only  to angels, not men. — P.26

One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s  personal interest in the issue. — P.26

The fifth rules of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics  increases with the number of means available and vice versa. To the man of  action the first criterion in determining which means to employ is to assess  what means are available. Reviewing and selecting available means is done on a  straight utilitarian basis — will it work? Moral questions may enter when one  chooses among equally effective alternate means. — P.32

The seventh rule of ethics and means and ends is that generally success or  failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. The judgment of history leans heavily  on the outcome of success and failure; it spells the difference between the  traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful  traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father. P.34

The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is  automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical. — P.35

The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with  what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches  during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and  for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be  through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37

Eight months after securing independence (from the British), the Indian National  Congress outlawed passive resistance and made it a crime. It was one thing for  them to use the means of passive resistance against the previous Haves, but now  in power they were going to ensure that this means would not be used against  them. — P.43

All effective actions require the passport of morality. — P.44

And just to ensure that any true morality NOT be pursued by the left, Alinsky wrote:

With very rare exceptions, the right things are done for the wrong reasons. It  is futile to demand that men do the right thing for the right reason — this is a  fight with a windmill. — P.76

So, the bottom line is that liberals acknowledge that they HAVE no “book of rules,” no true morality, and that “morality” for them is “a means to an end” to be invented and reinvented as it suits them in order to attack their enemies.  “Morality” and the Word of God become nothing more than a tool for hypocrites to attack those who actually TRY to follow morality and the Word of God.

That’s just a fact.

But you know what?  It doesn’t matter.  Because, as Saul Alinsky points out, unlike liberals, unlike secular humanists, yes, unlike Democrats, we DO have a “book of rules” that should be our guide to live by.  Unlike the Lucifer-Loving Left, we actually BELIEVE in morality and strive to be moral, decent people.

As I reflected upon the absolutely despicable example of “Reverend Cell Phone,” I had to face up to my own “issues.”  And yes, I tend to get very angry with hypocrites and slanderers who constantly hurt others with vile policies that they then want to exempt themselves from.  And just as one of MANY examples are the Democrat politicians and their staffs, the labor unions, the IRS workers, who – after fighting to impose ObamaCare on everyone else – now fight even harder to exempt themselves from what they just inflicted on everybody else.  I knew that this demonic piece of horror would hurt people.  And, yes, I am beyond LIVID that the very people who imposed this demon-possessed evil on everyone else would say, “Good enough to force on thee, but not good enough for me.”

I am angry at the people who are working so hard to do so much evil, who want to bring the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast upon the rest of us.

And in my anger, I sinned.  And I fell prey to the trap of the rules for radicals devoted to Satan.

I’m going to try from now on not to do that.  I’m going to try very hard to – unlike liberals, unlike secular humanists, unlike Democrats – to actually LIVE UP TO THE BOOK OF RULES.

The Bible says in Ephesians 4:26, “Be angry, yet do not sin.”  We’re not told NOT to be angry.  We’re told that JESUS was angry (Mark 3:5).  And anger can be positive when it is harnessed and controlled in righteousness.  Anger is a “stimulant” that can get you off your rear end DOING something rather than standing idly by gaping while terrible things are happening all around you.  But you can’t allow anger to master you even while hypocrites are actively trying to bait you into it.

I’m going to quit my name calling, even when I’m called so many names.

But I’m going to replace name-calling with HONEST and ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS of the people who are doing so much evil in these last days before the beast comes.

To wit, I’m no longer going to label Democrats and liberals as “turds” or “cockroaches.”  Because, very technically speaking, these people are neither insects nor are they composed entirely of fecal matter.  Rather, I’m going to call them what they truly technically ARE: government worshiping baby killing marriage-and-family murdering sodomy-lovers.  Because that is simply a fact.

I’m going to stop resorting to name-calling and start using the actual TRUTH to fight for the truth.

When you call somebody a name like a “turd” or a “cockroach,” you are no longer operating on factual grounds.  A liberal can respond, “I am not a turd.  I am not a cockroach.  You’re a liar and you’re hateful.”  But when you simply call these people what they truly ARE – and that is WORSE and more shameful than ANY name you can call them – well, they can call you “hateful” all day long, but that is only because they are people who find “truth” as “hateful.”  But given the facts that they ARE for government that replaces God; that they ARE for the continued holocaust of babies that has murdered more than 55 million children so far; that they ARE for a radical redefinition of marriage and family that has progressively eroded and undermined both marriage and the family; and that they ARE for homosexual sodomy along with numerous other perversions that are specifically condemned as “ABOMINATIONS” by the Word of God that Saul Alinsky wants us to follow, well, they can hardly call me a liar.

