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

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.

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

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.

Crisis In Egypt Underscores The Problem Of Islam – AND LIBERALISM

It has rightly been said that Islam is a murderous totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion.

That fact makes an “Islamic democracy” a contradiction in terms.  You simply cannot have both.  If you want a democracy, you cannot have Islam; if you want Islam, you cannot have a democracy.

If you have a large population of Muslims living in a country, there are only two alternatives for governing that state: a totalitarian dictatorship, which is what we essentially have seen in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, or a religious theocracy such as we see in Iran today.

Even alleged counterexamples, such as Turkey, are transforming.  Turkey is steadily becoming “less Europe, and more Islam.”  And I believe – primarily as a student of Bible prophecy – that Turkey will ultimately end up in the Islamic column.  It will ultimately be one of the Islamic nations that attacks Israel in the last days.

Jordan, which is at least less thuggish than most other Islamic countries, is reaping the whirlwind of Islamic unrest just as Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Algeria.

Democracy becomes nothing but a tool for radical Islam – which itself utterly despises democracy.  Tayyip Erdogan compared democracy to a bus, saying, “You ride it to your destination, and then you step off.”

Other Muslims are even more crystal clear: Tarek Ramadan states:

“We must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals.  Our Prophet Muhammad … and the Quran teach us that we must use every conceivable means and opportunity to defeat the enemies of Allah.  Tell the infidels in public, we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on.  The only law we must respect and apply is the Sharia’s.”

Imams in England say, “You have to live like a state within a state until you take over.”  And Mohamed Akram says of America, Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”  While Omar Ahmad says, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant … The Quran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

For the record, I found all the above quotes from Tulsaworld.com.  And of course there are a million more where those came from.

We have a problem.  We want the world to benefit from democracy.  We want to spread the superiority of democracy as a political system.  We want to benefit from the fact that no democracy has ever once attacked another democracy.

But Muslims take our democracy, pervert it and exploit it for their own ideological advantage with a very radically different political system in mind.  And we tolerate this why?

One of the things that makes Islam so dangerous is that it puts itself and it’s prophet Muhammad above and beyond questioning or criticism.  As a case in point, the Danish cartoons revealed that the entire Muslim world will go berserk and literally become murderous over even the slightest “slights.”  Compare the Danish cartoons to the routine insults suffered by Christianity, such as placing a crucifix bearing an image of Christ in a jar of urine and calling it “art.”  That mindset represents the death of even the possibility of a free society.

Liberalism and secular humanism merely weakens our own society and makes us more ripe for the picking: to begin with, liberals react through their cultural relativism (e.g., “pluralism,” “multiculturalism”) by essentially saying, “We must not offend.”  And they proceed to actually help the radical Muslim extremists impose their system.  Liberal media routinely attack Jesus Christ and Christianity, but they are only all too willing to self-censor themselves when it comes to Muhammad and Islam.

And yet Christianity brought us the democracy liberals claim to love, while Islam is antithetical to it.  Liberals are literally helping radical Muslims poison the tree of democracy and freedom.

There’s more.  One of the reasons we so frequently see liberals enabling radical Islam is because it turns out that liberals and the sorts of radical Muslims I have already introduced share the same tactics.

Case in point: three quotes from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

• 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

• …The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.  Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

• …the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

You look at what the Muslims are saying above, and you look at what liberal Saul Alinsky is saying here, and they are advocating identical tactics, with basically the same goal in mind: Muslims want sharia, with total power over a government that itself has total power; and liberals want control over a big government system which extends over every sphere of life.  And both say, “make the enemy live up to their own rules.”  Let’s take advantage of their morality and use it against them as a weapon.

And, of course, when Muhammad was weak (e.g., his Mecca phase), Islam was tolerant and peaceful; when Muhammad’s forces became strong (his Medina phase), Islam suddenly became profoundly intolerant, determined to impose itself and determined to use as much force as was necessary to attain its ends.  That is exactly what the American political left says.  And the only thing that that American liberals are truly intolerant of is Christianity and political conservatism.

And what is even more frightening is that America today actually has a president who actually lectured and taught from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as a community organizer.  As Discover The Networks points out, “For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley‘s National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO).”

Part of this idea of using your opponent’s own morality against them turns into the strength of radical Islam and the weakness of liberalism when the two confront one another.  As one example, think of Jimmy Carter undermining the Shah of Iran – who clearly was a dictator, but a pro-American dictator.  Carter allowed the Shah to be deposed, and got as his reward the Ayatollah and an Iranian theocratic regime that undermined and ultimately deposed Carter via the hostage crisis that played out day after day through the Carter presidency.

And here Obama is apparently doing much the same thing: we find out that Obama has secretly been backing rebels of the Mubarak regime from the Wikileaks papers.

Barack Obama invited the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood when he gave his speech in Cairo – the very same group that is poised to wreak havoc in that same city today.  And Obama – who is on the record siding with the Egyptian demonstrators against secular tyrant Mubarak – was pointedly absent from siding with the Iranian demonstrators against theocratic tyrant Ahmadinejad.  That contrasted with Obama making statements against Mubarak’s regime such that the Egyptian foreign ministry says  Obama’s words actually “inflame the internal situation in Egypt”  as the situation turns increasingly deadly and more and more signs are being written in English for American media consumption.  Bizarrely, it is almost as if liberals prefer Islamic theocratic tyrants over secular Muslim leaders.

It’s very easy to pooh-pooh thugs like Mubarak or the Shah and denounce their despotism.  But if you take away the thug, what else is there to control a people who will ultimately insist upon an Islamic theocracy?  You roll the dice and take your chances.  And in Islam, the “chances” have a pronounced historic tendency to become anti-American theocracies.  Which become even worse dictatorships then the ones that bleeding-heart liberals decried in the first place.

Liberals decry religion as being anti-democratic, never realizing that it is they – rather than religion – who are profoundly anti-democratic.  A few quotes from the founding fathers whose vision created the first sustained democracy:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
– George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”
– Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”
– Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

“Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”
– Charles Carroll (signer of the Constitution), Letter to James McHenry, November 4, 1800

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”
– Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III

The Egyptian crisis reveals the problem of Islam:  You cannot have a nation of Muslims without tyranny.  It is only a matter of which form of tyranny you prefer.  Conversely, the same crisis is also revealing the problem of liberalism.  Because as they weaken our Christian religious foundations, the same liberals who would undermine Hosni Mubarak also undermine the very pillars that would enable us to resist the conquest of democracy by Islam.  And they further erode our once great democratic system by employing the very same tactics that our Muslim enemies are using against us.

Racist Left Seeks To Employ Racist Plants To Falsely Depict ‘Evidence’ Of Tea Party Racism

There’s a response to name-calling that many children have at one time or another employed: to say, “I know you are, but what am I?”  It actually works to a ‘T’ against leftist attacks against the tea party of being a bunch of racists.

The fact of the matter is that the tea party is composed of a FAR broader and more representative spectrum of the American people than anything the Democrats – who have rammed most of their boondoggle policies through on strictly partisan votes – can claim.

