Alinsky to Obama to Occupiers

Civil unrest is President Barack Obama's crutch, his comfort zone, and his trump card. That's why he has encouraged the "Occupy Wall Street" protest and its progeny across the country, despite significant political dangers to him for doing so. Closer looks at Obama's career roots and at the protesters' behaviors help explain both why the protests are worrisome developments and why the president actually likes them.

First, it helps to understand just how radical most of these protesters are -- and just how obscene. Clearly, they are mostly socialist or communist in orientation. And reports are rampant about the lewdness, vileness, and illegality that has marked the Wall Street "occupation" zone, including plenteous drugs, public nudity and sex, and defecation on police cars. A lot of this isn't free speech; it's open law-breaking.

http://usdayofrage.org/
___________________________________________________________

"Gleeful about the raging riots that held England captive this week, the tweet has gone out to activists and ‘disaffected’ youth to “occupy wall street Sept 17” today. Social Networks FaceBook and Twitter are abuzz with plans for coming anarchy on U.S. soil.

The Days of Rage will continue beyond the ‘occupation’ of Wall Street with activists being told “bring your tent”.

http://www.black-and-right.com/2011/08/14/the-us-day-of-rage-is-coming/
___________________________________________________________

The original "Day(s) of Rage"

Days of Rage riots (1969)
The Days of Rage riots in Chicago took place over a 4-day period beginning October 8, 1969, after members of the Weathermen, a militant offshoot of the Students for a Democratic Society [SDS], converged on the city to confront police in the streets in response to the trial of the group of anti-Vietnam War activists known as the "Chicago Eight".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Rage
___________________________________________________________

January 12, 2009:
Revolutionary ferment in Greece – a taste of what is to come for the whole of Europe
http://www.marxist.com/revolutionary-ferment-greece-taste-for-europe.htm
___________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Anarcho-syndicalism

A common Anarcho-Syndicalist flag.

In the early 20th century, anarcho-syndicalism arose as a distinct school of thought within anarchism.[78] With greater focus on the labour movement than previous forms of anarchism, syndicalism posits radical trade unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society, democratically self-managed by the workers.

Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Important principles include workers' solidarity, direct action (such as general strikes and workplace recuperations), and workers' self-management. This is compatible with other branches of anarchism, and anarcho-syndicalists often subscribe to anarchist communist or collectivist anarchist economic systems.[79] Its advocates propose labour organization as a means to create the foundations of a non-hierarchical anarchist society within the current system and bring about social revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

A common Anarcho-Syndicalist flag.
_____________________________________________________

"The raised fist (also known as the clenched fist) is a salute and logo most often used by left-wing activists, such as: Marxists, anarchists, socialists, communists, pacifists, trade unionists, and black nationalists. The raised fist is usually regarded as an expression of solidarity, strength or defiance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised_fist

_____________________________________________________

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Exclusive: Bill Ayers Talks About Election Night in Grant Park

From NBC Chicago, Jan 21, 2009:

Bill Ayers was "overflowing with happiness, relief, love" when he and his wife went to Grant Park with tens of thousands of Chicagoans to celebrate the election of President Barack Obama.

Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, spoke exclusively with NBC Chicago's Dick Johnson about why they joined the Election Night celebration in the park, where 40 years before they helped stage the Days of Rage riots.

The couple said they got last-minute tickets from a friend to be in Grant Park that night.

"I couldn't stop crying a couple of times. I found the exact spot where I was beaten 40 years ago," Ayers said. "But I've never been in a crowd that large that wasn't edged with either anger or drunkenness or gluttony, and it was really an extraordinary feeling."

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Exclusive-Bill-Ayers-Talks-About-Election-Night-in-Grant-Park.html
_____________________________________________________

"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English..."
--B.H. Obama

YouTube Video:
The O'Reilly Factor confronts Bill Ayers:
October 24, 2008:
(note the red communist star, and anarcho-syndicalist red and black, on his shirt)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP3uvK9gTIY
_____________________________________________________

Bill Ayers: "I considered myself partly an anarchist then and I consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean, I'm as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist which is to say I find a lot of the ideas in anarchism appealing."

