<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Alinsky</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/alinsky/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Glazov Gang 2014 Episode of the Year &#8212; Dinesh D&#8217;Souza</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/glazov-gang-2014-episode-of-the-year-dinesh-dsouza/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=glazov-gang-2014-episode-of-the-year-dinesh-dsouza</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/glazov-gang-2014-episode-of-the-year-dinesh-dsouza/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 05:15:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dinesh D'Souza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=248438</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The acclaimed conservative author and filmmaker discussed his stellar new book and motion picture.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/dd.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-248439" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/dd.jpg" alt="dd" width="289" height="159" /></a><strong>[</strong><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to <em>The Glazov Gang</em> and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.]</strong></a></p>
<p>This year’s<strong> Glazov Gang 2014 Episode of the Year Award</strong> goes to two special episodes &#8212; each of them joined by a stellar titan who is on the front-lines of the culture and terror war courageously defending our civilization&#8217;s freedom.</p>
<p>One of the winning episodes was with <a href="http://www.americathemovie.com/" target="_blank"><strong>Dinesh D’Souza</strong></a>, acclaimed conservative author and filmmaker who is the author of the book, <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/America-Imagine-World-without-Her/dp/162157203X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406272202&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=america+dinesh" target="_blank">America: Imagine a World Without Her</a> </strong>– which is also a<a href="http://www.americathemovie.com/" target="_blank"> <strong>major motion picture</strong></a>.</p>
<p>We are honored to present the special episode,<strong> “America: Imagine a World Without Her,”</strong> below.</p>
<p>Our other Glazov Gang 2014 episode award winner was with <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/glazov-gangs-2014-episode-of-the-year-geert-wilders/"><strong>Geert Wilders</strong></a> and ran in <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/glazov-gangs-2014-episode-of-the-year-geert-wilders/">yesterday&#8217;s issue</a>.</p>
<p>The Glazov Gang team extends special thanks to all of our guests, viewers and supporters and wishes all of them a happy, healthy and successful new year.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/h1DQjj1VxHw" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To watch previous <em>Glazov Gang</em> episodes, </strong><a href="http://jamieglazov.com/"><strong>Click Here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> Jamie Glazov’s </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>Fan Page</strong></a><strong> on Facebook.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/glazov-gang-2014-episode-of-the-year-dinesh-dsouza/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Saul Alinsky Lives in Ferguson</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/john-perazzo/saul-alinsky-lives-in-ferguson/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=saul-alinsky-lives-in-ferguson</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/john-perazzo/saul-alinsky-lives-in-ferguson/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2014 05:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Perazzo]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ferguson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=246725</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How Obama has implemented Alinsky's tactics of social revolution to tear a city – and a nation – apart. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Saul_Alinsky_271.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-246727" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Saul_Alinsky_271-450x341.jpg" alt="Saul_Alinsky_27" width="355" height="269" /></a>If the late Saul Alinsky—the America-hating godfather of community organizing—had fathered a black son, he&#8217;d look like Barack Obama.[1]  Obama has embraced, revered, and employed Alinsky&#8217;s philosophy and tactics of social revolution <i>for decades</i>. Indeed, he even <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/behind-a-class-warfare-charge-the-shadow-of-saul-alinsky/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">taught</span></a> Alinsky&#8217;s <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-saul-alinsky-to-understand-barack-obama/article/243226"><span style="color: #0433ff;">methods</span></a> in community-organizing workshops and seminars in Chicago, when he was a much younger Marxist. As we witness the continuing racial unrest sparked by the shooting of Michael Brown and the Ferguson grand jury&#8217;s subsequent decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson, it is vital to understand that <i>everything </i>the protesters/rioters are doing—in Ferguson and elsewhere—is straight out of Alinsky&#8217;s most famous publications, <i>Rules For Radicals</i> and <i>Reveille For Radicals</i>. And Obama has encouraged them, every step of the way.</p>
<p>Obama and Alinsky never actually met in person, as Alinsky died when Obama was just 11 years old. Happily for the future president, by that time he had already been introduced to the man who would mentor him throughout his adolescent years—the America-hating, pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin, Communist writer Frank Marshall Davis. Thus, when Obama eventually encountered Alinsky through the latter&#8217;s writings, the young community organizer was well prepared ideologically to soak up Alinsky&#8217;s message.</p>