Just about everybody has heard about the allegations of racism at the March 20th tea party rally in Washington D.C.  At that rally, Democrat legislators deliberately went through the tea party protesters in order to try to gin up a reaction (They had seventeen different routes they could have taken which would NOT have taken them through the tea party crowd).  Interestingly, the Democrats’ tactic was markedly similar to the National Socialist Party of America’s infamous march through the heavily Jewish populated town of Skokie, Illinois – only the Democrats didn’t appear to get the rise out of the crowd that they were hoping for.

Not to worry.  They invented “incidents” – and the lamestream media propaganda machine reported these “incidents” as though they were facts rather than merely unsubstantiated politically-motivated accusations.

Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 to anyone who had any video or audio evidence that any “racist” incident occurred.  There were thousands of people with cell phone cameras and other audio-visual devices.  But nothing.  The lack of evidence IS evidence in this case.  And in fact, the actual evidence even demonstrates that the Democrats making these allegations were stone-cold race-baiting liars.

But when you are on the left, you don’t need facts.  All you need is a narrative such as, “We already KNOW all tea party people are a bunch of racists, so our accusation of racism at a tea party event must be true.”

Now we are finding out that leftists have been seeking to brand the tea party as “racists” are literally seeking plants to go into tea party events and fabricate their own examples of “tea party racism.”

As one example of this, there is the CrashTheTeaParty.org movement.  As Newsbusters reports:

Their plan is to “infiltrate” Tea Party protests to create the false impression that protesters are racists by … being racists. That’s right, they will bring with them offensive signs and give wildly offensive interviews to reporters, all with the intention of smearing a movement that wouldn’t bring those signs or give those interviews themselves. It remains to be seen whether the mainstream media will take the bait.

This is nothing new.  Saul Alinsky advised students to falsely demonize the right by planting people in Ku Klux Klan robes at conservative speeches in the 1970s.  More recently, the Democrat headquarters in Denver, Colorado had a brick thrown threw a window during the health care debate last year – by a Democrat.

Will Mainstream Media reporters and editors expose, screen out, or help Tea Party saboteurs?
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
04/11/10 3:06 PM EDT

Have you seen the “Crash the Tea Party” web site? It’s among the most illustrative expressions ever of the thirst on the Left to suppress dissent by whatever means are necessary. It is Saul Alinsky on steroids.

Whoever is behind the site claims that it represents “a nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are all sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes and morons; who constitute the fake grassroots movement, which calls itself ‘the Tea Party.'”

That’s another way of saying that most Americans are racists, homophobes and morons, since there is abundant and growing evidence that the Tea Partiers are more representative of the center-right conservative majority of Americans than President Obama.

But then the Left has always been about an elitist minority of power-hungry ideologues telling the rest of us what to do, so no surprise there.

Where Crash the Tea Party really gets interesting, though, is in its description of its purpose: “To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.” But if the average American is really as sick and twisted as the geniuses behind Crash the Party claim, why rule out the use of violence to demolish them?

The answer, of course, is that inclusion of the “non-violent” qualifier is for show; historically, once Leftists gain power, they always use violence to “dismantle and demolish” all opposition (See Lenin, Stalin, the Gulag, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, etc.).

Now comes the aspect of Crash the Tea Party that ought to get the attention of all mainstream media journalists: Crash the Party is undertaking to sabotoge Tea Party events by “infiltrating the Tea Party itself” and then acting “in ways which exaggerate their least-appealing qualities (misspelled signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.).”

In other words, some on the Left in American politics are running a KGB-like “false flag” operation to discredit the Tea Party. They couldn’t sell the transparently nonsensical idea that Tea Partiers are just a bunch of racists, homophobes and morons, so the Crash the Party agents on the Left are infiltrating the Tea Party in order to pose as a bunch of racists, homophobes and morons.

It’s a classic KGB-style disinformation campaign. Will mainstream media editors and reporters be fooled? Will they know it when they are being scammed by Crash the Party? Will they expose Crash the Party operatives or cooperate with them in their effort to misrepresent millions of Americans?

It’s going to be an interesting spring and summer.

HT: Examiner contributor Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

And of course we know what the mainstream media will do: because they have become the very sort of Joseph Goebbels demagogic Ministry-of-Propaganda-type media ideologues who have been the rule of every single leftwing totalitarian government apparatus in history.

Had the media reported on the March 20 tea party event honestly, they would have actually bothered to check the evidence before running the story of racism – and they would have at very least reported that no supporting evidence of any such claim actually existed.

These are bad people doing this stuff, and it is bad people who are reporting it as news as though it were true.

Saul Alinsky And the Obama-SEIU Ideology

This is worth a read:

Alinsky citing reveals SEIU-Obama ideology

U.S. purposefully mismanaged by President Andy Stern

The 2008 election was aimed, as Barack Obama said, “to fundamentally change America.” The American people did not do their homework. They thought he believed in the original paradigm. They were intentionally misled, but this could have been prevented.

Ask the leaders of the Democratic party who Saul Alinsky is and you will likely get obfuscation. They will tell you Barack Obama spent three years teaching Alinsky’s philosophy and methods but he likely will not answer questions about Alinsky. Hillary Clinton wrote her college dissertation on Alinsky but you won’t likely get a peep out of her.

Bluntly put, Alinsky is opposed to freedom. He is an elitist. He believed in communism and atheism. The fundamental values, as stated at the beginning of this column, are seen by Alinsky as horrors that have created mass inequities and careless behavior. What makes Alinsky dangerous is that he is insidious.

Alinsky’s primary approach to politics is deceit. The ends justify the means. He would create a communist Utopia dominated by his friends but not through open and honest debate. Therefore, they disguise themselves as believers in the republic and democracy. Gaining control is objective No. 1. This was the beginning of their revolution. The goal, then, for Alinsky was “to take from the haves and give to the have-nots.”

Obama taught this. He “community organized” under this philosophy. He has surrounded himself with people of like mind. John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunn, Valerie Jarrett, and Van Jones are just a few of the core conspirators.

Alinsky knew the core beliefs of the American people. He knew they had to be deceived and manipulated. His opinion was they were too selfish to give up the America that was constructed by the founding fathers. His followers have taken over the Democratic Party although many Republicans also are participating in the movement under the guise of progressivism.

The change they want will fundamentally eliminate freedom, representative government, democracy, free enterprise, private ownership, individual responsibility and religious faith. I have no problem with them telling you that and putting it up for debate but they will not because they would be thrown out of office.

This strategy has been known since the late 1960s. Since they cannot challenge those positions successfully, the next best thing is to get into the current system through deceit. Tell people you are something you are not. Then destroy people’s belief in the system by destroying it from within. This is the strategy employed by the disciples of Alinsky.

Alinsky said, “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging 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.”

(from news-herald.com)

Related video: Saul Alinsky takes the White House

One of the fundamental “disappointments” that independents – who have massively abandoned Obama and his agenda – have is that Obama misrepresented himself (i.e., he lied) about who he was and what he would be about if he were elected president.

