Recall that Hillary did her college thesis on his writings and Obama writes about him in his books.

Saul Alinsky died about 43 years ago, but his writings influenced those in political control of our nation today.......



Who is Saul Alinsky?


Short history and maybe not so sweet.




Who is Saul Alinsky?



Saul David Alinsky, a writer, was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of the modern community organizing movement. He is most noted for his book Rules for Radicals.

Died: June 12, 1972, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA

Education: University of Chicago

Spouse: Irene Alinsky

Books: Rules for Radicals, Reveille for Radicals



Anyone out there think that this stuff isn't happening today in the U.S. ?


In case you hadn't noticed, all eight rules are currently in play
Can we turn around the eight social state agendas that have been insidiously injected into our culture.




How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:


There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.


1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people


2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.


3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.


4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.


5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)


6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.


7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools


8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.


Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States ?


Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin's original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as "Useful Idiots." The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S. It may be too late to reverse the decline.


Wake up people, it’s here already!

<

Jim, what's your source for the alleged rules in Rules for Radicals? There' isn't a community development worker anywhere who doesn't know of Alinsky and what he stood for. What you've written is a long way from his philosophy and work. I urge members to google Wikipedia for his biography and Rules for Radicals. He was an organizational genius of an America by and for the people.

This was provided by an attorney acquaintence of mine and yes I know what snopes the left wing apologist has to say about it. The publication may be apocryphal but in actually and IMO Alinsky was a socialist POS.
Jim

The concept that the Cold War ever ended is preposterous. The ideology indoctrinated into the American Left is the same now as it was in the 1930's, it's just that the extreme, anti constitutionalists are now in power. Once control of public education was accomplished in the 1970's, these religious statists were free to indoctrinate their totalitarian, sociopathic, unconstitutional, faith-based beliefs into american society as a whole. We now have a statist religious theocracy in control of our government. Our society is divided into two camps, the "Righteous Victim" statist religious class, entitled to other peoples wealth and freedom through an involuntary exchange of goods and services (slavery) and the Free Market class, those with the temerity to actually believe that all men are equal and that individual freedom is protected under the Constitution. Here's an oldie but a goodie, very relevant today.

Alinsky was simply one of many statist, religious, sociopathic, unconstitutional, ideologues championed by the current crop of Religious Statists. That's why there is no "War on Religion", but a "War of Religion" going on in America today.

http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Liberal Rules:

You exempt yourself from your attacks on America: Ever notice that liberals don’t include themselves in their attacks on America? When they say, “This is a racist country,” or “,This is a mean country,” they certainly aren’t referring to themselves or people who hold their views. Even though liberals supported the KKK, slaughtering the Indians, and putting the Japanese in internment camps, when they criticize those things, it’s meant as an attack on everyone else EXCEPT LIBERALS. The only thing a liberal believes he can truly do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal


Do we actually know someone like this??

Saul David Alinsky was a good one. Many Jewish people love socialism and communism.

Jim, a friend who leads you down the garden path isn't a friend. The US needs more Alinskys to protect peoples' rights. Here's Wikipedia on Alinsky Rules and partisan stripes:

"In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published in 1971 one year before his death), Alinsky addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. In the opening paragraph Alinsky writes,
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."

Alinsky did not join political parties. When asked during an interview whether he ever considered becoming a Communist party member, he replied:
Not at any time. I've never joined any organization—not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide."

To call him a POS says more about you and your attorney friend than Alinsky's citizenship. Posting blatantly spurious claims does nothing for the credibility of your notions of the "main stream media." Who is Saul Alinsky is a disservice to all members here. Even the great conservative Bill Buckley, who I admired, had good words for him.

I'll repeat myself Alinsky was a Libtard POS. There is NO proof either way that he wrote or didn't write all or part of the above so I'll let it go at that.
Apparently you are an "authority" on Alinsky so I expect he was one of your early heros.
Wikipedia is as leftist as Snopes so I rarely pay much attention to what's posted there either.
If his influence on Obama and MS Clinton is any indication he's one of the most negative and unfortunate influences we've ever had.
King you're always quick to try and discredit any conservative but you'd have some credibility if you use the same criteria for your Libtard brethren.

This is nonsense, Jim. I'm a liberal in a country managed by a conservative federal government. I criticize racism, patronage, bad policy and other burdens of society as a Canadian citizen, as citizens are obliged everywhere to do. All citizens are responsible for the societies they live in. Conservatives think similarly.

You believe those who don't think as you do are enemies, a consequence of which is a a poisonously polarized dysfunctional federal government preventing a magnificent country lauded for its generosity, sacrifice and leadership from doing the things it is capable of doing. Unreasonable enmity appears to please you.

My conservative and liberal friends work shoulder-to-shoulder for policies they favour regardless which party is "in." It's how the gun registry was changed, and reforms made in government policy. We don't believe higher-ups have all the answers; how could they? I'll be working for a Conservative MP with his eyes on the federal party leadership.

It's more fun, Jim, than fulminating about sulphur and goblins.

Jim, I never voted Liberal in my life. Last fall I completed a successful knock-down of the Liberal party leader, posted on our organization's website before the provincial election in which he became premier. Next Wednesday we're meeting to familiarize him with strategies to meet his objectives.

Obama and Clinton on evidence are clearly beneficiaries of Alinsky's organizing genius. Republicans acknowledge they were out-gunned, out-manoeuvered and over-run by Obama, particularly with social media, and there are indications Republicans have become late coverts to his/Alinsky's playbook.