<p>In his quest to cultivate the type of chaos that would spark social revolution against America&#8217;s capitalist system, Alinsky exhorted activists to constantly “rub raw the resentments of the people” and “fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression”—but to do this in measured tones, so as not to “scare off” middle-class Americans.</p>
<p>Thus did Obama dutifully and blandly call for “unity” and calm in the immediate aftermath of Michael Brown&#8217;s “heartbreaking and tragic” death, even as he repeatedly reminded us that: “police should not be bullying or arresting” anyone without cause; “in too many communities, too many young men of color are left behind and left as objects to fear”; “there is no excuse for excessive force by police”; “the justice gap” between whites and nonwhites is unacceptable; “the criminal-justice system doesn&#8217;t treat people of all races equally”; and “too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement, guilty of walking while black, or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.” And when the grand jury in Ferguson subsequently chose not to indict Darren Wilson because the officer obviously had shot Michael Brown in self-defense, Obama pronounced the black community&#8217;s indignation to be “an understandable reaction.”</p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s carefully chosen words—all delivered in the type of nonthreatening tenor advocated by Saul Alinsky—clearly communicated a single, foundational theme to African Americans: <i>In the racist cesspool known as the United States, black people are routinely treated like second-class citizens, if not subhumans. Oh, and by the way, please remain calm. Wink, wink.</i></p>
<p>Alinsky also taught that in some cases activists must be completely willing—for the sake of the moral principles in whose name they profess to act—to turn up the proverbial heat and watch society descend into chaos and anarchy; to “go into a state of complete confusion and draw [their] opponent into the vortex of the same confusion.”<span style="color: #680900;"> </span>“Wherever possible,” Alinsky counseled, “go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.”</p>
<p>Mobs of shouting protesters can accomplish that objective quite effectively—even if, as in the present case, they are oblivious to the irony that the poster-child of their crusade is a multiple felon who tried unsuccessfully to murder a police officer. Such demonstrations tend to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is not only well underway, but may actually be preparing to shift into an even higher gear at any moment. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating. Thus did President Obama recently meet at the White House with Al Sharpton, his leading advisor on race-related matters, and other protest <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/17/obama-told-civil-rights-activists-keep-ferguson-staying-on-course/"><span style="color: #680900;">leaders</span></a> from Ferguson, urging them to “<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/obama-meets-with-ferguson-activists-says-hes-concerned-they-stay-on-course/"><span style="color: #680900;">stay on course</span></a>” with their activism.</p>
<p>Yet another highly noteworthy observation by Alinsky was this: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” “The threat,” he explained, “is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Thus, “if your organization is small in numbers,… raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does.”</p>
<p>This can be well achieved by orchestrating a host of simultaneous demonstrations in multiple cities or venues, exactly as the highly organized Gentle Giant crusade has been doing. The stature of these rallies is magnified by the fact that they receive lots of media attention, while scores of millions of ordinary Americans who view them with contempt and dread are busy quietly going about their lives, caring for their families, working at their jobs, and pursuing their personal aspirations as they see fit. Such people are many thousands of times more numerous than the perpetually aggrieved rabble-rousers of the Left, but Alinsky understood—as Obama understands today—that a spraying skunk inevitably gets all the attention when it intrudes unexpectedly upon a picnic.</p>
<p>The America-hating Alinsky also taught that activists, in order to cast themselves as defenders of high-minded principles, must theatrically convey “shock, horror, and moral outrage” whenever any of their demands—however inconsequential—are not met. And no one conveys such emotions more convincingly than Obama&#8217;s aforementioned racial “advisor,” Al Sharpton, who vows to continue the Michael Brown/anti-police brutality crusade until the end of time if necessary. Alinsky understood quite well that even <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1527"><span style="color: #0433ff;">a pathetic moral degenerate</span></a> like Sharpton can be an effective revolutionary if he is skilled in the otherwise worthless arts of bluster and righteous indignation.</p>
<p>Lest anyone think there might be a way to bridge the gap between civil society and the revolutionaries in the vanguard of the current Gentle Giant Brigades, a dose of reality is in order: Alinsky emphasized that the overarching objective of any crusade is <i>never</i> to promote peace or reconciliation, but rather to be unwaveringly “dedicated to an eternal war” in which “there are no rules of fair play” and “no compromise” whatsoever; to mercilessly “pulverize” people with “fear”; and ultimately to “force their capitulation.”</p>