"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at"
--Bill Ayers (1970), quoted in New York Times, September 11, 2001:

Article: "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
_____________________________________________________

"Dig It. First they killed those pigs [ie, rich people], then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!"
-Weather Underground leader and wife of Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, referring to the Manson murders

Article: Allies in War -by David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 17, 2001
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=63512670-BF7C-42A0-B41D-5D0FB9E09C09
_____________________________________________________

Undercover agent Larry Grathwohl discusses the Weather Underground's post-revolution governing plans for the United States:

Larry Grathwohl:

"I asked, 'well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?' and the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say 'eliminate,' I mean 'kill.' Twenty-five million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people. And they were dead serious."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ
_____________________________________________________

"It was at the Chicago home of [Bill] Ayers and [Bernardine] Dohrn that Obama, then an up-and-coming 'community organizer,' had his political coming out party in 1995. Not content with this rite of passage in Lefty World — where unrepentant terrorists are regarded as progressive luminaries, still working 'only to educate' — both Obamas tended to the relationship with the Ayers."
Article: The Company He Keeps:
Meet Obama’s circle: The same old America-hating Left
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=&w=MA==

Re: Occupy Wall Street, 2011

He [NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly] said that following Wednesday's [Oct 12, 2011] 10,000-strong union march, a much smaller group tried to storm police barricades at Wall Street and Broadway.

"They locked their arms. They counted down - 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. Then they decided to charge the police. That is going to be met with some physical force," Kelly said.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

*********************************************************************************************************************

Re: Kent State, 1969

"the purpose of all this agitation at Kent State was to recruit as much cannon fodder as possible, and then to provoke a "major confrontation." When it came, it would be neither accidental nor spontaneous. It would be exactly what the revolutionaries wanted.

On April 8, 1969, S.D.S. toughs marched through various campus buildings, disrupting classes as planned, chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho chi Minh," and striking campus police officers. One of these hoodlums pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of assault and battery, and drew a fine and jail sentence. The university scheduled a disciplinary hearing for two others on April sixteenth, at which time about one hundred revolutionaries smashed into the Music and Speech building where the hearing was being held, destroyed property, and again attacked police officers. Of the fifty-eight demonstrators arrested, ten were not even students at the school. At the rally preceding the march on the disciplinary hearing, non-student Jim Mellen told the audience as follows: "We're no longer asking you to come and help us make a revolution. We're telling you that the revolution has begun, and the only choice you have to make is which side you're on. And we're also telling you that if you get in the way of the revolution, it's going to run right over you." Mr. Mellen's remarks were included in a liberally distributed S.D.S. pamphlet, which began with a quotation from Mao Tse-tung and the following warning: "The war is on at Kent State University ...."

At a meeting in Williams Hall on April 28, 1969, revolutionary Communist Bernardine Dohrn said that people fighting "oppression" would have to carry weapons for "self defense." On May sixth, at another campus rally, Joyce Cecora called for armed rebellion: "They used guns at Cornell and they got what they wanted. It will come to that here!" And at still another rally on campus on May twenty-second, S.D.S. member Rick Skirvin said this: "We'll start blowing up buildings, we'll start buying guns, we'll do anything to bring this motherf***er down."

Michener quotes a student named Ken Tennant as follows: "With me it goes back to the music festival they held at Fred Fuller Park in September, 1969. Four Weathermen came down from Chicago, with insignia on their bib overalls. They were selling their organization newspaper, and I said, 'I'll buy a copy if you'll tell me what your outfit stands for.' They said, 'We're going to destroy this corrupt American society and build a better.' I asked how, and they explained, 'We've decided to close down schools all over the nation. We're going to start in Chicago. But we have our eye on Kent State, too. It could be ripe.' "

Bear in mind that we have room here to cite only a few examples of the inflammatory agitation and propaganda on the campus at Kent State for almost two years. The evidence establishes—in the words of the revolutionaries—that the goal of S.D.S. was to provoke a violent confrontation in which somebody would be hurt, or even worse.

And the most incredible such example took place on April 10, 1970, when Jerry Rubin spoke on the campus at Kent State. Jerry Rubin is a Communist, of course. We can be absolutely sure of that because he has said so repeatedly. In fact he said he was a Communist when your reporter asked him about it at the Democrat National Convention in Miami in 1972. At that Convention Rubin also said that, when he and his Comrades take over, your reporter will be gassed. At Kent State, Communist Jerry Rubin said this: "The first part of the Yippie program is to kill your parents. And I mean that quite literally, because until you're prepared to kill your parents, you're not ready to change this country. Our parents are our first oppressors."