And, Jim, there is proof that Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals. And, yes, I owe Alinsky. Our organization of rural folk in a disadvantaged region couldn't have become the most successful and influential of its kind without knowing how to bring wide and competing interests together for a common goal. The Republican Party could learn from us.

Making it drink is another thing entirely.

So, someone here thinks Alinsky's student Obama is "protecting" our rights?
GIVE....ME....A....BREAK

For members who want to see how far US public discourse has fallen, google the video of young Bill Buckley and Saul Alinsky in debate. Two of America's finest intellects, razor-sharp wit, mutual respect, without a voice raised, neither out of their depth. If you want to see cool, this is it. The pity's they're gone.

Gary, Obama is hell-bent on stricter regulations on gun ownership to the point of seizure, for sure, in a violent country where one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington says the solution to providing public safety is armed guards in every school. I said Alinsky, not Obama, was a an organizing genius in teaching communities how to protect their rights.

If Alinsky were alive today I don't think he'd waste his time on protecting gun rights because of higher priorities of national interests, economy, jobs, poverty, etc. I seem to recall a national poll last fall that had gun rights way down the list, a surprising-to-me 15th-place or so in what was on American minds. Makes sense in that the Gallup poll says Americans generally favour their gun laws.

As long as the US is a democracy, the law will reflect the public interest.

Many of us don't consider protecting gun rights as a waste of time.
Mike

Quote:
"I don't think he'd waste his time on protecting gun rights "

Typical Libtard opinion of one of our constitutional rights. This is the right that insures we maintain our other rights.
And this is why Libtards like King Brown have NO credibility on this forum.
And as far as priorities go it's low on the list because Congress isn't considering any more unconstitutional legislation at this time.
Jim

Again you've deliberately misconstrued meaning of your subject "Who is Saul Alinsky," first with a phoney post about his work and character, and now that Alinsky would not protect constitutional rights. I believe you are of good character but why do you get it so wrong?

You warn us of coming totalitarianism, a breakdown of law and order, a failure to witness the common verities, of losing faith in your country and then slag a distinguished American who taught the have-nots and ordinary citizens, Republicans and Democrats, how to GET their constitutional rights.

And you're wrong again on why gun rights and gun control are such low priorities in American consciousness. As closely as I remember, the national poll that placed gun rights at 17th place in American consciousness was taken during last November's campaign.

Alinsky was more concerned with housing, a roof over heads, hunger, jobs, poverty, access to constitutional rights---all those things you concern yourself with in your church and service clubs---than someone taking guns away from a comfortable majority in love with its guns.

Give it up. No Americans on this Forum really care what you think anymore then any responsible Canadian would care what I thought about the goings on there. You have no real idea of what's actually happening in parts of this Country that still value the U S Constitution.
If you like your Alinsky you're more than welcome to keep your Alinsky and the majority of forums members here would just as soon send any and all of his ilk to your Provence.
I don't believe I misconstrued anything in my post about Alinsky.
However; To even come close in equaling the amount of misconstrued information not to mention the outright B.S you've posted here would require that I type night and day for weeks.

The first act of suppression by the British crown towards the colonists was denying freedom of speech(which the Brits were famous for),hence the first amendment; the second act of suppression was an attempt to disarm the colonists(another famous British tactic) and we see how well that worked out. This is why the right to keep and bear arms is the 2nd amendment, but IT PROTECTS ALL OTHER AMERICAN FREEDOMS and is the most important freedom a human can have......a little U.S. History lesson for the British colony to the north. As my old man fought in WWII against tyranny I will, out of respect for him and as a U.S. citizen, never embrace an ideology or political theory that infringes on Americans freedoms. I have no use for socialists, communists, liberals, or community organizers like Alinsky and Obama, nor anyone who idolizes trash such as they. Note: in every country that has embraced socialism, draconian restrictions on personal firearm ownership has swiftly followed.......including Britain; no handguns allowed and severe restrictions against long guns. Go sell socialism someplace else.

Ah, a typical attempt at asserting a "Moral Equivalent". The real question is: What is the subjective morality behind the ideology? In Alinsky's case it was clearly unconstitutional, totalitarian, statism. It was based on sociopathic infliction in order to gain political power. It certainly was not based on the morality of individual freedom and equality.

It's obviously frustrating---"Give it up"--for a neighbour to comment on the merits, omissions and inaccuracies of your posts, as you do to mine. You expose a curious insularity, however, when you say empirically that Canadians wouldn't care about what you think anymore than Americans would care about my opinions.

How do you know that, Jim? Are you now doing the thinking for all American forum members? I have wonderfully engaging correspondence with members in North America and overseas. As a compatriot, I care about what happens to the United States. Canada is as joined as Siamese twins, culturally, economically, socially and militarily. I worked there. My relatives live there.

There's a saying that when the US elephant sneezes Canada gets a cold. US military and economic adventures bear heavily on Canada. It's been hard for many Americans to hoist aboard the reality that the West---with US as principal proselytizer and policeman---no longer rules the roost. Interdependent diplomacy and economies put an end to it.

Thanks for the smile about Alinsky coming to our province. "Provence" would be an improvement to the weather here. But take heart, I'll be there later this month and then on to the land of your forefathers.