Too many people did not see Obama’s anti-free market agenda (Obama’s demagoguery of banks, of car companies, of insurance companies, of the Chamber of Commerce, of Fox News, etc.) coming.  They should have seen it, and they would have had they paid better attention, or had the mainstream media attempted to do its constitutionally-appointed duty.  But now they are left fearful.  Now they and the businesses they work for are being inundated with fundamentally hostile attacks against business.  And as a result we are forced to live through a period in which fully 77% of investors view their president as “anti-business.”

People didn’t vote for that.  They were lied to.

At the same time, Obama has surrounded himself with openly Marxist advisers (see also here), which brings out the crystal-clear-in-hindsight fact that Obama’s long association with Marxist radicals such as Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers.

An American Thinker piece ties Obama’s relationship with the pedophile communist Frank Marshall Davis to an early indoctrination in the philosophy of Saul Alinsky.

You reveal yourself in whom you choose as friends.  And Obama revealed himself:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

To cite Dr. Raymond Stantz from Ghostbusters, I wouldn’t have touched these people with a ten meter cattle prod.  And few Americans would have.

SEIU union president Andy Stern, who has visited the White House more than anyone else since Obama was elected, offers this view of the world:

– “Because workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore.”

– “We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power.”

That is a radical agenda from a clearly Marxist worldview.  And how does Obama respond to this vision?

“Your agenda has been my agenda in the United States Senate.  Before debating health care, I talked to Andy Stern and SEIU members.”

“We are going to paint the nation purple with SEIU.”

In a frightening way.

And so people who understood Obama weren’t at all surprised that he would pick a manufacturing czar such as Ron Bloom who said:

Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, ’cause they’re convinced that there is a free lunch.

We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.”

If this agenda doesn’t terrify you, it is because you are ignorant.  Just take a look at the giant black hole that Illinois state union employees and their unsustainable benefit schemes have put the taxpayers in.  And that same black hole is probably in your state, too.

Unions – whether public or private sector – are breaking the back of this country.  They are breaking down our society.  They are fundamentally destroying our American way of life.

And they now have someone who is helping them do it in the White House.

You start throwing out radical names of dangerous people that Obama has been associated with and a pattern emerges:  the aforementioned Davis, Jeremiah Wright (see also here and here and here), Khalid al-Mansour (more here), Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers.  And you realize that Obama has been steeped in a profoundly Marxist worldview.  Obama isn’t stupid; he knows that the American people don’t want that ideology.  But no one can conceal his worldview completely.  Critical observers saw it clearly.

And they accurately understood what it would portend if he was elected president.

Obama underscores the self-concealment of his worldview in his book which bears its title in inspiration of a Jeremiah Wright sermon that described his view that “white folks’ greed runs a world in need” (The Audacity of Hope):

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

A politician who has Obama’s ostensible verbal skills is, quite simply, not a “blank screen” unless he wants to be.

Obama did not want us to know who he was, because we would have rejected him as our leader if we knew.

The more we finally learn about who Obama really is and what he really wants to do, the less we are going to like it.

President Obama, Governor Paterson Both Racist By Liberal Narrative

The left is so busy calling conservatives racist that it’s understandable their own racism would escape their attention.

Basically, the liberal narrative is quite straightforward: if you oppose Barack Obama or his agenda, it’s because you’re a racist.  Period.

The question is whether that racism extends to Democrat and black New York Gov. David Patterson:

National Democratic Party leaders have asked Gov. David Paterson to consider withdrawing from the 2010 governor’s race, according to two senior New York Democratic advisers.

Both advisers, who are close to the governor, spoke to The Associated Press on Saturday on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for Paterson. The sources said it was unclear what Paterson would do in response.

The New York Times, which originally reported the request on its Web site, said that it was President Barack Obama who asked Paterson to withdraw.

Party leaders in Washington have become concerned about Paterson’s political weakness, believing the governor’s office is too important to risk losing, one of the state Democratic advisers told the AP on Saturday.

Paterson spokesman Peter Kauffmann declined comment to the AP on Sunday morning. White House officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A message about the race was delivered from top national Democrats at a dinner Friday night with Paterson, but it was unclear whether it was at the direction of Obama, one of the advisers said. The Democratic leaders spoke of a concern referred to as the “David Paterson problem,” the adviser said. […]

Paterson has announced he will seek a full term in the 2010 election.

So we have Obama presenting his policy to Paterson, and we have Paterson clearly not supporting and embracing that policy.

We can begin asking questions of motive: would David Paterson be just as dismissive of a white president’s request?  Isn’t it entirely possible that Paterson is refusing Obama because Paterson thinks that Obama, being a black man, is simply “not qualified to lead this great country”?  Isn’t it likely that Paterson’s refusal to drop out of the governor’s race is actually “driven by [his] refusal to accept a black president”?

If I may quote Jimmy Carter: “It’s an abominable circumstance and grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”

President Obama denies the racist angle – but that’s what he HAS to say.  Why?

Now we come to another awful truth: to cover up his OWN RACISM:

Gov. David A. Paterson said on Friday that the chorus of people who believe he should not run for election next year want to keep him out of the race because he is black.

“We’re not in the post-racial period,” said Mr. Paterson, according to an article posted on The Daily News Web site, which cited an interview the governor provided to a radio program hosted by Errol Louis, a Daily News columnist.

“My feeling is it’s being orchestrated, it’s a game, and people who pay attention know that,” he said. “We have a media that doesn’t report the news. We have a media that wants to make the news.”

Mr. Paterson — whose approval ratings and support even among fellow Democrats have dipped this year — also mentioned Deval L. Patrick, the Massachusetts governor and the country’s only other current black governor, and suggested that criticisms leveled against him are based on race.

People who want David Paterson to drop out of the race want to keep him out because he is black.  And Barack Obama wants to keep him out of the race.

I’ve got a syllogism here, and I’m not afraid to use it.

Obama wants Paterson to drop out of the gubernatorial race because Paterson is black.  And that clearly qualifies Obama as a racist.

At least according to the mainstream media and liberal ideological narrative.

I ran off a list of Democrats’ use of racism to advance their political agenda in my article entitled, “Question For Jimmy Carter: If We Despise Obama Because Of Racism, Why Is It That We Despised You?”  I am sickened by this cynical Blaxploitation of racism as a means to gain liberal political power.  The real racists are those who rabidly view everything through a racial prism and continually see only the absolute worst in people of other races on account of the color of their skin.

The Party that has created “identity politics” to divide people into groups and position the racial blocs they create against “white males” are decrying the very racial animosity that they frankly fomented in the first place.

It is truly sad, and truly despicable, that Democrats have turned race relations into a child’s game of name calling as a means to humiliate and demean their opponents, but that’s where they have led us.

So I am forced to join in this child’s game.  If a Democrat implies that I am a racist, my reply can only be, “I know you are, but what am I?”