<p>We got a glimpse of this mindset recently when we <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/393380/get-ready-super-bowl-outrage-ferguson-deroy-murdock"><span style="color: #680900;">learned</span></a> that two New Black Panther Party members were plotting not only to blow up St. Louis&#8217;s famed Gateway Arch, but also to <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/ferguson-murder-plot-black-panthers-planned-killing-police-chief-prosecutor"><span style="color: #680900;">assassinate</span></a> Ferguson police chief Tom Jackson and the city&#8217;s prosecuting attorney Bob McCulloch. And a shrieking Louis Farrakhan, for his part, has been busy <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/29/farrakhan-on-ferguson-well-tear-this-gdamn-country-up-video/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">urging</span></a> black Americans to throw Molotov cocktails at white people in order to fulfill a scriptural “law of retaliation”; condemning whites for allegedly “killing us” in large numbers; and warning that “we’ll tear this goddamn country up!”</p>
<p>Like all Marxists, Obama, Sharpton, Farrakhan, and the rest of their fellow revolutionaries seek to tear society apart by pitting the “races,” the “classes,” and the “genders” against one another—“rubbing raw” their respective “resentments” until hatred abounds in every person&#8217;s heart and mayhem fills the streets. Michael Brown&#8217;s corpse is merely a building block for these rabble rousers. They know that someday another African American will be killed by a white police officer and thus be anointed as their movement&#8217;s next martyred saint. Bit by bit, the inconvenient fact that Brown was a violent, abusive criminal whose death was brought about entirely by his own actions will be airbrushed out of public memory. And the grievance mongers of the “civil rights” movement will wistfully remember him as just another innocent black victim whose life was tragically cut short by white depravity.</p>
<p>Saul Alinsky would be proud.</p>
<p><strong>NOTE:</strong><br />
[1] In March 2012, not long after the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, President Obama famously <a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/obama-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon-118439.html">said</a>: &#8220;If I had a son, he&#8217;d look like Trayvon.&#8221;</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>Dinesh D&#8217;Souza</strong> on <strong>The Glazov Gang</strong> discuss the role <strong>Saul Alinksy</strong> plays in Obama&#8217;s ideology and tactics:</em></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/h1DQjj1VxHw" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/john-perazzo/saul-alinsky-lives-in-ferguson/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>71</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dinesh D&#8217;Souza on &#8220;America: Imagine a World Without Her&#8221; &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/dinesh-dsouza-on-america-imagine-a-world-without-her-on-the-glazov-gang/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dinesh-dsouza-on-america-imagine-a-world-without-her-on-the-glazov-gang</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/dinesh-dsouza-on-america-imagine-a-world-without-her-on-the-glazov-gang/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2014 04:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Glazov Gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America: Imagine a World Without Her]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dinesh D'Souza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[glazov gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jamie glazov]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=237682</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The acclaimed conservative author and filmmaker discusses his new book and motion picture -- playing in theaters everywhere. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/gh.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-237685" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/gh-450x248.jpg" alt="gh" width="325" height="179" /></a><strong>[<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Subscribe</a> to <em>The Glazov Gang</em> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.]</a></strong></p>
<p>This week&#8217;s <strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Glazov Gang</a></strong> was joined by <a href="http://www.americathemovie.com/"><strong>Dinesh D&#8217;Souza</strong></a>, acclaimed conservative author and filmmaker who is the author of the new book, <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/America-Imagine-World-without-Her/dp/162157203X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406272202&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=america+dinesh">America: Imagine a World Without Her</a> </strong>&#8211; which is also a<a href="http://www.americathemovie.com/"> <strong>major motion picture</strong></a> currently playing in theaters everywhere:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/h1DQjj1VxHw" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To watch previous <em>Glazov Gang</em> episodes, </strong><a href="http://jamieglazov.com/"><strong>Click Here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> Jamie Glazov’s </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>Fan Page</strong></a><strong> on Facebook.