Gary, whose history are you reading? You live in a country with a mixed economy, a public/private amalgam of socialism and capitalism---terms that now can only be used broadly because neither no longer exists. Some members of the hard-right claim it's now a dictatorship, sliding into totalitarianism. Others say rightly that democracy allows change---by and for the people. What's executive orders for the goose is executive orders for the gander. On the evidence, your country became the most powerful and influential in the world under liberal and conservative stewardship. Or as Dave in New Hampshire puts it: "divided" governance under House and Senate representation. It's a good way to think of it, even if it includes liberals and community organizers!

You're on slippery ice, Ken, when you talk about morality of any kind with the smothering hypocrisy of the way constitutional and international laws are twisted for political ends every day. Look to the First and Second Amendments. Think Snowden and gun rights. There's been flagrant abuse for decades of the First, a travesty, and the Second seems partial to where citizens live.

On your notion of individual freedom and equality, you'd be hard-pressed to get agreement from African-Americans who only began to get some freedom and equality after 200 years from a reluctant government's gunpoint to enforce the Constitution. Please consider also there was nothing sociopathic about your countrymen who threw off their British yoke.

"Subjective morality behind the ideology"? Dear god, Ken. Remember the little black girl at a demonstration against segregated schools in Arkansas? The TV clip that flashed around the world? The girl, about four or five, was asked why she was at the demonstration with her parents. "Fee-dom." And the subjective morality of Iraq and 4,500 dead and counting of America's best?

So, no, there's nothing unconstitutional in Alinsky's teaching disadvantaged citizens how to gain their civil and constitutional rights, nor citizens and the NRA demonstrating forcefully and peacefully to keep them. It's a long American tradition. Gun owners have organized to prevent arbitrary intrusions on their constitutional rights.

(Your "statism" has no meaning here.)

Quote:
"On your notion of individual freedom and equality, you'd be hard-pressed to get agreement from African-Americans who only began to get some freedom and equality after 200 years from a reluctant government's gunpoint to enforce the Constitution."

What a crock of B.S. i.e Affirmative Action which I guess can be conveniently ignored! And this is the same guy who accuses me of misattributing what one of the worst demagogues of the 20th century had to say about destroying the U S Constitution and creating a socialist state. I guess if you're going to lie at least tell a whopper.
I beginning to think someone is slipping him LSD. No one can be this far off from reality.

Jim, there's a noble tradition to affirmative action. You're old enough to remember when blacks couldn't get jobs regardless of qualifications. Before that was the same discrimination against Irish and Catholics. I remember when blacks, Acadians and Catholics couldn't sail on fishing schooners because of colour and faith. I set up the first affirmative action program in Nova Scotia for these reasons nearly 50 years ago with very satisfactory results. From what you've disclosed of yourself, of your interest in your community and church, I believe you would have done similarly.

On the veracity of what you quoted of my post, you were a bit young when wholesale murdering, lynching, kangaroo courts produced, with the Quaker ethos and strategic genius of Bayard Rustin, the passive resistance of the civil rights movement which compelled a reluctant Kennedy to enforce the Constitution. I was there up-close with MLK, JFK, Rustin, Robert and Ted, the murders and marches, the victory for the entire US which within 50 years of darkness elected a black for president. I admire you for it.

It's history, Jim. Look it up.

Quote:
"Jim, there's a noble tradition to affirmative action. You're old enough to remember when blacks couldn't get jobs regardless of qualifications. Before that was the same discrimination against Irish and Catholics."

And herein lies the MAJOR difference. Catholics, the Irish, French Canadians, and Italians were NEVER given any special consideration even though they were discriminated against. They developed respect due to their work and moral ethics and their willingness to become responsible Americans.
This has also been the case as well with later groups such as the various Asians who have immigrated here.
Now just compare this with 50 years of "special treatment" given Blacks most of whom aren't any more integrated into mainstream American society today then they were 50 years ago. This I might add is after the expenditure of over 1 trillion dollars of the taxpayers money.
There is nothing "noble" about affirmative action and it has done Blacks a major disservice in perpetuating the belief that they are inferior and required special treatment.
You King have trapped yourself in your own convoluted socialists "beliefs" and I believe everyone on this forum can see right through you.

The MAJOR difference, Jim, is that US majorities legislated, made into law, that blacks would not enjoy the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of other citizens, warranted by the Constitution, including Catholics, Irish, French Canadians and Italians. The Constitution provided a sacred promise for all citizens, states said sorry not for blacks, and I was there in Oxford's leafy town square when mostly black 82nd Airborne companies with fixed bayonets scattered the cashiered General Walker's rabble and put end to the constitutional travesty.

MLK took me with him to Oslo for the Prize. He was horrified by the breakfast I ordered in a great hotel off London's Hyde Park. I thought his order of grits disgusting. As a devout churchman, you will be pleased to know that the National Council of Churches came out on his side. Really something when the Atlanta YMCA wouldn't allow MLK in its swimming pool; he used the black YMCA's. He never expected to survive his crusade. Neither did I at times.

Don't fret about how the blacks are doing. From all accounts, they are doing exceedingly well, moving forward faster in influence than any other ethnic group in US history. And you won't have to wait for the Hispanics. Within your lifetime, whites will be a minority so it's a pretty good idea to be thinking of more harmonious and productive relationships now.