Until the day when Democrats finally grow up – and I have my very grave doubts that such a day will ever come – we have to borrow a page from radical leftist and Obama’s guru Saul Alinsky‘s 12 rules to create upheaval:

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

So that’s what I’m doing now.  And by the Democrats’ book of rules, Governor David Paterson and Barack Obama are racists.

As a postscript, I rather enjoyed the flow chart someone created to map out whether or not one is a racist according to the liberal standard.  Take a look at it and tell me it doesn’t match precisely the mainstream media and liberal narrative.

Obama’s Cloward-Piven Redistributionism Shaping The Future Collapse

There is a bizarre conspiracy afoot that most Americans are simply unwilling to comprehend, much less believe.

Obama and ‘Redistributive Change’
Forget the recession and the “uninsured.” Obama has bigger fish to fry.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The first seven months of the Obama administration seemingly make no sense. Why squander public approval by running up astronomical deficits in a time of pre-existing staggering national debt?

Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?

Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?

But that is exactly the wrong way to look at these first seven months of Obamist policy-making.

Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP.  Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession.  In that case we would still have had to deal with a burgeoning and unsustainable annual federal deficit that would have approached $1 trillion.

Instead, Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness with more federal stimuli and bailouts, newly envisioned cap-and-trade legislation, and a variety of fresh entitlements. Was that fiscally irresponsible? Yes, of course.

But I think the key was not so much the spending excess or new entitlements. The point instead was the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations. If on April 15 the federal and state governments, local entities, the Social Security system, and the new health-care programs can claim 70 percent of the income of the top 5 percent of taxpayers, then that is considered a public good — every bit as valuable as funding new programs, and one worth risking insolvency.

Individual compensation is now seen as arbitrary and, by extension, inherently unfair. A high income is now rationalized as having less to do with market-driven needs, acquired skills, a higher level of education, innate intelligence, inheritance, hard work, or accepting risk. Rather income is seen more as luck-driven, cruelly capricious, unfair — even immoral, in that some are rewarded arbitrarily on the basis of race, class, and gender advantages, others for their overweening greed and ambition, and still more for their quasi-criminality.

“Patriotic” federal healers must then step in to “spread the wealth.” Through redistributive tax rates, they can “treat” the illness that the private sector has caused. After all, there is no intrinsic reason why an auto fabricator makes $60 in hourly wages and benefits, while a young investment banker finagles $500.

Or, in the president’s own language, the government must equalize the circumstances of the “waitress” with those of the “lucky.” It is thus a fitting and proper role of the new federal government to rectify imbalances of compensation — at least for those outside the anointed Guardian class. In a 2001 interview Obama in fact outlined the desirable political circumstances that would lead government to enforce equality of results when he elaborated on what he called an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Still, why would intelligent politicians try to ram through, in mere weeks, a thousand pages of health-care gibberish — its details outsourced to far-left elements in the Congress (and their staffers) — that few in the cabinet had ever read or even knew much about?

Once again, I don’t think health care per se was ever really the issue. When pressed, no one in the administration seemed to know whether illegal aliens were covered. Few cared why young people do not divert some of their entertainment expenditures to a modest investment in private catastrophic coverage.

Warnings that Canadians already have their health care rationed, wait in long lines, and are denied timely and critical procedures also did not seem to matter. And no attention was paid to statistics suggesting that, if we exclude homicides and auto accidents, Americans live as long on average as anyone in the industrial world, and have better chances of surviving longer with heart disease and cancer. That the average American did not wish to radically alter his existing plan, and that he understood that the uninsured really did have access to health care, albeit in a wasteful manner at the emergency room, was likewise of no concern.

The issue again was larger, and involved a vast reinterpretation of how America receives health care.  Whether more or fewer Americans would get better or worse access and cheaper or more expensive care, or whether the government can or cannot afford such new entitlements, oddly seemed largely secondary to the crux of the debate.

Instead, the notion that the state will assume control, in Canada-like fashion, and level the health-care playing field was the real concern. “They” (the few) will now have the same care as “we” (the many). Whether the result is worse or better for everyone involved is extraneous, since sameness is the overarching principle.

We can discern this same mandated egalitarianism beneath many of the administration’s recent policy initiatives. Obama is not a pragmatist, as he insisted, nor even a liberal, as charged.

Rather, he is a statist. The president believes that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves. By “better” I do not mean in a fashion that, measured by disinterested criteria, makes us necessarily wealthier, happier, more productive, or freer.

Instead, “better” means “fairer,” or more “equal.” We may “make” different amounts of money, but we will end up with more or less similar net incomes. We may know friendly doctors, be aware of the latest procedures, and have the capital to buy blue-chip health insurance, but no matter. Now we will all alike queue up with our government-issued insurance cards to wait our turn at the ubiquitous corner clinic.

None of this equality-of-results thinking is new.

When radical leaders over the last 2,500 years have sought to enforce equality of results, their prescriptions were usually predictable: redistribution of property; cancellation of debts; incentives to bring out the vote and increase political participation among the poor; stigmatizing of the wealthy, whether through the extreme measure of ostracism or the more mundane forced liturgies; use of the court system to even the playing field by targeting the more prominent citizens; radical growth in government and government employment; the use of state employees as defenders of the egalitarian faith; bread-and-circus entitlements; inflation of the currency and greater national debt to lessen the power of accumulated capital; and radical sloganeering about reactionary enemies of the new state.

The modern versions of much of the above already seem to be guiding the Obama administration — evident each time we hear of another proposal to make it easier to renounce personal debt; federal action to curtail property or water rights; efforts to make voter registration and vote casting easier; radically higher taxes on the top 5 percent; takeover of private business; expansion of the federal government and an increase in government employees; or massive inflationary borrowing. The current class-warfare “them/us” rhetoric was predictable.

Usually such ideologies do not take hold in America, given its tradition of liberty, frontier self-reliance, and emphasis on personal freedom rather than mandated fraternity and egalitarianism. At times, however, the stars line up, when a national catastrophe, like war or depression, coincides with the appearance of an unusually gifted, highly polished, and eloquent populist. But the anointed one must be savvy enough to run first as a centrist in order later to govern as a statist.

Given the September 2008 financial meltdown, the unhappiness over the war, the ongoing recession, and Barack Obama’s postracial claims and singular hope-and-change rhetoric, we found ourselves in just such a situation. For one of the rare times in American history, statism could take hold, and the country could be pushed far to the left.

That goal is the touchstone that explains the seemingly inexplicable — and explains also why, when Obama is losing independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans, his anxious base nevertheless keeps pushing him to become even more partisan, more left-wing, angrier, and more in a hurry to rush things through. They understand the unpopularity of the agenda and the brief shelf life of the president’s charm. One term may be enough to establish lasting institutional change.

