When I ran for the U.S. Senate against Barack Obama I did my best to speak the truth. I knew when I accepted the invitation of the Illinois Republicans that I stood little or no chance of victory. With few exceptions, everyone I consulted advised against it. Most thought it political suicide. But the facts convinced me that Obama is a dangerous left-wing extremist. When confronted with the proven depravity of his moral views, my faith and conscience convicted me as well. After years of telling audiences that we had to stand for right and truth no matter what the cost, I felt that the Lord would hold me accountable if I refused to walk the talk. Sometimes we are not called to victory, but to witness for truth, as Jesus did, even unto death.

So when I campaigned in Illinois I let no false ambition; no kind of blandishment or intimidation; and no whispers of political gain or loss distract me from speaking the truth. I talked about Obama's extremist support for abortion (including his unconscionable willingness to tolerate infanticide in Illinois hospitals); I described him as a hard line socialist, pointing out his uncompromising commitment to central government control of health care and education; I pointed to the contradiction between his professed support for traditional marriage and his consistent promotion of the homosexual agenda. I remember talking to people, including Republican leaders, and others who have built little empires and big reputations as leaders of the so-called "Christian right", (what I call more appropriately the moral conservatives). Time and again I heard in response feckless mumblings about how moderate he seemed in his speech at the Democratic convention. Time and again I felt the implication that I was somehow exaggerating, imprudently "demonizing the opposition." They did little or nothing. And when the pro-abortion elements of the Illinois Republican Party openly went on the offensive against my refusal to back down from my stand for moral principle and real conservatism, in silence and inaction these leaders complied with their politically ruthless intention.

Meanwhile I and my family encountered from the Obama forces the ugliest indignities I have ever experienced in politics: Parades in which Obama's marshaled minions shouted curses and epithets almost every step of the way; and forums in which they rudely launched expletives with gestures just short of physical violence. At one such forum the environment they created was so ugly that my wife was visibly shaken, and my daughter in tears. Even on Election Day, when we went to the polling place to vote, a man there created a disturbance. He shouted insults. He acted in a physically threatening way. Nothing was done to stop him, and the pandering Illinois media breathed hardly a word about it in their so-called news coverage.

In all of this there was a hard edged disdain for decent civility that reminded me of the murderous invective Lenin launched against those who opposed the communist agenda. But it all took place behind a media fabricated façade of false hope and moderateness, like the propaganda screen behind which the totalitarians of the twentieth century hid their perpetration of atrocity.

Having felt the cutting edge of this reality, on election night I refused to engage in the nice ritual usually associated with the resolution of our political contests in America. Obama's people treated politics as war. But in war only gutless servility congratulates a ruthless opponent on the victory he has gained without civility. Mine was to be sure, a silent protest but loud enough to have some so-called leaders, supposedly on my side, losing no opportunity to "apologize" for my behavior.

Since 2004 I have walked in the political wilderness. This walk is not without its burdens, but I am heartened when I remember whose footsteps I find there: those of people like Reagan and Winston Churchill who in their dedication to right refused to let ambition triumph over truth. Assaulted, ridiculed, caricatured, ignored, at times reduced to a small and almost covert band of like-minded adherents, they kept their faith. They witnessed the rising power of the evils they warned against. They witnessed the policies of appeasement, retreat and surrender practiced by unprincipled leaders in the face of those evils. They witnessed the day when hard experience finally forced those who had all but forgotten their existence to turn and make a stand against wickedness triumphant over freedom.

I have an ominous feeling about the years ahead. With Obama, we have crossed the line that separates civil politics from civil war disguised as politics. Occupying the White House is a man known for his support and association with people (like leftist Kenyan politician Raila Amollo Odinga) for whom that line appears never to have existed. I predict that American politics as we have known it is gone. And unless we Americans wake up, more than civil politics will end up dead. For there are other footsteps in this wilderness, left by leaders who opposed the Communists when they took over Eastern European countries in the late 1940s, or Asian countries in the fifties, or African countries in the sixties, or South American and South African countries in the eighties, and so on. Mostly we do not know their names, nor can we mark the spot where their lives were overtaken because their compatriots did not wake up in time. But, with the Psalmist, I will fear no evil, for here, as everywhere, I see the footprints of the one who conquered death itself. Wherever they lead, there is life renewed.

Well, now is the time to explain the Alinsky agenda and methods, and how radical they are.

Ok...

What The Heck Is The Alinsky Method?
Being Used To Destroy Our Freedoms

Albert V. Burns

The education establishment in this country, at all levels, continually decries the absence of parental involvement in the everyday process of educating the young people of this country. We are asked to volunteer time to ease the burdens on the teachers. We are NOT expected to assume that we will have any input into decisions effecting what they will be taught or how the teaching process is to be done.

In the book, "Educating For The New World Order," the author, Bev Eakman points out repeatedly the necessity of the educationists to preserve the ILLUSION that there is: "Lay, or community, participation in the decision making process, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

It is interesting, and EXTREMELY important to Americans, both as parents and as citizens, to clearly understand just HOW the "squeezing out" process takes place. It is a well defined, if not well perceived, process known as the "Alinsky Method" (which was derived from a procedure named as "The Delphi Technique.") This method of manipulating people is based on the fact that people in groups tend to share a common knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics known as "group dynamics."