Again more generalized B.S. I grew up in New England and we had Blacks living there and this was BEFORE the CRA of 1964. Were they discriminated against there? No not in housing, schools or anything else you can name. We attended the same schools, ate in the same restaurants, shopped in the same stores etc.
After 1964 ALL discrimination against Blacks was removed and they've had 50 years of affirmative action(special and discriminatory treatment against Whites). And what have they done with this unprecedented and 1 trillion dollar opportunity?
Why stayed for the most part just like they were prior to 1964 In Ghettos, uneducated, unmarried, raising illegitimate children* on welfare and demanding more and more from the government and those responsible persons who work.
None of your Libtard explanations for this will stand up to any realistic scrutiny. The only reason you don't hear or see what I just stated publicly is the 1st thing you'll get thrown back is the racist card.

*The illegitimacy rate for Blacks is now 72% and of course this must be due to "discrimination". The "White Trash" illegitimacy rate in this Country is around 40% and you can attribute this to whatever you may wish.
BTW It's no coincidence that this is the core of Obama's support.

The Northeast US, New England is culturally a different stock, abjured often by the rest of the country for its notions and Romneycare, and as described when you lived there 50 years ago. I have relatives there, a frequent visitor.

I believe you're judging blacks unfairly for not doing better after 1964, a relatively short time considering generations of slavery and all that entailed, and only 100 years after the Civil War which was supposed to have freed them.

But it didn't. The same narrow thinking that a Catholic couldn't become president---and I was with JFK in Wisconsin and West Virginia when Americans said to hell with that---prevailed for black citizens with "separate but equal" notions.

It's taken hundreds of years to build your wonderful country. You're only now trying to introduce (badly) a system of healthcare enjoyed by all other developed Western countries for generations. Your education system has more of the worst than the best.

It will take the US a long time to make up for slavery.

Jim, a separate note on "racist" card. I've said anything should be able to be discussed as long as it is not perceived by others as mean and mischievous. I made a career of asking questions, all sorts of questions, and it's not hard to tell whether they were in the public interest or mean, racist, intended to hurt.

Nothing you just posted is racist to me. I've confidence in the numbers you relate (or I would check if I didn't). Misfires, however, is often a mean place. There's a tendency to be rude, to make accusations of lying where they may not be warranted, and a quickness to impute motives where they may not exist.

I try not to be rude or accuse of lying or impute motives. I haven't disappointed myself here in these respects. It's not wisdom. I learned it at home before I graduated from an Atlantic fishing village's one-room school of 45 students in 11 grades with an outside toilet.

Are mean and rude subjective emotional adjectives. I wonder what type of adjectives are most likely to result in an emotional response. Never mind, I'd doubt they'd be mean and rude, but what if the adjectives were vague and open to 180* interpretation. We're not toying with the proletariat, are we.

Read this column by Walter E. Williams on the subject of black unemployment. They were doing quite well from the 1900's to the 50's & 60's. Dr. Williams I am sure has the documentation to back up his statements.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/04/10/black-unemployment-n1561096/page/full

Thanks. I googled him. He'd be great company in the blind or on a fishing trip. I'd bet on the certainty of his documentation. I think he's fair on what "the spirit" of affirmative action rendered over time. Definitely an improvement on Rush Limbaugh.

Wonder, though, how his notions would go down with his party: state secession with only limited role for Washington, legalization of selling own body organs, US Reserve role as "counterfeiting money" and getting rid of it because it wasn't needed before 1836. In a world where only ideas have a premium, Dr. Williams would be a good guy to have around.

The answer to vague adjectives and interpretation, Craig, are in two books I bought 67 years ago written by Rudolph Flesch of The Associated Press: The Art of Plain Talk and the Art of Readable Writing. Good writing leaves nothing to vagueness and interpretation. Writers want to be understood. Flesch's counsel to journalists: Write for the Kansas City milkman. A member of the proletariat like you and me!

Walter E. Williams has been known to guest host for Rush Limbaugh at times. He is gifted and articulate co-host. His ideas are very much in concert with many in the conservative movement and he and Thomas Sowell are widely accepted. They are both economists who can make their points in common terms. I have heard his discussion on selling of body parts, which you have not, and his take is just what right does the government have to tell us what we can or cannot do with our own body. In many respects, it is the same argument as taken for abortion, just looking at it from a different perspective.

What I like from what I read is his fairness addressing affirmative action, considering intent and effects. That, and his early drifting and taking on the stately edifice of the US Army as private and winning, made him worth knowing---and enjoying.

As a pioneer proponent of affirmative action, I was given a lesson by the black community when I thought it would be the other way round. There was the usual yipping and yapping about who's to blame for racial violence blinking yellow to murder.

The blacks wanted the police chief's head. It's true the only ones in jail Monday mornings were riffraff blacks and Indians, none of the white riffraff including professors' sons. I dug around, discovered the chief was stealing from the fines collection, cocked the trigger for the next meeting.

To make the story short, the whites and blacks were brought around to the notion of affirmative action, hingeing on documentation that if the chief was a rogue he'd have to go. The rest was easy, and a positive response to black community's call on the Attorney-General gave them the lift to take more responsibility for their own affairs

A sense of empowerment resulted in such community improvement, particularly in education as an escape hatch to qualify for employment, that it took precedence over the notion of equally qualified the black gets the job. It was an unforeseen outcome of intent and effect, an education for me. Thanks for introducing me to Dr. Williams, Jim H.

Here is the Communist blueprint for in filtering the United States. Avidly bought into by King Brown of course.