Obama and his supporters at times are quite candid about such a radical spread-the-wealth agenda, voiced best by Rahm Emanuel — “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid” — or more casually by Obama himself — “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

So we move at breakneck speed in order not to miss this rare opportunity when the radical leadership of the Congress and the White House for a brief moment clinch the reins of power. By the time a shell-shocked public wakes up and realizes that the prescribed chemotherapy is far worse than the existing illness, it should be too late to revive the old-style American patient.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The term, “Cloward-Piven strategy” resounds in Hanson’s article without having ever once been used:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

An American Thinker article provides flesh to the concept:

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. 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.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-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. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

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 news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Nobody wants to believe that a large and influential group of our leaders would want to create a catastrophe as a means of having an opportunity to impose their will upon an ensuing “super-government” that would necessarily have to arise from the ashes.  The concept strikes many as madness.

Only it’s happened too many times in just this century to label as “madness.”  It is, in fact, the goal of virtually every revolutionary movement.  You have to tear down the old in order to create the new.

Consider the fact that the leftist organizers of the 1960s – like Barack Obama’s friend and mentor William Ayers, who was instrumental in Obama’s early career and his run in politics – are very much still around and still profoundly shaping the leftist agenda.  Take Ayers’ Weather Underground co-founder Jeff Jones, whose Apollo Alliance wrote a big chunk of Obama’s stimulus package.  Take Tom Hayden (who endorsed Obama), leader of the leftist group Students for a Democratic Society.  He proclaimed in a landmark 1962 speech that the youth must wrest control of society from their elders, and that to that end universities had to be transformed into incubators of revolutionary “social action.”  And his calls to use any means necessary to achieve that “social action” – certainly including violence and force – colored and in fact defined the entire 60s leftist radicalism.  Hayden was one of the writers of the “Berkeley Liberation Program.”  Some highlights: “destroy the university, unless it serves the people”; “all oppressed people in jail are political prisoners and must be set free”; “create a soulful socialism”; “students must destroy the senile dictatorship of adult teachers.”  And his “community outreach” fomented horrific race riots.

These people are still dictating the agenda of the left today.  They were trying to fundamentally transform society then, and they are trying to fundamentally transform society today.  Only their tactics have changed; the goal remains the same.

You don’t think Barack Obama – who was in turn mentored by communist Frank Marshall Davis, by radical organizer Saul Alinsky, by terrorist William Ayers – (the link is to a CNN story demonstrating that Obama’s relationship to Ayers was MUCH deeper than Obama claimed) – doesn’t value these people and share their values?  Then, to put it very bluntly, you are a fool.  The words of our current president:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.  The foreign students.  The Chicanos.  The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.  We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.  At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.  When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints.  We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure.  We were alienated.”

But of course, Obama really wasn’t alienated, by his own statement.  He was a member of a community–a community of far-far-leftist radicals.

Also, of course “the more politically active black students” were the violent, racist, and criminal Black Panthers.

Obama was always about “change.”

You may not believe me now.  I understand that.  But hear this: it is my contention that things are going to get seriously bad in this country.  And that there are liberals, progressives, socialists (as Obama’s climate czar Carol Browner is), communists (as Obama’s ‘Green jobs czar’ Van Jones describes himself) – or whatever the hell these people want to call themselves – who are manipulating and riding the current times in order to take advantage of the future collapse.

Things didn’t have to get as bad as they’re going to get.  It certainly won’t be George Bush’s fault (all of Obama’s efforts to turn him into the current version of Emmanuel Goldstein to the contrary).  It is not George Bush’s fault that Barack Obama’s budget accumulated so far in 2009 exceeds all eight years of Bush’s combined deficits.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that we have seen historic and completely unsustainable levels of red ink under Barack Obama.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that Barack Obama is essentially truing to nationalize wide swaths of our economy, such as health care and energy.  It’s all on Obama.

Obama’s massive debt is creating serious worries about the future of the U.S. dollar.  We are forecasted to be paying a trillion dollars a year just in interest on the debt by 2019; and it will very likely be a lot more a lot sooner.

What’s going to happen then?

Well, let me tell you what the Cloward-Piven proponents believe will happen: they think the coming complete crash of our economic system will result in the complete takeover of the economy and the society by the state.  They think that as panicked and hungry people look around at the disaster big government created, they will have no choice but to turn to government for help.  They think that they will finally have the socialist utopia they always dreamed of but American independence and self-reliance would never allow.

If by some miracle in defiance of all the laws of economics Obama’s economic policy actually doesn’t kill our economy, Obama and Democrats will win big.  If, far more likely, Obama’s economic policy causes a crash of the entire system, liberals believe that Democrats will ultimately STILL win big.

You can call me crazy if you like.  But mark my words.

As you see things getting worse, and liberals using the complete and catastrophic failure of big government to justify even MORE and even BIGGER big government, what might seem crazy to you now will make a lot more sense.

Democrats’ Pseudo-Demonization Again On Display

1 suspect in custody following Dem HQ vandalism in Denver
By Jessica Fender
The Denver Post

Posted: 08/25/2009 11:53:20 AM MDT

A volunteer cleans up glass at the Colorado Democratic Party Headquarters after someone smashed nearly all the windows of the office early Tuesday morning, on August 25, 2009. (THE DENVER POST

A 24-year-old arrested this morning on suspicion of smashing 11 windows at Colorado Democratic Party headquarters tried to conceal his identity while allegedly committing the crime, according to police descriptions.

Maurice Schwenkler wore a shirt over his face, a hooded sweat shirt and latex gloves before he and another man fled the scene on bicycles, police said. Schwenkler was apprehended after a short chase. The other suspect remains at large.

While Schwenkler does not appear in the state’s voter registration database, a person by that name in November 2008 received $500 from a political 527 committee called Colorado Citizens Coalition for “communications,” according to campaign finance disclosures.

The accountant for the 527 appears to be the same woman who handles the books for many other Democratic-leaning political committees.

A Maurice Schwenkler also signed an online 2005 petition to free anti-war Christian protesters who were captured in Iraq.

State Democratic Party Chairwoman Pat Waak initially blamed the vandalism on animosity surrounding the health care debate, though Denver police declined to comment on possible motives.

The shattered windows were emblazoned with posters touting President Barack Obama and the Democratic position on health care reform.

The other storefronts surrounding the building on West Eighth Avenue and Santa Fe Drive in downtown Denver’s art district were untouched. But the Democratic posters are scuffed from hammer blows, Waak said.

“We ought to be having a serious, conscientious debate about what’s best for the country,” Waak said. “Clearly there’s been an effort on the other side to stir up hate. I think this is the consequence of it.”

She estimates the damage at $11,000.

An officer on patrol spotted vandals in the act around 2:20 a.m. and took Schwenkler into custody after a short chase, Denver police spokeswoman Vicki Ferrari said.

And, lo and behold, the police arrested the 2nd person – a transgender anarchist.  Pretty clearly, “she” is not a Republican:

Ariel Attack, a Denver-based anarchist, was arrested at 2:27am Tues, 24 here in Denver for allegedly smashing 11 windows of the Democratic Party headquaters at 777 Santa Fe Drive.

***PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY***

Ariel Attack, a Denver-based anarchist, was arrested at 2:27am Tues, 24 here in Denver for allegedly smashing 11 windows of the Democratic Party headquaters at 777 Santa Fe Drive.