There’s a tactical aspect to this decision as well.  I’ll get one liberal who uses all kinds of terrible names on me and just dumps hate on me – literally wishing my death.  And I respond with my own anger.  Then comes the next liberal who is just shocked and appalled that any human being on earth could be so “hateful” as a conservative – conveniently (of course hypocritically) overlooking the liberals who wrote far uglier things.  And of course, given that this second attack from the liberals doesn’t employ such labels as “turd” or “cockroach,” they assign themselves the moral high ground when they call me “hateful.”

So on the one hand I am a) going to start trying to follow what the Bible teaches on hate and anger and b) just not give liberals an easy way to attack me literally about my religion (mind you, it would be a TERRIBLE thing according to secular humanist political correctness for me to attack someone of a different religion qua religion).  It’s never wrong when they do it; it’s always wrong when I do what they do.  But that doesn’t matter, because what matters is that I WILL TRY TO LIVE UP TO MY BOOK OF RULES.  The fact that liberals don’t HAVE a “book of rules” and the fact that they are hypocrites is immaterial.

Jesus famously guaranteed to His disciples that the world would hate them because they hated Jesus first (Matthew 10:22 cf. John 15:18).  And why does the world hate Jesus so?  Because (as Del Tackett so brilliantly pointed out in the Truth Project), Jesus came to testify to the Truth.  And that everyone – and only those – who would be on the side of truth would listen to Jesus (John 18:37).  And what is the truth about these people who hate us?   Their deeds are evil (John 3:19) and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:4).

Liberals can slander me any way they want to.  I don’t follow them.  They can label me as a “hater” because I declare the truth about them and they hate the truth.  And they hate the truth because they are children of the devil and enemies of everything that is right (Acts 13:10).

I’m going to declare the truth and ONLY declare the truth, and let the truth be my defense.  Which is why in hindsight I realized I should have got in that bogus pastor’s face and pointed out how incredibly rude he’d just been and what a lousy example of a Christian – let ALONE a “pastor” – he was and called upon him to either live like a Christian or at least to stop calling himself one.

Advertisements

Of Liberalism, Victimism, Avoidance, Projection And Other Personality Disorders

January 26, 2012

I get a few things all the time from liberals in my experience of blogging, and I’m going to get a couple of the things that annoy me the most off my chest.

I wrote an article titled, “Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER.”  It certainly isn’t my biggest article ever (as an example, I once had someone who called herself “Ann” come across one of my articles titled, “Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” and it turned out to have been Ann COULTER.  She linked to it on her site and it just went ballistic), but this more recent article is definitely in the top ten in terms of views in a single week:

Now, I’m sure that some bloggers who might come across this might think, “9k views in a week for one article?  Big Deal.  I get that all the time.”  But as I said, this is definitely one of my top ten most viewed in such a short time period.

I obviously love it very much when an article I write takes off, because I’m writing to try to make a difference.  But the problem is that somebody must have re-posted my “Who Spent More” article under a rock or something.  Because a bunch of liberals suddenly started coming to visit me.

Now here’s the thing that annoys me.  I’ve got a very clear premise that clearly matches my title: Democrats demonized George Bush for spending, but lo and behold Obama’s spending makes Bush’s spending look Lilliputian in just three years in office.  But do liberals want to talk about Obama’s spending?  Nope.  That is pretty much the last thing they want to talk about when they comment to me.

What is the real important subject as far as they’re concerned?  In a word, it’s that I’m “mean.”

And, you see, if I’m mean it means that facts don’t matter, so nyah, nyah, nyah.  Or something to that effect.

I tried to respond to somebody the other day that if Aristotle had a scowl, he’d be just as good of a philosopher as if he wore a smile.  But that didn’t seem to wash.  The “You’re a mean meany so I get to disregard all of your facts” meme continued to play and play like puppies who afterward can’t control their little bladders.