You Can't Say We Weren't Warned: The Communist Influence & Infiltration of the United States


David Risselada 3 hours ago









In his book "Rules for Radicals," Saul Alinsky writes on the power tactics to be used against a political opponent for the purpose of breaking them down and destroying their reputation. One of these tactics characterizes nearly everything we have experienced since Barack Obama has been inaugurated as he and his administration have successfully used it to blame republicans for everything. The very tactic itself speaks to the wicked nature of Alinsky as a man, and a community organizer. It goes right to the heart in describing the goals of those seeking political power as it virtually eliminates any opposition while painting them out as hypocrites. This tactic is rule # 4 in Alinsky's list of power tactics.


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.




What Alinsky is essentially saying is that an opponent's values can be reinterpreted, or redefined in order to make them appear undesirable; and thus, they can be used to make any opposition appear as if they are "against" whatever initiatives are being sold to the public. This is something Barack Obama and the left wing in general, have done masterfully as they have convinced a huge portion of the population that America is the evil empire and capitalism is oppressive. Barack Obama's reference of our Constitution as being a document that hinders his progress is another good example. He said the Constitution does too much to limit what government can't do, and not enough to describe what it must do on your behalf. Sadly, many Americans who have been educated by radical, communist sympathizing hippies have fallen for this lie and have been conned into demanding "social change."

It is this tactic in and of itself that describes Barack Obama for exactly what he is, a communist. Unfortunately, our left wing controlled education system has virtually ignored the atrocious history of communism as one of aggression and mass genocide, and has successfully painted it out to be one of peace and victimization at the hands of western imperialism. They have successfully done this because the above described tactic is itself, communist in its origin. The Soviet Union, in its efforts to implement worldwide communism, used propaganda to convince many millions that communism was about peace and that the United States was an imperialist, capitalist aggressor looking to rape the world's nations of their natural resources. This is a strategy still being implemented today with the global warming lie.

In other words, the communist were using our number one value against us, and they were doing it very effectively in order to sway the minds of the general public in favor of communism. They were using our very "freedom" as a weapon. During what the left has successfully labeled, and discredited as the McCarthy era, there was a great deal of documentation that was presented before the eighty second congress and the Committee of Un-American Activities. For those that may be unfamiliar with "McCarthyism," Joseph McCarthy was a Republican Senator who claimed that there were two hundred card carrying communists who had infiltrated our government. Recently, we have seen Florida Representative Alan West make the same accusations. The left has since effectively discredited McCarthy as a paranoid who believed there was "a communist behind every corner."

One of these documents has come to be known as the "Communist Peace Offensive," and it was put together by the Committee of Un-American Activities. It thoroughly describes the tactics and strategies of the communist movement back to Lenin and Stalin. One of these strategies was to use America's culture of freedom, our free press and free speech as a tool for spreading communist propaganda. The following is an excerpt from the Communist Peace Offensive.


The Communist leaders are fully aware that propagandists, within or without the United States, have easy access to the American public. There is one radio for every two persons in the United States, and the United States maintains radio freedom both as to broadcasting and the listener's choice of program. The American press is also free. Thus, an American may read or listen to whatever he pleases.

The Communists exploit our freedom with their psychological warfare, which finds expression in the present "peace" offensive. The current Communist "peace" offensive has certain specific immediate aims, which, if realized, can prove of inestimable value to the Soviet war machine.

This propaganda campaign to spread communism around the globe had been so carefully orchestrated that virtually every communist affiliated organization has agreed upon its tactical implementation.

I stand by my original statement Alinsky was a Communist POS!



Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/commun...MArQq86C0S74.99

Mr. Risselada acknowledges Obama's strategies, like them or not, as masterful, deployed with the same precision that Big Business convinces billions that Tide is better than Sunrise.

So now Mr. Risselada says the Communists are coming, not a card played successfully previously with less sophisticated audiences who knew it was fishy regardless of the papers it was wrapped in.

Mr. Risselada says Americans are so lacking in critical judgment, such suckers for anything put before them, that they've been conned into social change. Not only social change but Communist social change.

Mr. Risselada doesn't say who are the sweet talkers who have scooped out the brains of Americans, control the educational system and taken over the government. Ah, Jim. You've lost faith in your country.

But Americans have been warned by Mr. Risselda.

Wrong again King:
I've just lost "faith" in that around half of the residents don't care whether we survive as a Free Nation or become a communist "utopia". Yes he's right that some Americans are lacking in critical judgment and have been conned into " communist social change". It remains to be seen if the insidious encroachment by the commies can be stemmed and then reversed.
The next few years will tell the tale.
Well find out in that time just how many of us still have spines.

Kings favorite economist in the Keynesian fool Krugman !


"Paul Krugman, for example, stated a couple of years ago that it would be good for growth if everyone thought the world was going to be attacked by aliens because that would trigger massive military outlays."

Kind of a nutshell on the Republicans have no solutions mantra. The considerate liberal may tolerate 'discussion', but Godless society forbid, we're not going to DO any of them. Even if they're just ideas, regular libs don't want him around by a long shot.

I was about to snip ole Rush out for my version of the paperwork reduction act, but I got to wondering. Has Rush ever been thoughtfully refuted on facts or knee jerk demonized on ideology.

I wonder why 'discussion' means, libs get to call the meeting any time they want, and demand to walk away with something.

C'mon, Craig, there are as many species of conservatives as liberals. Dr. Williams wouldn't be boorish. Not wanting him around? How do you become more aware of issues than measuring your biases with others? Look at what happens here too often with "discussion." Dr. Williams couldn't, wouldn't put up with it. Rush I've no interest in at all. I gave up on his rants as surpassingly predictable. Light, very light.

Apathy, celebrity-awe and ignorance are our principal enemies.