Right now we are trying to raise the bail money for her to get out of jail; her bail hearing will be tomorrow at 10am Denver time. Several lawyers have told us to expect anywhere from between $3,000 to $10,000 in bail, and due to the high publicity of the case here in Denver, we are expecting higher (lead story for most all local news outlets, and being picked up by national news networks).

At this moment, we do not know Ariel’s status within the jail, especially regarding her gender classification. We have been unable to talk with Ariel since she went in. She is listed in the jail records and media under her birth name. We also do not know what plans, if any, she had made for this situation.

So you see, when you hear about the “stirring up of hate,” think Democrats.

When you see a swastika and hear a Democrat talking about the vileness of Republicans, realize that a Democrat almost certainly put it there.

When you see Democrats blaming Republicans for something that is truly awful, realize that in all probability, a Democrat did it.

This has been going on at least since the 1960s, when radical black students burned a cross in a black women’s dorm to justify their violent riots.

The episode gives Kyle-Ann Shiver’s article, “Obama’s Nazi Straw Man: An Old Alinsky Trick,” a whole lot more credibility:

When Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and now the president’s own deputy press secretary conjure up images of Nazis at healthcare town halls, they are engaging in one of the oldest tricks in anyone’s book, but an especial favorite of their mentor, Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously.  Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this same diabolical tactic to deceive the people.  From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:

“…in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University…students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations – a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies.  The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address.  That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative – and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school.  He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’  And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”

Planting major falsehoods has been a favorite Alinsky strategy from the start.  His acolyte, Barack Obama, learned his Industrial Areas Foundation lessons on deceiving for power while on a side trip during his Harvard years, then taught the Alinsky power tactics at the University of Chicago.

Democrats are increasingly becoming truly vile people.  They don’t believe in God, they don’t believe in objective truth, they believe in the same postmodern and existentialist principles that led to Marxism and Nazism, and their philosophy of “will to power” permits them to say anything or do anything that will advance their agenda – no holds barred, and no consequences beyond their ideological objective ever once considered.

Politico Article Reveals Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy Backfiring

Allow me to refresh your memories concerning the infamous Cloward-Piven strategy, which was the brainchild of two leftist professors to take total control of America by overwhelming its social support structures to create a “crisis”:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

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.

I genuinely believe that Barack Obama – a follower of Saul Alinsky as well as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate when he belonged to it to go along with a long and deep relationship with leftist radicals – is pursuing a “heads we win, tails you lose” strategy. If the economy somehow miraculously picks up under all of this massive spending and even more massive debt, then Democrats win big and Republicans lose. If – far more likely – the economy crashes under its own massive weight due to hyperinflation as interest payments on the debt soar and the Obama Treasury devalues the currency by printing money, then a starving, terrified people will scream for help from their government. And Democrats will – in solving the “crisis” they themselves created – secure the pure-socialist totalitarian state they have always envisioned. Either way, Obama liberals believe they will win big.

Government by crisis is a tried and true fascist approach.  It is up to you to decide whether it is a coincidence or not that Barack Obama is using the same approach, as described by his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel:

EMANUEL:  “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.  What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.  This is an opportunity. What used to be long-term problems — be they in the health care area, energy area, education area, fiscal area, tax area, regulatory reform area — things that we had postponed for too long that were long-term are now immediate and must be dealt with.  And this crisis provides the opportunity for us, as I would say, the opportunity to do things that you could not do before.”

Obama began his presidency by fearmongering a crisis to get his way.  He fearmongered the stimulus through the Congress, predicting terrifying scenarios if it failed and hyping claims that have turned out to be completely false if he got his way.  Republicans were completely shut out of the stimulus, and the legislation was rushed through Congress so quickly that not one single Representative or Senator had any chance to read the bill that Obama then took leisurely four days to sign.

There was just one problem: Cloward-Piven depended for its success upon a death by incrementalism, as vividly depicted by a frog placed in a pot of water.  If you put the frog in boiling water, it will leap out immediately.  But if you put the frog in cool water and gradually turn up the heat, you can literally cook the frog to death.  Obama’s problem is that he turned the heat up too fast for the American people, and they are now leaping out of the boiling cauldron he created for them.

Or, perhaps another illustration will do to depict the American people-as-frog:

Note that the article that follows is written from a clear liberal slant (e.g., “Then Obama lost control of the health care debate by letting Republicans get away with their bogus claims about “death panels.”). Nevertheless, the article clearly admits to the crisis-style mentality that Obama used to try to push through his entire agenda at once.

Obama’s Big Bang could go bust
By: Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei
August 21, 2009

Barack Obama’s Big Bang is beginning to backfire, as his plans for rapid, once-in-a-generation overhauls of energy, financial regulation and health care are running into stiff resistance, both in Washington and around the country.

The Obama theory was simple, though always freighted with risk: Use a season of economic anxiety to enact sweeping changes the public likely wouldn’t stomach in ordinary times. But the abrupt swing in the public’s mood, from optimism about Obama’s possibility to concern he may be overreaching, has thrown the White House off its strategy and forced the president to curtail his ambitions.

Some Democrats point to a decision in June as the first vivid sign of trouble for Obama. These Democrats say the White House, in retrospect, made a grievous mistake by muscling conservative Democrats in swing districts to vote for a cap-and-trade energy bill that was very unpopular among their constituents.

Many of those members were pounded back home because Democrats passed a bill Republicans successfully portrayed as a big tax increase on consumers. The result: many conservative Democrats were gun-shy about taking any more risky votes — or going out on a limb on health care.

The other result: The prospects for winning final passage of a cap-and-trade bill this year are greatly diminished. And, while most Democrats still predict a health care bill will pass this year, it is likely to be a shadow of what Obama once had planned.

“The majority-makers are the freshman and sophomores from conservative districts where there’s this narrative building about giveaways, bailouts and too much change at once,” said a top House Democratic strategist, who requested anonymity to discuss internal politics candidly. “There’s this big snowball building in those districts. That’s why those folks are so scared.”

David Axelrod, Obama’s political architect, said it was “very clear early in the transition” that Obama would have to attack a number of festering issues simultaneously.

“The times demanded it,” he said in an interview. “We didn’t have the luxury of taking things sequentially, year after year, and hoping we got there. That’s the reason that all these major issues had been deferred for decades: Change is hard.”

Axelrod said the president is “looking forward to an active fall” when he returns from next week’s vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, and is not as worried about the outlook as the denizens of Washington, where “every day is election day.”

But the “Big Bang” theory of governance, as some White House insiders called it, is not without risk and consequences.

By doing so much, so fast, Obama gave Republicans the chance to define large swaths of the debate. Conservatives successfully portrayed the stimulus bill as being full of pork for Democrats. Then Obama lost control of the health care debate by letting Republicans get away with their bogus claims about “death panels.” The GOP also has successfully raised concerns that the Obama plan is a big-government takeover of health care — and much of Middle America bought the idea, according to polls.

