Posted on 08/31/2008 12:49:17 PM PDT by paul in cape
Letter To the Editor in today's Boston Globe from L. David Alinsky, son of Obama and Hillary radical mentor Saul Alinsky.
ALL THE elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situations and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd's chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people. The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
-—Hitler was really good at it, too——
Unfortunately for the Alinskys, they can’t account for the free voices and new media that expose Hussein for the phony he really is.
'Thank me'........
that is exactly why they are pushing the Fairness Doctrine, have lost control of the media and information distribution.
Obama is a non-militaristic Hitler.
1. Community organizer (Beer Hall Pusht)
2. Employ the unemployed (Brown shirts)
3. Magnificent rallies (Nuremburg, Munich rallies)
4. Curtailment of freedom of speech through the court system (book burning)
5. Freedom through work (see 2) (’Albeit Macht Frei’ from Dachau)
6. Prediction: reverse McCarthyism with conservatives being fired, audited, etc. (Gestapo tactics, SS)
Book: http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134
Book: http://www.amazon.ca/Reveille-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721126
Figures. Michelle Obama Quotes Lines From “Rules For Radicals” In Her DNC Convention Speech Gateway Pundit ^ | 8/26/08 | staff http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/08/figures-michelle-obama-quotes-lines.html
Rather awkward structure there, especially for the opening line.
“Michelle Obama quotes lines some radicalFar Left book in her DNC Convention speech.
What to make of Michelle Obama’s use the terms, “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be?” From whence do they originate? Try Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals. In last night’s speech, Michelle Obama said something that peeked my curiousity. She said:
“Barack stood up that day,” talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, “and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be...”
And, “All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”
http://marklevinshow.com/section/notes-of-interest/
“that is exactly why they are pushing the Fairness Doctrine..” ~ pennboricua
Let’s call it what it is, “Punitive Liberalism”.
Excerpt:
“..It was, as Piereson notes, one of Ronald Reagan’s great achievements to overcome, at least temporarily, the emotional mandate of punitive liberalism.
Piereson quotes from Reagan’s speech at the Republican Convention of 1980: “My fellow citizens,” Reagan said, “I utterly reject that view. The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves.” What a breath of fresh air, especially after four years of Jimmy “Mr. Malaise” Carter!
The question that confronts us now is what reservoirs of confidence we still can draw upon. Did Reagan really “vanquish” punitive liberalism, or did he merely rebuff it momentarily? The extraordinary, uncritical acclamation accorded to Obama by the Left suggests that “we have scotched the snake, not killed it.”
But at least now we know what we are fighting. Punitive Liberalism is alive and well in the Democratic Party, at The New York Times, in our courts and universities.
It would be nice if another Ronald Reagan were to appear and remind us that we cannot move forward by moving backwards. Perhaps John McCain is that person. Although I do not endorse all of his policies, I admire his forthrightness.
In any event, I hope that people will begin calling Obama’s “fairness doctrine” by its real name: it’s not fairness, but punitive liberalism.
The first step towards freedom is calling things by their real names. With the phrase “Punitive Liberalism,” we at last have a truthful name for the toxic doctrine that would have us believe success is a form of failure. ..”
August 19th, 2008 6:31 am
Obama’s punitive liberalism, or why treating success as a form of failure is wrong
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/08/19/obamas-punitive-liberalism-or-why-treating-success-as-a-form-of-failure-is-wrong/
August 19, 2008 - by Roger Kimball
Great posts and info Matchett. Kudos.....keep it rolling with information....
You should hear the podcasts from Quinn and Rose on WHLO Akron; He parses each piece of the speech and breaks it down for those who have no idea.
ping
Ne Zot, that is brilliant!
oh good grief.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Has she owned this misdeed and paid her debt to society?
As a non-Alaskan citizen, I feel vindicated.
She is un-fit for office.
Was this an intern gill net?
Where any interns injured during this felonious activity.
AND A BIG /SARC
Good. I’ve emailed this piece to everyone I know, keeping this article and Alinsky’s Rules together. Alinksy’s son is correct- Obama has followed these Rules to a tee.
In fact- I was reading the crawl on FOX a little while ago and Obama said he can get 2 million volunteers to help with Gustav from an email...
http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm
Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have.
Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.
For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people’s organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
Second: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Wherever possible go outside of 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 can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
Sixth rule: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment.
Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.
The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his suddenly agreeing with your demand and saying “You’re right - we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.”
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and “frozen.” By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck. The target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target.
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target’s vulnerability - where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, “Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?” When you “freeze the target,” you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the “others” come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community’s segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system.
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.