In this process, one or more people known as "Change Agents" or "Facilitators" appear to be acting as organizers, "allowing" each person in the group to express their concerns about some program or policy under consideration. While this process is going on, people are urged to make lists or form into task forces. The Facilitator carefully notes which members of the group are leaders, which are "loud mouths" and which may be easily swayed to different viewpoints.

At a certain point, the previously friendly Change Agent begins to act as "devil’s advocate," becoming an agitator. The process involves playing one part of the group against another, the "divide and conquer" technique. Anyone who is not clearly in accord with the Facilitator’s agenda is made to appear ridiculous, inarticulate, ignorant or dogmatic. The idea is to make these members of the group angry thus escalating tensions. The end object being to shut opposition voices out of the group.

The "targets" of such manipulation rarely, if ever, realize how they are being manipulated. If they do suspect, they generally have no idea how to defeat the process.

This method is being used at all levels of government to force meetings toward PRESET conclusions. There are three steps to defeating this process. They are simple to learn, if not always easy to put into practice since the Facilitators are well trained in agitation techniques.

The first rule is: Always be charming, pleasant and courteous. SMILE! Speak in a normal voice to avoid seeming to be belligerent or aggressive.

Rule No. 2 is to STAY FOCUSED! Write your question or statement down in advance to help you stay on track. These Change Agents are trained to twist the conversation around to make the questioner appear foolish or belligerent or aggressive. The idea being to put the questioner on the defensive. Be careful! As mentioned in Rule 1, always be charming, pleasant and courteous (if it kills you to do so!) Often an attempt will be made to change the subject, digress or distort your intent. Always bring them back to the question you asked! If they distort your question into what amounts to an accusation of them, simply state clearly and precisely: "That is NOT what I stated. What I asked was..."(here repeat your original question.) Do not be distracted or angered by their efforts to make you look bad.

Rule No. 3: BE PERSISTENT! When the Facilitator realizes that putting you on the defensive is not going to work, quite often he, or she, will go into some long drawn out discussion of some unrelated or only vaguely related subject. Such a discussion may drag on for a number of minutes. The intent being to have the crowd become bored and forget what the original question was. Let them run on, then very calmly, quietly but with determination drag them back to the subject by saying: "But you didn’t answer my question! My question was..."(again repeat your question.)

Never, NEVER allow yourself to become angry. Anger directed toward the Change Agent makes him or her the victim. Their object is to become liked by the crowd, to be seen as a friend by a majority of those present to convince that majority the ideas of the Facilitator are correct and acceptable.

With the increasing demand for education reform, increasing agitation among the public and more and more grassroots research exposing the defects in our current government indoctrination centers, also known as public schools, more and more people are being exposed to this Alinsky method of maneuvering public meetings toward preset goals. Somehow, people walk out of public meetings wondering just what happened - how were their ideas and objections so neatly derailed. This consistent pattern of manipulation of public meetings is causing concern about the corruption of the very process of government established by our Founding Fathers.

Next week we will examine some of the finer points of the Delphi Technique, how and why it was originally developed and how it is being used to destroy our freedoms.

Albert V. Burns writes from Utah and is a regular columnist for the Spanish Fork Press. He has an extensive knowledge of the conspiracy which has been working so hard to destroy this nation and incorporate it into a one world government. He has developed an extensive personal research library and the knowledge to find what he needs, to write his columns. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
Albert V. Burns can be reached at: avburns@mindspring.com

Excellent commentary from Alan Keyes.

Some may sneer at Keyes for his rock-solid moral stands and pounce on whatever they think his shortcomings are as an excuse to dismiss his views but the absurd comparison to Hillary Clinton (because Keyes moved to a state just to run for office) serves to undercut the assumption that Keyes doesn't deserve to be heard.

Alan Keyes rightfully characterizes what the American people have done by electing an Alinsky Marxist as president and a congress dominated by leftists, both salivating at the realization that finally, they can make their long-anticipated move to change our beloved country from a land of free people, seeking and finding their own destiny, to a land of people subjugated to the now all-powerful government.

Mr. Keyes sounds a serious warning about what may well lie ahead for America and yet, all some posters can do is try to kill the messenger and generate cynicism by inferring Alan Keyes is 'the same as Hillary Clinton'. It's unfortunate that we can't simply accept the truth of what Alan Keyes - who isn't running for office - warns about, without arguing between ourselves why he lost an election in a state where the Democrats have superior numbers. In the 2004 election for the U.S. senate, Barack Obama received 70% of the vote - and 40% of registered Republicans voted for Obama.

This loss, easily predicted, is now laid at Keyes' feet. Alan Keyes, in his piece, admits to being 'lost in the political wilderness' ever since, meaning, no doubt, that he is considered 'untouchable' by Republican bigwigs, those geniuses who helped give us John 'maverick' McCain as 'our' 2008 presidential nominee.

Whether or not you like Alan Keyes personality or agree with his stridently pro-life stands or want to quibble about his political self-sacrifice in the 2004 Illinois senate race, he is stating a clear warning and needs to be paid attention to, not treated as someone who isn't worthy of our respect because he lost a hopeless senate race in a 'red' state, almost 5 years ago.

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.

What The Heck Is The Alinsky Method?Being Used To Destroy Our Freedoms

What The Heck Is The Alinsky Method?
Being Used To Destroy Our Freedoms