Your first reaction on reading a thing like this, of course, is that maybe I have taken it out of context. You refuse to believe that anybody would say this. But Rubin really told the students what you just read. It is important to remember that, at the time, Jerry Rubin was a convicted criminal—he had been convicted for leading the turmoil at the 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago, where terrorists attacked the police—which raises the question of how such a man could be permitted to address students on a university campus in Ohio.**

Rubin also told the Kent State students to burn down the suburbs. "The American school system will be ended in two years," he explained. "We are going to bring it down. Quit being students. Become criminals. We have to disrupt every institution and break every law. We should have more laws so we can break them, too. Everybody should have their own law to break." As for the campus itself, Comrade Rubin told the students to ignore their professors, and to "burn all the books. It's quiet here now but things are going to start again."

The campus was now ready. Almost two years of intensive Communist propaganda had their effect. A sufficient number of students was willing to serve as cannon fodder for the revolutionary "cause." The Communists needed only an excuse to provoke their "major confrontation." Three weeks later they got their excuse.

[snip]

"...it is important to quote at length from the state grand jury report on the affair: "Fifty-eight Guardsmen were injured by rocks and other objects hurled at them as they moved across the 'Commons' to Taylor Hall Hill and down to the practice football field, and were then forced to retreat .... it is clear that from the time the Guard reached the practice football field, they were on the defensive and had every reason to be concerned for their own welfare .... The circumstances present at that time indicate that 74 men surrounded by several hundred hostile rioters were forced to retreat back up the hill toward Taylor Hall under a constant barrage of rocks and other flying objects, accompanied by a constant flow of obscenities and chants such as 'Kill, Kill, Kill.' Photographic evidence has established, beyond any doubt, that as the National Guardsmen approached the top of the hill adjacent to Taylor Hall, a large segment of the crowd surged up the hill, led by smaller groups of agitators approaching to within short distances of the rear ranks of the Guardsmen.

"The testimony of the students and Guardsmen is clear that several members of the Guard were knocked to the ground or to their knees by the force of the objects thrown at them. ..."

MUCH MORE AT LINK:

http://25thaviation.org/facts/id960.htm

Here is a reply I posted earlier this morning in response to a thread describing the new poll results in South Carolina showing Herman Cain soundly beating Barack Obama in that state. I think the reply anticipates this article and takes speculation one step further:

Civitas Poll: Cain Leads Obama in N.C.

Freitag, 21. Oktober 2011 10:42:59 · 10 of 14

nathanbedford to MitchellC

We must assume that Obama has already seen these numbers sometime ago which would explain his electioneering in the area on the taxpayers' dime.

It might also explain the otherwise inexplicable occupiers movement which has been ginned up by allies of the White House and embraced by the White House. As many of us noted at its very inception, the occupiers movement is political poison to the vast middle of America and it is extremely dangerous for any politician to identify his brand with the kind of debauchery that is going on in places like Wall Street.

Why has Obama done so? Not only has he done so but it's virtually certain that he and his strategists have planned this entire manifestation. I believe he has done so because he understands the electoral map and knows he cannot win. North Carolina, a state which he took last go-around, is probably well beyond his reach if one considers that the 10% undecideds will almost certainly break against the incumbent.

Suppose Obama has seen similar numbers in states like Nevada and Wisconsin? More important, has he been reading similar numbers in Ohio? Finally, if he is in trouble in Pennsylvania, he simply cannot win the election. I believe that Obama has read enough such adverse numbers to drive him to desperation. That is, to do what we begged John McCain to do in the run-up to the last election, change the game. If he is destined to lose with the players on the board, he will kick over the board and play a new game.

There is another, darker possibility. Obama sees his reelection slipping away and, besides changing the game out of desperation, this might be his Saul Alinsky moment. It would be something that he has been groomed for all his life by his mentors and educators like Frank Marshall Davis, Cloward and Piven, and Saul Alinsky . His mother and father would be proud. If Barack Obama is more than a Marxist, if he is an odious stew of communist, America hater, anti-colonialist, one-worlder, crypto Muhammadan, and opportunist, he must take his main chance to become Hugo Chavez or spend the rest of his life regretting his cowardice.

I have no more insight into the man's mind than anyone else. I simply say that the embrace by Barack Obama as president of the United States and the Democrat party of such a repellent philosophy is an earth shattering event. It is not done obliviously.

