Posted on 08/05/2013 8:37:35 PM PDT by neverdem
No, I’m simply saying that they may have been too quick to believe what that guy Lamb said. How much research did they do? What evidence did they display? Could you please provide me with some? Also, I came across this pic of Barack Obama’s old man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.
Does he look at all Arab?
Obama is certainly a a-hole, but I doubt that he is an a-rab.
With all due respect, the guy looks black to me. What is there Arab about him? Could you point out some features?
Democrats circled the wagons around Clinton because they realized that they couldn't get anyone they liked better elected. And when some of them started thinking that they could -- and voted for Nader or stayed home -- it cost them the presidency.
Having learned the lesson they're clinging to Obama -- whatever he does, however badly he does it -- for dear life. Now, if they start thinking that they are the natural governing party -- that the White House is theirs for the asking -- that's when they'll start fighting among themselves and let a Republican slip in.
amen
At its core, Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is demonic, but don’t take my word for it. Alinsky himself, among many dedications at the beginning of his work, wrote:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom Lucifer.
In his Prologue he wrote:
“The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, ‘Burn the system down!’ They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book.”
He then went on to write, “Few of us survived the Joe McCarthy holocaust of the early 1950s and of those there were even fewer whose understanding and insights had developed beyond the dialectical materialism of orthodox Marxism. My fellow radicals who were supposed to pass on the torch of experience and insights to a new generation just were not there.”
To demonstrate the demonic flavor of Alinsky, he quotes Job 7:1, “The life of man upon earth is a warfare,” while at the same time teaching a doctrine of devils.
He then states his purpose in writing the book. “WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.” pg. 3 “In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…. ‘Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.’ This means revolution.” p.3 “Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.” p.6 “A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10 “An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….” pp.10-11
Alinsky’s tactics were based, not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.
Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins’s wrath by suggesting that Lenin’s revolutionary plan wouldn’t work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:
“By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible…. Gramsci’s master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity’s transcendent God.”
I agree that Obama at the least was a Muslim, and still has sympathies for the religion.
As we say in the defense industry, Welcome To The Suck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.