If you were racing down the road at 120 mph and I had a scowl on my face when I shouted that the bridge had washed out, would it really matter whether I had that scowl and shouted?  I mean, if you’re genuinely sane?

The bottom line, for the record, is that liberals are giving me a play from the Saul Alinksy playbook.  He said on page 75 of his Rules for Radicals (which was dedicated to Lucifer as “the first radical known to man”):

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”

And, to an extent, this is true.  For one thing liberals don’t have any rules or code of honor that binds them; they can be as vile as they wish: Lucifer sure won’t care.  And the Kingdom Jesus established is a spiritual one.  And you must therefore either recognize that strife and violence is a part of this world while you strive for the better one to come, or you simply bow your head to the next dictator that comes along.  But it is very difficult to fight for a very political world in the here-and-now against a side that has no rules beyond “Rules for Radicals.”  It’s a genuine dilemma for Christians.

This dilemma has increasingly overtaken us during the course of the last century.  It was there when the Germans used first poison gas and then total war and then the intentional bombing of civilian populations.  Should we have used these vile tactics against an enemy that had no moral restraint, or should we have encouraged more and more of the same by displaying that we wouldn’t fight in such a way that the enemy knew there would be consequences for such terrible actions?  By using poison gas ourselves we forced the Germans to quit using it; wouldn’t not using poison gas have amounted to an immoral sacrifice of our own troops?

I’ve come to realize that I can turn the other cheek to the guy I’m trying to bring into the kingdom of heaven and I can shoot the home invasion psychos who are breaking in my house to murder my family.  And I believe that any morally intelligent individual can understand that difference.

I also believe that most of the reason that culture has degenerated to the shocking extent that it has (I mean Lady Gaga?  Seriously?) is related to the fact that too few Christians were willing to stand up and fight – even wrestle in the mud as necessary – for their culture.  It was far easier for too many to create their own little sub-culture, much as the monks did in walling themselves up in monasteries lest they have to face a nasty world.

So I’m fighting as best I know how.  And I often must fight against a pseudo-righteousness from a side that calls me all kinds of terrible names and labels even as it hypocritically demands I refrain from doing the same thing they’re doing to me.

In any event, I’ve recently gotten a larger dose in a shorter period of time crap from liberals that I’ve basically been experiencing since the day I got my “very first comment” and it turned out to be from a liberal hater.  I’m getting my fill of liberal avoidance and victimism and projection and other disorders.

“Victimism” in this context is when a liberal practices a particularly bizarre form of psychological jujitsu in order to make themselves the victim in an argument or debate.  You see, in their warped little minds, if they can manage to make themselves the victim, they win.  It doesn’t matter how strong your case is or how weak theirs is otherwise; in liberalism the victim always wins.  Period.  And look; they’re the victim!

So, of course, if I say something mean – (regardless of anything vile they previously said to me) – they become the victim and therefore they win the debate.  Because that’s the way their world works.

You can, of course, translate this into the larger socio-economic-and-political issues: victimhood means everything to the left.  It is a cherished status to be sought above everything else – especially above facts.

I would rather have someone sitting right next to me raking her fingernails over a chalkboard than be involved in such a “debate.”  But as a conservative blogger I am nevertheless forced to endure it most every day.

There’s a flip side to the victimism, and that is avoidance.

Liberals do not like things called “facts” or “arguments.”  They are too constraining and isn’t “liberalism” all about feeling free from such constraints?

So I write an article on the issue of abortion and as a result I get called a “KKK racist.”  I get a very similar accusation of being a racist if I talk about government spending.  Because, as we all know, being pro-life or anti-reckless government spending is very clearly “racist.”  I mean, what liberal doesn’t know that?

Why talk about the facts when you can talk about something else instead?

So all the time I respond to liberals, carefully try to interact with and refute their arguments, and it’s like I haven’t said anything, or maybe like I’m writing in a different, incomprehensible language.

I get very bored very quickly arguing with somebody who doesn’t bother to even acknowledge anything I say.  I start thinking about all the things I could be doing that would be far more productive usages of my time.

Again, that’s pretty much just par for the course of being a conservative blogger.

There’s another psychological malady that’s pretty typical of the liberals who comment on my site: a bizarre identity disorder which results in liberals being unable to simply admit what they are.  All the time I get people who are very clearly committed leftists/Democrats trying to pass themselves off as “moderates” or “independents.”  Because, you see, if they’re “moderate,” then they represent the giant voice of the middle.  And how on earth can I debate someone who is the living embodiment of The Middle.