If this is something more than a mere chess move, if Obama is up to something more earth shattering than an electioneering tactic, we must understand the threat.

Clearly, the mainstream media does not share my anxiety. They see no such threat. In fact they continue to carry water for the administration and for the occupier movement.

It may be that the mainstream media has got its marching orders directly and indirectly from Soros who controls so much of the media today as he also controls the finances of the Democrat party through his 527s. The evidence of coordination of this occupier movement is too clear to accept that some strategy not afoot. The populism of the movement is bogus. The entire movement is coordinated and Astroturfed. It sentiments are alien to the American instinct. The risk to the reelection of Obama and the Democrats is too high.

As Donald Rumsfeld might say, we are dealing with a known unknown. It is not that the evidence is clear that Obama is trying to radicalize America through a controlled uprising which he might call a revolution, it is that the potential harm of such a coup attempt is so grave that the possibility cannot be ignored. The possibility of a black swan event intervening to Obama's advantage in this scenario cannot be dismissed. It is not the likelihood of the uprising so much but the degree of potential harm which should occupy our attention.

Who would have thought that 19 jerks with box cutters could change the world?

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
[Obama's strategy for destroying the economy]
frontpage.americandaughter.com
| August 31, 2008 | Jim Simpson

Liberals self-righteously wrap themselves in the mantle of public spirit. They ardently promote policies promising to deliver the poor and oppressed from their latest misery — policies which can only find solution in the halls of government. But no matter what issue one examines, over the last fifty plus years, the liberal prescription has almost always been a failure.

Why is this so? Why does virtually every liberal scheme result in ever-increasing public spending while conditions seem to get continually worse? There are a number of reasons:

The programs usually create adverse incentives. This is especially true in so-called “anti-poverty” programs. The beneficiaries find government subsidies a replacement for, rather than a supplement to, gainful employment and eventually become incapable of supporting themselves. This in turn creates a dependent culture with its attendant toxic behaviors which demand still more government “remedies.”
The programs create their own industry, complete with scads of “think tanks” and “experts” who survive on government research grants. These are the aptly named “Beltway Bandits.”
They create their own bureaucracies, whose managers conspire with interested members of Congress to continually increase program funding, regardless of merit.
Members of Congress secure votes and campaign donations by extorting them from beneficiaries of such programs, either through veiled threats — “vote for me or those mean Republicans will wipe out your benefits” — or promises of still more bennies.

In short, all develop a vested interest in the program’s survival. But if the result is always more and more government, of government, by government, and for government, with no solution in sight, then why do liberals always see government as the solution rather than the problem?

Similarly, liberals use government to promote legislation that imposes mandates on the private sector to provide further benefits for selected groups. But the results are even more disastrous. For example, weighing the laws or stacking the courts to favor unions may provide short term security or higher pay for unionized labor, but has ultimately resulted in the collapse of entire domestic industries.

Another example is health care. The Dems are always trying to impose backdoor socialized medicine with incremental legislation. Why do you suppose American healthcare is in such crisis? Answer: the government has already become too deeply involved. For example, many hospitals are closing their doors because they are overwhelmed with the burden of caring for indigent patients, illegal immigrants and vagrants who must, by law, be admitted like everyone else, despite the fact that they cannot pay for services. Read about it here — Destroying Our Health Care. The net result is reduced availability of care for everyone, exactly the opposite of what liberals claim to want.

To further complicate things, liberal jurists and lawyers have created new theories of liability that utilize the legal system as a means to further redistribute income. This too, has resulted in higher costs and prices in affected industries, higher insurance costs, or in some cases, complete elimination of products or services.

Liberals’ endless pursuit of “rights” for different groups also does little but create increasing divisions in our society. Liberal policy pits old against young, men against women, ethnic and racial groups against one another, even American citizens against illegal aliens, all in the name of “equality.” The only result is anger, tension and equal misery for all.

How does any of this improve our lot?

Finally, when companies relocate overseas to avoid the high cost of unionized labor and heavy domestic regulation, liberals sarcastically excoriate them for “outsourcing” America. Yet, when it comes to certain domestic industries, liberals in Congress suddenly become free marketers and choose to buy from overseas contractors rather than domestic suppliers. This happened most recently with a huge military contract being outrageously awarded to the heavily subsidized European consortium, AIRBUS, over America’s own Boeing. Since liberals claim to be so determined to “save the American worker,” what gives?