So we're not talking at cross-purposes, what do you mean by "communist social change"? I'm teaching two university courses to overseas mature students on how to influence and change government policies, and make politicians accountable to people like you and me. Like the NRA does.

Are the NRA and I communists? Is there distinction between the two? Do we need more citizens' activism or less?

King, you're a considerate liberal. Most wouldn't care about the issues, they care about their freebies. Now your tolerance of Rush, that's more like it. With an adequate dash of demonization of course he's the enemy, regardless of his measured fact based approach.

King, we have our own version of affirmative action up here. It's between the provinces and the Feds and we call it equalization. And in my opinion, long term, it's has done incredible damage to my province and yours, turning our provinces into habitual welfare cases.

Affirmative action has done significant damage anywhere its ever been implemented. Because it gives things to people that never earned it, or deserve it...and keeps the people who earned it and are the best qualified away from it.

Obamas election is a prime example of affirmative action and what happens when you put the least qualified person in any job.

I think the pro-affirmative action people should eat food prepared by cooks that got hired for affirmative action...not because they know what they are doing...and have to go to doctor and dentists that only got where they are because of affirmative action..not because they were any good.

Doc and James:

At the beginning of affirmative action there was a need to do something because of low educational achievement, not least because discrimination had killed ambition. Why bother? Most blacks hereabouts live in rural communities, Lincolnville one of them. I literally made the terms: whites aren't going to do a thing for you unless you do something for yourselves. Get qualified, get a trade or diploma, come to town and if you're equally qualified you'll get the job.

Biggest problem was Main Street. I started with the bank manager. He said no way. I said, Look, Doug, we're in a racist town that's got to take its halo down. Your tellers should find out that black girls have the same problems as they do, with boyfriends, stretching your miserable wages to pay day. Doug dug in his heels. O.K then I'm calling the president in Toronto who I knew had a different attitude. Doug came around to lead Main Street businesses.

Affirmative action was good for its time---starting in the late 60s. Like anything else over time---political parties and businesses---where there's an easy way they go soft.

Affirmative Action: The least shall have the most!

Affirmative action had its time and place....it ended back in the 1960's. Its been used as an excuse to get something without earning it ever since.

King,

here in America the left only pretends to care about minorities in trade for their votes.Most minorities are only trading their votes for another "plantation" of being stuck on government handouts for generations with no incentive to better themselves.

Even when shown that charter schools in many minority neighborhoods are giving much better challenges and results to the youth there are now being shutdown, not by conservatives but by liberals !

The Left VS minorities

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/03/11/the-left-versus-minorities/

If anyone wanted to pick a time and place where the political left’s avowed concern for minorities was definitively exposed as a fraud, it would be now — and the place would be New York City, where far left Mayor Bill de Blasio has launched an attack on charter schools, cutting their funding, among other things.

These schools have given thousands of low income minority children their only shot at a decent education, which often means their only shot at a decent life. Last year 82 percent of the students at a charter school called Success Academy passed city-wide mathematics exams, compared to 30 percent of the students in the city as a whole.

The reason for posting Dr. William's column was to point out that black Americans were doing OK up until the 60's. They were accepted in most parts of the country except the deep south and inroads were, of necessity, being made there. We cannot know what the outcome would be without the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but have no reason to believe the situation would have remained static until today.

All minorities that have entered the USA have suffered bias and bigotry. Until recently, all have assimilated and become valued and contributing members of our society. That is just what the melting pot the US is so often referred to is all about, people being accepted for who they are, not what they are.

We might not know JFK's mind when it came to passage of the Civil Rights Act as it was passed after his assassination. We do know what LBJ's mind was though, it was nothing more than a self serving cynical means of keeping American blacks subservient to the Democratic party. That has not changed one bit in the ensuing years.

“I’ll have those n***ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One -

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40889

[quote=King Brown]You're on slippery ice, Ken, when you talk about morality of any kind with the smothering hypocrisy of the way constitutional and international laws are twisted for political ends every day. Look to the First and Second Amendments. Think Snowden and gun rights. There's been flagrant abuse for decades of the First, a travesty, and the Second seems partial to where citizens live.

On your notion of individual freedom and equality, you'd be hard-pressed to get agreement from African-Americans who only began to get some freedom and equality after 200 years from a reluctant government's gunpoint to enforce the Constitution. Please consider also there was nothing sociopathic about your countrymen who threw off their British yoke.

"Subjective morality behind the ideology"? Dear god, Ken. Remember the little black girl at a demonstration against segregated schools in Arkansas? The TV clip that flashed around the world? The girl, about four or five, was asked why she was at the demonstration with her parents. "Fee-dom." And the subjective morality of Iraq and 4,500 dead and counting of America's best?

So, no, there's nothing unconstitutional in Alinsky's teaching disadvantaged citizens how to gain their civil and constitutional rights, nor citizens and the NRA demonstrating forcefully and peacefully to keep them. It's a long American tradition. Gun owners have organized to prevent arbitrary intrusions on their constitutional rights.

(Your "statism" has no meaning here.)

Excellent. You've clearly missed my point. Past constitutional transgressions do not rationalize current ones. It's been the statist method to circumvent the Constitution that is the real issue. In that Alinsky has clearly played a strong role. Merely citing a "Parade of Entitled Victims" is irrelevant. The Issue, again, is the subjective morality of Religious Statism, codified by the soviets in their social science of "Psychopolitics" that has been used by Alinsky and others to circumvent the Constitution and indoctrinate their statist religious beliefs. Your responses are a good example, as they are are very doctrinal, according to the subjective morality of religious statism. Here's the text on Psychopolitics, its really a handbook on how to indoctrinate the unconstitutional, sociopathic, subjective morality and dogma of Religious Statism.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/brainwsh.shtml

Exactly!