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/dinesh-dsouza-on-america-imagine-a-world-without-her-on-the-glazov-gang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dinesh D’Souza on “Progressives’ Tactic of Camouflage and Deception” – on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/dinesh-dsouza-on-alinsky-satan-and-the-community-organizer-of-resentment-on-the-glazov-gang-1-1/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dinesh-dsouza-on-alinsky-satan-and-the-community-organizer-of-resentment-on-the-glazov-gang-1-1</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/dinesh-dsouza-on-alinsky-satan-and-the-community-organizer-of-resentment-on-the-glazov-gang-1-1/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2014 04:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[D'Souza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lucifer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radicals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=237848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pretending to be like the people you hate and seek to destroy.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/obama.png"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-237851" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/obama-450x337.png" alt="obama" width="300" height="225" /></a><strong>[<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Subscribe</a> to <em>The Glazov Gang</em> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.]</a></strong></p>
<p>This week&#8217;s <strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Glazov Gang</a></strong> was joined by <a href="http://www.americathemovie.com/"><strong>Dinesh D&#8217;Souza</strong></a>, acclaimed conservative author and filmmaker who is the author of the new book, <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/America-Imagine-World-without-Her/dp/162157203X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406272202&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=america+dinesh">America: Imagine a World Without Her</a> </strong>&#8211; which is also a<a href="http://www.americathemovie.com/"> <strong>major motion picture</strong></a> currently playing in theaters everywhere.</p>
<p>Dinesh discussed “<em>Progressives’ Tactic of Camouflage and Deception,</em>” shedding light on Obama&#8217;s and Hillary&#8217;s strategy of pretending to be like the people they hate and seek to destroy. He also deconstructed the Left&#8217;s flawed &#8220;theft&#8221; accusation, analyzed the significance of Saul Alinsky paying tribute to Lucifer in his manual, &#8220;Rules for Radicals,&#8221; and focused on many more of the themes explored in his new book and film.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t miss it!</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/h1DQjj1VxHw" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To watch previous <em>Glazov Gang</em> episodes, </strong><a href="http://jamieglazov.com/"><strong>Click Here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> Jamie Glazov’s </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>Fan Page</strong></a><strong> on Facebook.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/dinesh-dsouza-on-alinsky-satan-and-the-community-organizer-of-resentment-on-the-glazov-gang-1-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dinesh D’Souza on “Alinsky, Satan and the Community Organizer of Resentment&#8221; &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/dinesh-dsouza-on-alinsky-satan-and-the-community-organizer-of-resentment-on-the-glazov-gang-1/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dinesh-dsouza-on-alinsky-satan-and-the-community-organizer-of-resentment-on-the-glazov-gang-1</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/dinesh-dsouza-on-alinsky-satan-and-the-community-organizer-of-resentment-on-the-glazov-gang-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2014 04:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[D'Souza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lucifer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radicals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=237778</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The significance of Saul Alinsky's tribute to Lucifer in his manual, "Rules for Radicals."  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Alinsky.png"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-237756" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Alinsky.png" alt="Alinsky" width="235" height="243" /></a><strong>[<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Subscribe</a> to <em>The Glazov Gang</em> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.]</a></strong></p>
<p>This week&#8217;s <strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Glazov Gang</a></strong> was joined by <a href="http://www.americathemovie.com/"><strong>Dinesh D&#8217;Souza</strong></a>, acclaimed conservative author and filmmaker who is the author of the new book, <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/America-Imagine-World-without-Her/dp/162157203X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406272202&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=america+dinesh">America: Imagine a World Without Her</a> </strong>&#8211; which is also a<a href="http://www.americathemovie.com/"> <strong>major motion picture</strong></a> currently playing in theaters everywhere.</p>