You have to take a step further back and ask some fundamental questions. Why is the liberal public policy record one of such unmitigated disaster? I mean, even the worst batter hits one occasionally. No one bats zero. No one that is, except liberals.

Prior to the Republican takeover in Congress in 1994, Democrats had over fifty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress with substantial majorities most of the time. With all the time and money in the world — trillions spent — they couldn’t fix a single thing, not one. Today’s liberal has the same complaints, and the same old tired solutions. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

Why?

When things go bad all the time, despite the best efforts of all involved, I suggest to you something else is at work — something deeper, more malevolent.

I submit to you that it is not a mistake, the failure is deliberate!

There is a method to the madness, and the method even has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It was first elucidated in the 1960s by a pair of radical leftist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven:

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.

[Part II of this article will explore those organizations created to implement the Cloward-Piven strategy and their ties to the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama.]

The Complete Cloward-Piven Series

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III — print copy
Hate Crimes Legislation — Back Door Censorship
_______________________________________________________________

Also see (from David Horowitz's DiscoverTheNetworks.org) ...

THE CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY (CPS):

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7522
_______________________________________________________________

Cloward, Piven and the Fundamental Transformation of America

Tuesday, January 05, 2010
By Glenn Beck

Meet Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven,
authors of the Cloward-Piven strategy

"I'm going to give you a hard concept to get your arms around: It's the concept that there are people in this country who want to intentionally collapse our economic system."-Glenn Beck

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582097,00.html

I am failing to fully understand the upside of the OWS movement for Obama.

The short term upside would be pressure to get the union bailout, i.e. jobs bill passed. There have been threats from unions that they are not so keen on supporting Obama in 2012. This sham jobs bill is nothing more than a bribe to unions. Obama can point to all the “unemployed” people at the OSW protests and claim the jobs bill will put them all back to work.

Another upside would be revving up his base. Last spring, it started to become apparent that he was losing base support. What to do? Create a target (Wall Street) and get the base incensed about it. The Wall Street issue is also a wedge in the conservative and libertarian arenas, so he creates division there. Does Obama know he has lost Wall Street altogether or is he just threatening them to keep them in his corner?

But what if it gets out of control? Obama could then swoop in and restore law and order by getting the funders to pull out and giving the states the green light to deploy the Natl. Guard. Then he would look like the adult in the room - a posture that would appeal to the independents who don’t like the boat to be rocked.

But he’s playing with fire. Huge gamble, but maybe it’s his only chance.

If he’s going to lose anyhow, he might as well leave the nation in a smoldering ash heap for the next guy to preside over.

As in most of the cases, to find the answers follow the money. So maybe all of this is designed to build up his war chest to an obscene and intimidating level.

More important, has he been reading similar numbers in Ohio? Finally, if he is in trouble in Pennsylvania, he simply cannot win the election. I believe that Obama has read enough such adverse numbers to drive him to desperation.

There's something eerily calm and inert about the OWS movement. Do they sense, like Obama, that a decisive defeat is in the offing?

We've all remarked at their seeming lack of clear goals, could it be they don't have any, and the whine-in has its own fulfillment for them?

There's certainly not the level of anger present in the London/Paris upheavels, OWS is quite calm in comparison. Look at what they're NOT doing: they're not attempting to occupy buildings, there have been no physical confrontations to speak of, and they don't seem to be omitting Obama from their complaints.

Isn't this what capitulation looks like in an idealogical war, within a still-functional democracy (see 2010 elections), where no one is permanently neutralized?

The tea partiers seem to sense that this whole thing, including Obama's embrace of it all, is helping their cause as much as the other side, and if true, I think the conclusion is spot-on.

How do they keep us from the polls 12 months from now? I don't think they have the answer to that question. We could be witnessing an acknowledgement by stakeholders of the left who, unlike those in power, are NOT in denial, they see that the game has already changed.

These people are there to wallow in victimhood, whine, attempt to show they're still relevant, and taunt the victors. They instinctively know defeat is imminent, and they apparently gain significant psychological soothing from being there with the like-minded. If there's anger, it's only at having to move back in with Mom and Dad.

Obama has done nothing but blunder, politically, since the 2010's and before. Why should his embrace of this mass hissy-fit be any different?

Obama as you say is definitely desperate, and I also agree that chaos could be engineered, but I don't see the occupiers as willing foot-soldiers. They're happy just to be there.

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.