Welcome aboard Ken. IMHO an excellent post that goes to the heart of key issues facing us. In both countries a significant failing is a lack of understanding of very key fundamental constitutional and moral issues.

In King's case, my assessment, not shared by all here, is that his personal experience corrupts his conceptual outlook. "I did it so it must work and be good!" The reality is that King's prescription may work well for people like him but, like Karl Marx's theories, fail to take into account the nature of mankind. It is the failing of most of the left's footsoldiers. Their leaders are different though. They just want to run things.

Great read, actually lots of them on keeping the black (voters) down on the plantation by liberals.
A look at the history of the Dems and Republicans Jim Crow and the KKK:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/b..._paradigms.html

Many blacks erroneously believe the GOP consists of rich racist white people. In reality, the GOP was founded to free blacks. Only five years after slavery, there were black congressmen, all Republicans. The KKK, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and denying blacks the right to vote where all birthed by Democrats.

Even today, Democrats are still "keeping blacks in their place" -- telling them they need lowered standards, affirmative action, special programs, and freebies to succeed. Democrats constantly send blacks the message they are not as smart was whites. For example, Democrats say having to show ID when voting disenfranchises blacks. This is merely a tactic by which the Democrats implement voter fraud.

The proof, as they say, is in the Pudding.

King Brown is a student of the Saul Alinsky philosophy. So is Bill and Hillary Clinton. Eric Holder, Raum Emanuel, and most of the Obama team. And of course, star pupil Barack Hussein Obama himself. Here, we have a quote from King's and Obama's mentor, Saul Alinsky... as he essentially dedicates his work to Satan...

" Alinsky wrote: “Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgement of 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.”

I read "Rules for Radicals" a few years ago for the same reasons I often watch MSNBC. You need to know your enemy in order to defeat them. I searched for a brief synopsis that accurately sums up Saul Alinsky's methodology and found this:

http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals

King won't be able to refute this, but he may try ridicule since that is one of the "Rules".

King Brown's resume inflation has been on full display in this thread, and if you look at Rule #1, you begin to understand why.
From "being there" as JFK broke out to become the first Catholic President, to being Martin Luther King's Home Boy, to his own personal involvement and one sided observations of the Civil Rights struggle, I decided to let him take out a lot of line. It wasn't until he made the insane and dishonest comparison between him and the NRA that I decided to set the hook.

Kingsley Brown really did work on racial reforms and tough love Affirmative Action near Antigonish. The problem is, it wasn't our Funny Uncle Kingsley Brown. It was his Dad, Kingsley Ewart Brown, the WWII veteran, bomber pilot, and 3 year German POW who escaped from Stalag Luft 3. Tough, influential, and well connected, he was everything that Little King could never be. It was Dad who worked at nearby St. Francis Xavier University. It was Dad who prodded the local mayor, businessmen and the banker. And it was Dad, born in Toronto, who had the ear of many Canadian political leaders and who was a close personal friend of the President of the Toronto headquarters of the local bank.

Little King was there. He reported on it but little else. It was Dad who got him his first reporting job, after all. And now he is taking full credit for his Dad's good work. He has accused me of "dishonouring" his Dad, and even uses that lie as an excuse to pretend to ignore me. It almost seems a little "Psycho"... like Norman Bates assuming the personality of his mother.

But the ends justify the means, and a little resume inflation, or even a lot, is OK if it garners you the respect and credibility to make your spurious case, even as you ridicule and discredit others. See Rules #2, #3, and #5.

How many of you have seen King play Rule # 4 like a fine fiddle?
You stay strictly on topic while I do as I wish... You provide proof while I ignore your proof... Don't you be mean or mischievious, while I call names in the third person and hurl insults from afar, and lie through my teeth while pleading for civility.

Rules# 6, 7, and 8 speak for themselves, and #8 especially can explain how King can frequently re-invent his original position on many topics where he sees he is losing ground.

Going further down the list, we see the reason and justification for repeated lies and hypocrisy.

But really, for King to have the gall to compare the NRA and its' tactics and goals to those of him and his ilk goes beyond the pale.

The NRA does not tell outright lies to achieve it's goals.

The NRA does not use the First Amendment to undermine the Second Amendment.

The NRA is a single issue organization that believes gun rights are the key to maintaining our freedom from government oppression and the destruction of the rest of the Constitution.

The NRA is not Socialistic or Communist in any way and does not advocate Wealth Redistribution, Affirmative Action, Gun Control, Excessive spending and taxation, and fifty years of repeating failed Great Society policies.

I could go on and on illustrating how the NRA is nothing like King Brown.

Today, I received my credentials for my upgrade to Benefactor Life Member of the NRA. I would burn my membership card and disavow them completely if they ever acted like King Brown.

Copied the twelfth rule from Glen Beck's webpage that Keith linked to: '

"RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions."

This is a link to an editorial in the New York Times:
www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/opinion/the-democrats-stand-up-to-the-kochs.html

Harry Reid made an attack on the Koch Brothers from the floor of the US Senate.