So I get liberals all the time who will post comment after comment – with every single ONE of those comments arguing for liberal/Democrat positions – and then they’ll tell me that they’re most certainly NOT liberals or Democrats.

Often I catch them red-handed being deceitful, such as a guy who started calling himself “Moderate Conservative” to try to fool me shortly after introducing himself as “Moderate Liberal.”  He lacked any shame for his deceit in attempting to pass himself off as something he was not, but at least I got him to acknowledge what he was doing.  And this same guy was posting to the “Who Spent More” article, fwiw.  He was lecturing me on being more civil while dissociating himself from the vileness of his own side.  Because the Democrat Party – at the highest national levels – call conservatives “terrorists” and “racists” and “anti-immigrant” and every hateful pejorative they can think up.  We want dirtier air and dirtier water and we want children to suffer from Down Syndrome and autism – and those last according to the guy who is calling himself “the President of the United States” as though he represented the entire country rather than just the radical left.

Notice everything I’m linking to is recent.  I don’t have to dredge stuff up from 16 months ago; I get this crap ALL THE TIME from liberals.

It’s not enough for me to say that I would never go to a liberal’s blog and try to pass myself off as a liberal in order to achieve some perverted goal; I have never even HEARD of a conservative talking about trying to pull that kind of stunt.  It is a peculiar disorder that only liberals suffer.

But, again, the left does it all the time.  It’s simply a documented fact that they have done this and continue to do it.  They pretend to be conservatives and do something vile to make people believe the lie that conservatives are vile rather than the TRUTH that liberals are vile.

And you might notice that liberals have to manufacture crap by deceit against conservatives.  Liberals just crap all over the place all by themselves:

Personally, I believe that liberals, at least at some subconscious level, intuitively understand that they are cockroaches and really ought to feel ashamed of themselves if they could only possess the virtue of shame.  But that’s just a pet theory of mine.

This reminds me of another personality disorder that defines the left: projection.  In psychology, you’ve got the pathologically angry person who immediately assumes that everyone around him is angry – which of course justifies his constant angry outbursts.

Well, we don’t have to stretch very hard to think about all the labels and demonization the left handed out to the Tea Party.  And then the Occupy (OWS) movement came along and showed us what all the ugliness the left was falsely accusing the Tea Party of REALLY looks like:

Call The Occupy Protest Movement And The Left That It Comes From What It Truly Is: Fascist

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

After Obama Deceitfully Demonized GOP For ‘Dirtier Air And Dirtier Water,’ His Occupy Movement Leaves Behind 30 TONS Of Diseased Filfth At Just ONE Site

Vile Liberal Occupy Movement Killed The Grass At L.A. City Hall – What Should Be Done Now?

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

The American Left Personified By Occupy Movement: Vile, Violent Fascist Thugs

Vile Occupy Protests In Videos

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

Tea Party Vs. Occupy Protests: The Winners Of The Out-Of-Control Violence Trophy – For The Millionth Consecutive Time – Is The LEFT

Nazis, Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Democrats, Obama, Media Propaganda ALL Support Occupy Wall Street

So, yes, liberalism IS a mental disorder.

But rather than simply walking around muttering to themselves like they ought to, liberals find a way to make their unfortunate mental condition as annoying and harmful as possible.

I just wish they wouldn’t do it so much around me.  But as a conservative blogger, I am a light.  And they are a bunch of moths.

ObamaCare Is Cloward-Piven Strategy In Microcosm

December 11, 2009

First of all, what is the Cloward-Piven strategy:

From Discover The Networks:

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. […]

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

Newsmax offers a further description of Clowar-Piven, and raises the very real possibility that Obama not only studied the strategy, but in fact even studied under Richard Cloward:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly newsmedia to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth. It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

On my own view, Obama has a “win we win, lose we win” strategy.  To wit, the Obama administration and the Democrat Party are pursuing incredibly risky policies across the board.  If the country and the economy somehow manages to survive these measures (which I would compare to a man surviving a poisoning), Obama and the Democrats will claim victory.  If, on the other hand, the entire national system collapses due to these shockingly terrible policies, the liberals believe that a terrified, hungry public will turn to the government for help – and allow the statists to restructure the nation into a completely socialist system.