By doing so much, so fast, Obama never sufficiently educated the public on the logic behind his policies. He spent little time explaining the biggest bailouts in U.S. history, which he inherited but supported and expanded. And then he lost crucial support on the left by not following up quickly with new and stricter rules for Wall Street. On Friday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman echoed a concern widely shared among leading liberals. “I don’t know if administration officials realize just how much damage they’ve done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing.”

By doing so much so fast, Obama jammed the circuits on Capitol Hill. Congress has a hard time doing even one big thing well at a time. Congress is good at passing giveaways and tax cuts, but has not enacted a transformative piece of social legislation since President Bill Clinton’s welfare reform of 1996. “There’s a reason things up here were built to go slowly,” said another Democratic aide.

By doing so doing so much, so fast, he has left voters — especially independents — worried that he got an overblown sense of his mandates and is doing, well, too much too fast. A Washington Post-ABC News poll published Friday found that independents’ confidence in Obama’s ability to make the right decisions had dropped 20 points since the Inauguration, from 61 percent to 41 percent.

Axelrod and others argue Obama had no choice but to tackle all of these issues at once. That might be true for a stimulus bill and the bank and auto bailouts — but that case is harder to make for energy and health care, which have been the focus of intense debate for decades past and probably will for decades to come.

Go-big-or-go-home isn’t the only theory of the case that a new president can adopt. The most promising alternative is to build public support over time by showing competence and success, then using that to leverage bigger things.

So imagine if Obama had focused on fixing the economy, and chosen presidential power over congressional accommodation and constructed his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a true, immediate stimulus without the pork and paybacks.

He then could have pushed through tougher regulation of financial institutions, making it clear people were paying for their sins, and would have a much harder time doing it again. This would have delighted the left and perhaps bought Obama more durable support among independents. Instead, the left thinks he’s beholden to investment banks, and much of the public sees no consequences for the financial mess.

Add in some serious budget cuts, and Obama would have positioned himself as a new kind of liberal with the courage to tame Washington and Wall Street, as promised. Under this scenario, Obama might be getting more credit for the economic recovery that appears to be under way. This would have positioned him to win health care reform starting next year — a mighty achievement, and clear vindication against the doubters. Some White House officials said they are skeptical of moving controversial bills in an election year, when lawmakers are often more timid.

White House officials say they never seriously considered a more incremental approach to the year, though they did privately discuss trying to get regulation of the financial sector done right after the stimulus bill. There was too much disagreement among Democrats at the time over how far to go with regulation to proceed.

If the current strategy fails, the same person who got much of the credit for the crisp first 100 days will get some of the blame: White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. It was Emanuel who has strongly advocated the big-bang approach, declaring during the transition: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Now, what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do.”

The confidence of Obama’s aides was bolstered by their fresh memory that a similar approach had worked very effectively for then-President George W Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. With the public on edge, Bush was able to enact restrictive policies under the banner of protecting American soil, and build an entire new department of government that voters otherwise might have opposed. The economic meltdown would be Obama’s Sept. 11 — the predicate for sweeping legislation that he wanted to enact anyway.

Just past halftime in his first year, the president has won passage of a long list of bills that the White House points to as proof of their approach. In addition to the stimulus, Obama signed major bills on tobacco, pay equity, children’s health insurance, national service and the mortgage rescue. If he gets health care and either energy or regulation this year, it would be hard to argue the big-bang plan wasn’t a success.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), now president and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, cautions that any verdict on Obama would be “kind of like judging a major surgical operation in the middle of the operation.”

With Obama reaching the defining season of his freshman year, Hamilton said the current agenda reminds him of the scale of the Great Society programs Congress was tackling when he came to Congress in 1965. “This president thinks big but I also think he acts pragmatically,” Hamilton said. “So many things in a congressional session come together at the last few hours, the last few weeks.”

But sometimes they just come undone.

Zachary Abrahamson contributed to this report.

A number of points of order: Politico says that “Congress…has not enacted a transformative piece of social legislation since President Bill Clinton’s welfare reform of 1996.” But Bill Clinton did not transform anything; it was the Republicans under the Contract with America who imposed the welfare reform of 1996 – and Bill Clinton was forced to sign the thing he subsequently took credit for.

Politico cannot stop itself from falling into blaming Republicans for their  health care demonizing.  But there is an admission that even before health care came up on Obama’s timetable, it was DEMOCRATS who were worried and frightened at the agenda: “There was too much disagreement among Democrats at the time over how far to go with regulation to proceed.” It would be nice if the mainstream media finally reported honestly and acknowledged that if health care doesn’t pass, it is because Democrats are worrying about their seats as an outraged electorate gets its revenge.

Another problem the Politico article glosses over is summed up in the statement: “By doing so much, so fast, Obama never sufficiently educated the public on the logic behind his policies.” But the issue isn’t that Obama never educated the public on the logic behind his policies; it’s that his policies don’t have any logic beyond the most superficial big-government liberalism that most Americans reject.  Other than the argument, “This is a naked power-grab intended to secure Democrat control for perpetuity,” there simply IS no argument.

There’s another point that the Politico article glosses over that emerges from the statement: “There’s a reason things up here were built to go slowly,” said another Democratic aide.” That reason is the Constitution.  We were never set up to be a fascist dictatorship or a totalitarian state disconnected from the deliberation of the people.  Our founders made us to be a nation of laws, and follow a tried-and-true process that would slow us down to avoid tyranny.

But liberals have trampled on the Constitution for years.  Too many leftist intellectuals regard it as the irrelevant product of a cadre of dead, white, sexist, slave-holding males.  Barack Obama has derided the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you.” The Constitution becomes a problem for Obama.

We have the right to assemble, but the government is not obliged to transport us to protest sites.  We have the right to speak, but the government is not required to provide us with a megaphone or a platform.  The “negative liberties” allow us our basic freedoms while preserving our individual liberties and responsibilities.  Obama wants to fundamentally do away with the Constitution in order to impose an entirely different system which creates a mega-state that will have innumerable duties to take care of us.

If he succeeds, the America that the founding fathers created will officially cease to exist.  The nanny state isn’t in the Constitution, no matter how many penumbras and emanations liberal justices might claim to see in their crystal-ball-gazing.

As for the “death panels” being a bogus claim, do you want to know where the death panels are?  They are right here:

The whole damn maze of bureaucracy is a “death panel.”  Anyone who thinks that the government will be able to expand their government health care – which is already about to go bankrupt – to tens of millions more people, and save money doing it, is a fool.  They are people who cannot see the facts through their ideology.

The Cloward-Piven strategy appears to be having a problem due to Barack Obama’s arrogance and unwillingness to continue to use the system to “get there” gradually.

The only question, given the massive debts Obama has already accumulated – deficits that literally are more than every president has accumulated from George Washington to George W. Bush, combined – is whether the Cloward-Piven strategy will yet have its chance to work.  It might already be too late.  When you look at our real national debt of more than $100 TRILLION and realize that we cannot possibly repay it, if you have any sense you should get more than a little bit concerned that our leaders simply WILL NOT control their spending.