The New York Times is part of the left wing socialist cabal including NBC,CBS and ABC among others known as the "mainstream news media".
Only the clueless and educated Libtards ,who should know better, pay any attention to them anymore. This is demonstrated in the sharp decline in their ratings and audience numbers.
They're running scared that the Republicans will kick some serious booty come this November hence the tone of that article.
Jim

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/proof-that-obama-is-linked-to-radical-alinsky/

Barack Obama began his Alinsky worship very early in his career. According to a study on Alinsky, “in 1985 Obama began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.”

Obama spent his entire youth taking classes and later teaching workshops on Alinsky’s methods. He worked hard to follow Alinsky’s rule of “blending in”.

“True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism,” Alinsky writes. The trick is to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.


Obama also helped fund the The Woods Fund, a nonprofit community-organizing group on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002. On the board with Obama at the Woods Fund was William Ayers, the founder and terrorist of the Weather Underground. The Woods Fund provided funding for yet another community organizing group, Midwest Academy.

Midwest describes itself as ‘one of the nation’s oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.’ Like the Woods Fund, the Midwest Academy teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing.

In a July 2008 speech, then-Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his speech in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released teleprompter script and launched into a community organizing lecture:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.


Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/proof-that-obama-is-linked-to-radical-alinsky/#OWLDRTWsJCqEXCF7.99

NEVER let any of the contrarians who post here with the intent to disrupt or muddle the current political situation influence you. Their goal is to make the far left appear "reasonable" and willing to "compromise" if we would only "work" with them.
We are in fact locked in a deadly battle for the very soul and essence of the United States no matter who tells you we have to "compromise" with progressives.(socialists)
Their version of "compromise" can be readily seen in the area of "gun control". The progressives claimed at that time that the passage of the Gun Control Acts of 1968 and then again in 1986 gave the government all the power and authority to regulate firearms that would ever be necessary.
Conservatives along with the NRA caved in here and "compromised" with the socialists thinking that this would be the end of the line on "gun control".
Obama has demonstrated the duplicity of socialists with his "lines"(Syria for example) that just keep moving. This has been the same case with the line on gun control. The socialists demands will end when every firearm has been surrendered and destroyed.
At that point in time since we will be disarmed no capability will remain to protest any and all actions to remove what remaining freedoms we may still have.
If the NRA and the rest of us who value our 2nd Amendment right had heeded the "advice" of the likes of King Brown we would now have Universal Background Checks which is the prelude to Universal Registration and ultimately confiscation.
If you don't believe this look at what's happening in States such as NY and Conn right now where the government has followed this exact blueprint.

It would behoove ALL of you to NEVER forget this Quote from the California socialist Diane Feinstein:

"Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of "assault weapons",*** instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[29]

***As an additional point: States like California have expanded and convoluted the term "assault weapon" so that at some point in time the only non assault weapons will be cap pistols.

Two most excellent posts above there, Dave and Jim.

The most important points I got from them was first, Dave's exposure of the "blending in" method. We have seen that on full display here in recent weeks as the radical anti-gun troll nca225 has re-emerged and hoped he could get away with pretending to be just another gun guy who wants nothing more than to engage in civil discussions about Double Guns. We have several of these trolls here who go out of their way to "blend in". They are the foot soldiers of the Progressive movement, and they are here to deceive. There are reasons that spammers attack certain websites and leave others alone. How many times have registrations been suspended here in recent months? Our trolls will cry out, "paranoia", but all have at some point dropped their guard and told us where they really stand on the issue of private firearms ownership in the U.S. Those who try to LULL or convince us that compromise or appeasement is the answer are paving the way for Universal Registration and eventual confiscation. It's hard to say it won't happen when it's happening in New York and Connecticut right now.

Then Jim reminds us of the sheer folly of "reasonable compromise" with those whose sole agenda is to divide us and slowly separate us from our Constitutional Rights. Both nca225 and King have been practicioners of that tactic, and have both done all they could to con us into believing that the most Radical Anti-Gunner to ever hit center stage would not be a threat to us. The friend of your enemy is likely no friend to you.

Neville Chamberlain who served as Britain's Prime Minister publicly declared that he believed that Adolf Hitler was a reasonable person who they could deal with and compromise.
He met with Hitler in Germany and returned with Hitler's assurances that he had no further interests in occupying additional territory.
Chamberlain returned to Great Britain announcing there will be "Peace in Our Time". Hitler proceeded to break every promise he made Chamberlain and a much stronger Germany started WW II.
I don't trust Obama or his minions any more than I believe Hitler could be trusted. The ONLY reason he wasn't severely criticized at that time was he controlled the new media in Germany much as Obama and the socialists control most of the news media here today.
If a conservative had pulled a small part of what the Obama Administration has pulled so far the "mainstream news media" would be calling for impeachment.
As of yet Obama can continue to lie with impunity due to a large segment of our population being unaware of this fact.
Jim
And contrary to the B.S you've been fed over the years Hitler was a socialist and the NAZI movement itself was socialist inspired. Hitler considered the communists their greatest adversary because the movements were similar and they appealed to the same type of people. The NAZI's and Hitler were not some kind of right wing conservative entity that some factions here would have you believe. Keep in mind that after becoming Fuher Hitler dissolved the Reichstag which was the German equivalent to our Congress and they never met again until after the war. Obama has attempted to do the same by ignoring Congress and issuing "Executive" orders.

My whole point in starting this thread was to show Alinsky for what he really is and that's a radical leftist bent on destroying the United States and all it stands for. At this time I believe it's "Mission Accomplished"