The Obama administration, on my view, consists of a collective of fiscal sociopaths.  They don’t even care about the harm that they are doing, as long as they accomplish their self-serving objective of statism, in which they ultimately wield the levers of totalitarian power.

Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said that you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.  The very real question is how far these people are willing to go to milk a crisis to impose their agenda; and how willing they would be to create a crisis to finish the job.

Now armed with the above information about Cloward-Piven, and the above thesis that Obama and the Democrats are actually employing it, let us consider the Democrats’ and Obama’s attempt to take over the health care system.

Far too many Democrats want a socialist single-payer system, and liberals like Democrat Representative Anthony Weiner think the current Senate Democrat proposal is just the ticket to take us there:

New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, an outspoken backer of the public option, hailed the expansion of Medicare as an “unvarnished” triumph for Democrats, like himself, who have been pushing for a single-payer government-run health care system. “Never mind the camel’s nose; we’ve got his head and his neck in the tent.”

The generally left-leaning Washington Post agrees with Rep. Weiner, saying that the

last-minute introduction of this idea within the broader context of health reform raises numerous questions — not least of which is whether this proposal is a far more dramatic step toward a single-payer system than lawmakers on either side realize. […]

The irony of this late-breaking Medicare proposal is that it could be a bigger step toward a single-payer system than the milquetoast public option plans rejected by Senate moderates as too disruptive of the private market.

It is amazing that when the people overwhelmingly rejected the public option, Democrats responded by giving them the public option on steroids.

But let us take a look at who have aligned against this monstrosity, and see just how bad it truly is.

The Mayo Clinic:

“Expanding this system to persons 55 to 64 years old would ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country. A majority of Medicare providers currently suffer great financial loss under the program. Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare. As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices.  Despite these provider losses, Medicare has not curbed overall spending, especially after adjusting for benefits covered and the cost shift from Medicare to private insurance.  This is clearly an unsustainable model, and one that would be disastrous for our nation’s hospitals, doctors and eventually our patients if expanded to even more beneficiaries.”

The Wall Street Journal rightly calls this fiasco “The Worst Bill Ever.”  Why?

As Congress’s balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can’t regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

The Dean of the Harvard Medical School gave it a “failing grade.”  Dr. Jeffrey Flier argued that:

In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

The California Medical Association came out strongly against the Democrat plan:

The state’s largest doctors group is opposing healthcare legislation being debated in the Senate this week, saying it would increase local healthcare costs and restrict access to care for elderly and low-income patients.

The California Medical Assn. represents more than 35,000 physicians statewide, making it the second-largest state medical association in the country after Texas. […]

“The Senate bill came so short that we could not support it, even though we solidly support healthcare reform,” said Dr. Dev GnanaDev, medical director at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in San Bernardino, who also serves on the association’s executive committee.

Doctors who oppose the Senate bill are concerned that it would would shift Medicare funding from urban to rural areas, move responsibility for Medicare oversight away from Congress by creating an Independent Medicare Commission and, ultimately, decrease Medicare reimbursement rates.

That “Independent Medicare Commission” is just one of the many “death panels” this bill would create.  One hundred and eleven death panels, to be precise.

This is “It’s-Friday-the-13th-and-Jason-Voorhees-is-a-real-monster-and-he’s-actually-in-your-house” terrifying.  The Democrats will collapse our health care system.  People will die.

And I submit to you that the Democrats want to crash the health care system – which is the best in the world after adjusting for murders, suicides, and accident deaths – and replace it with a socialized system that would dramatically expand the power and scope of government.

On top of the disastrous impact on patient care would be the disastrous impact on the national economy.  The health care system that the Senate Democrats would impose on Americans would cost at least $2.5 trillion every ten years following its initial roll-out.  How much more can we afford?  How many more cards can we add to our house before the whole thing comes crashing down?

Why would anybody want to impose a system that is so terribly bad, and which will cost so terribly much?

When you think of the trillions in spending that this administration has already accumulated, and then add the additional $200 billion a year (and $1,761 per family) cost of Obama’s cap-and-trade energy fiasco, you can’t help but begin to wonder if there is an intentional determination to overwhelm our system and “push society into crisis and economic collapse.”