The Democrats have an endgame: when the system collapses, the panicked people will turn to the very government that created the calamity and demand that it take care of them.  And that is precisely what big government liberals have always preached.

One thing is clear: if Obama wins his “public option” in any form, it will become the anvil that broke the camel’s back.

If Obama’s “Big Bang” doesn’t go bust, America will be the one that goes bust and ends up exploding in a big bang of debt.

Astroturfing Tales: Obama Liberal Pretends To Be Doctor At Town Hall

It’s funny in its own vicious, twisted, psychotic little way.  Nancy Pelosi calls American citizens “un-American” and compares them to swastika-toting Nazis as she charges them with being “Astroturf.”  And Harry Reid officially added the word “evil mongers” to the English language to describe opponents of the Democrats’ health care agenda.

Meanwhile:

Who are the real thugs? Democrats attack congressional town hall protesters as “Brown Shirts” — likening taxpayer activists across the country to Hitler’s storm troopers. But it’s the Big Labor hoodlums clad in identical purple shirts — the uniform of Service Employees International Union members — who own the mob label.

Margarida Jorge, a former SEIU organizing director who now serves as national field director for the deep-pocketed, left-wing coalition Health Care for America Now, sent out a memo to her foot soldiers last week on how to counter Obamacare opponents. “You must bring enough people to drown them out and to cover all our bases so as to marginalize their disruptive tactics,” she exhorted.

Local SEIU chapters echoed the call to brass knuckles. “It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices,” urged the leaders of SEIU’s Local 2001 in Connecticut, according to a memo exposed by The Weekly Standard’s Mary Katharine Ham.

At town hall meetings in St. Louis and Tampa, Fla., last week, purple-shirted SEIU members engaged in physical confrontations with critics of the Democrats’ health care takeover plans. Assault victim Kenneth Gladney, beaten while passing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, is turning the tables on his SEIU assailants. The black conservative activist announced Tuesday that he’s filing hate crime charges against the union goons in Missouri.

We’ve got ACORN and SEIU footsoldiers being bussed into town halls far from their own districts by the multiple busloads.  The bussed-in people from outside the district got in; the ordinary citizens who live in the politically conservative district and wanted to ask their questions and express their opinions found themselves outside.

The nice thing about Astroturf is you can pick it up when you’re through with it at one event and then haul it away to another one.

Need a job? It turns out being “Astroturf” for blatantly hypocritical Democrats pays.  Caleb Howe has an article entitled, “Let’s Talk Astroturf” with all kinds of screen saves offering pay-for-protest.  Here’s one of them:

The key, of course, is for Democrats to demonize their opposition while they bring their own demons in.  By the busload.

You remember that nice and not at all rude lady, Democrat Houston Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who took a phone call and talked while a woman with cancer was trying to express her concerns about Sheila Jackson Lee’s health care plan?

Somebody pointed out how incredibly rude Sheila was.  When she later walked by that person, she hissed, “I am NOT rude.  I can multi-task!”

I’ll leave it up to you who is the Astroturf: the health care opponent with cancer trying to ask a question, or the “not rude” representative ignoring her and chatting on her cell phone.  My money’s on Sheila Jackson Lee.

But that’s hardly enough to say about Sheila Jackson Lee’s winning ways, or which side of the debate is really doing all the damn “Astroturfing.”

Here’s video of a medical doctor getting up at Sheila J. Lee’s town hall:

Only it turns out that “Doctor” Roxane Mayer wasn’t a doctor at all, but a fraud:

On Aug. 11th our own Houston Chronicle displayed a picture of Shelia Jackson Lee hugging a woman who had asked a question at the townhall as well, but her question was in full support of the health care bill. The woman was identified as “Dr. Roxana Mayer, a pediatric primary care physician.” Turns out, she isn’t a doctor at all though. She had identified herself to the Chonicle that way though.

Patterico, a lawyer and LA blogger smelled something fishy, found her on MySpace, saw that she was clearly not a doctor, and e-mailed her to ask her to make sure. She did e-mail back and admit to the lie. It seems she was also an Obama delegate (actually true), which she also told the Chronicle, but the reporter failed to mention that little fact about her.

So, here we have someone asking a question, giving favor in support of the health care bill, posing as a doctor to give more credibility to her support. When in reality she was an Obama delegate and NOT a doctor.

After the plants at Obama’s townhalls, and now this, it’s beyond amusing and ironic that the Democrats accuse the Tea Parties of being “manufactured.”

Yeah, it turns out that “Dr. Roxana Mayer” is “Astroturf” on a level of fraud that even the lying liberals haven’t accused conservatives of being.  The Patterico link cited above has the title, “I’m not a doctor but I play one at town hall meetings.”  When confronted, Mayer demonstrated nothing but contempt – contempt of the truth.

“Doctor” Roxana Mayer is not just some kook who showed up at a town hall and misrepresented herself.  She was chosen as an Obama delegate representing the state of Texas.  She is currently a “grass roots organizer” and a lead organizer for “Organizing for America” – which Obama is calling upon to address all the “misinformation” allegedly coming from the other side.

Seriously: Who is the “plant” around here?  How truly stupid are we?

Is having a “grass roots organizing” former Obama state delegate pretend to be a doctor in order to fabricate pseudo-credibility not low enough for you?  Then I’ve got more.  Remember this picture, broadcast all over the mainstream media?

Well, first of all, the mainstream media that is so OUTRAGED by the Obama as Hitler signs didn’t really mind the ones like this that dominated liberal events for the better part of eight years:

Second, it turns out that the Obama “I’ve Changed” sign was brought by a Democrat John Dingell supporter who carried the sign until the cameras caught him, and then handed out pro-Democrat health care bill literature after the news cameras had left.  The man obtained the image for the sign from Communist Lyndon LaRouche’s web site; and the mainstream media have in their bias ignorantly blamed Rush Limbaugh rather than a man who ran as a Democrat and openly compared Bush to Hitler in 2004.  The sign-carrying man got the idea from Nancy Pelosi and from a long tradition of leftist demagoguery, as an American Thinker article entitled, “Obama’s Nazi Straw Man: An Old Alinsky Trick” points out:

When Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and now the president’s own deputy press secretary conjure up images of Nazis at healthcare town halls, they are engaging in one of the oldest tricks in anyone’s book, but an especial favorite of their mentor, Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously.  Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this same diabolical tactic to deceive the people.  From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:

“…in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University…students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations – a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies.  The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address.  That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative – and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school.  He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’  And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”

Planting major falsehoods has been a favorite Alinsky strategy from the start.  His acolyte, Barack Obama, learned his Industrial Areas Foundation lessons on deceiving for power while on a side trip during his Harvard years, then taught the Alinsky power tactics at the University of Chicago.

It is almost impossible to believe that, even with near total control of the country, Democrats are resorting to the old myth in portraying themselves as the victim even as they viciously and deceitfully demagogue and demonize increasing numbers of the American people.

But that is precisely what they are doing.

As the left continues to demonize American citizens – many of them elderly – at town hall events, just recognize the source.