<p>Dinesh discussed “<em>Alinsky, Satan and the Community Organizer of Resentment</em>,&#8221; analyzing the significance of Saul Alinsky paying tribute to Lucifer in his manual, &#8220;Rules for Radicals&#8221; <strong>(starts at 21:15 mark).</strong> The dialogue occurred within the context of the many themes explored in Dinesh&#8217;s  new book and film.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t miss it!</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/h1DQjj1VxHw" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To watch previous <em>Glazov Gang</em> episodes, </strong><a href="http://jamieglazov.com/"><strong>Click Here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> Jamie Glazov’s </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>Fan Page</strong></a><strong> on Facebook.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/dinesh-dsouza-on-alinsky-satan-and-the-community-organizer-of-resentment-on-the-glazov-gang-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Radical Transformation of America</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/obamas-radical-transformation-of-america/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-radical-transformation-of-america</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/obamas-radical-transformation-of-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 04:28:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Harsanyi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J. Christian Adams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stanley kurtz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transformation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=191202</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Conservative All-Stars expose Obama's subversive hidden agenda at the Freedom Center's Texas Weekend. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Editor’s note: Below is the video and transcript of the panel discussion “The Radical Transformation of America,” featuring Stanley Kurtz, David Harsanyi, J. Christian Adams and moderator Michael Wienir. The event was part of the Freedom Center’s Texas Weekend, held May 3rd-5th at the Las Colinas Resort in Dallas, Texas.</em></p>
<p><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/66948682" height="281" width="500" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><a href="http://vimeo.com/66948682">The Radical Transformation of America</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user15333690">DHFC</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Michael Wienir:</strong> We have three outstanding and prominent and profound scholars and experts.  And we’re going to talk about Obamaism and the radical transformation of America.  We’ve heard a lot about that already this morning.  It reminded me, when I was asked to put this together, about Barack Obama marching into the Correspondents Dinner last week in Washington, DC.  Many of you probably saw it &#8212; he had rap music playing in the background.  And he joked that some in this country consider him a Muslim Marxist.  And it’s just that sometimes attempts at humor are perilously close to the truth.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>In The Wall Street Journal last Sunday, Peggy Noonan wrote about Obama on a personal level &#8212; called him imperious, manipulative, unable to execute or govern, prone to endless interviews and campaigning; characterized by his imperturbable drone; graceless, conveying an aura of superiority and arrogance, and appeared not to be at all awed by the Oval Office.  Now, that’s talking about the man.</p>
<p>So we’re going to talk more about, today in this panel, his failures in terms of what you’ve heard about already today &#8212; national security, economic security and energy security; his lying, his dishonesty; the policies that serve as a basis for trying to understand this radical transformation of America.</p>
<p>And so I’m going to ask the panel two basic questions, which they don’t know about yet because I’ve kept it quiet from them.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>But I want to put this all into perspective in terms of defining what the David Horowitz Freedom Center does.</p>
<p>You heard from my son Jeffrey this morning about the mission statement of the Center, which is to defend free societies from those factors, those organizations, that are attacking our Western civilization, both secular and religious, at home and abroad.  And are the policies of Obama &#8212; Obamaism, if you will &#8212; compatible with the mission statement of the David Horowitz Freedom Center?  And second, Obamaism &#8212; is it compatible with the core values of the Center?  What are those core values?</p>
<p>Some of you have not been to our events before.  We believe and work for individual freedom, limited government, the rule of law, and economic freedom and free enterprise, and strong national defense.  So is this radical transformation of America, Obamaism &#8212; is that at all compatible with those things we believe in at the David Horowitz Freedom Center?  I think we know the answer.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>But we&#8217;ll get more details on that as we go along.</p>
<p>Our first speaker is David Harsanyi.</p>
<p><strong>David Harsanyi:</strong> You know, I&#8217;ve actually always been ready optimistic about our future.  My parents had defected from communist Hungary, they love this country.  They sort of instilled that in me.</p>
<p>But recently, my columns are becoming sort of downers, apparently.  And I work at &#8212; Eagle Publishing, it&#8217;s called, and they also have [Regnary], who published my book.  And Harry Crocker, who’s an editor to there, came over to me and said, you know &#8212; your columns are kind of downers, you know.  Doesn&#8217;t seem to me that you think the future is as bright &#8212; so he came up with the idea for this book.</p>
<p>I did not view myself in that way; I didn&#8217;t think this would be the sort of book that I&#8217;d want to write.  So I thought about it for a bit, and then I realized that I thought we were pretty much screwed.  So I had to write the book.</p>
<p>And I say this not because I think America is going to turn into Bangladesh or Somalia but that the iteration we have now is probably over because of this President, but more because I think we&#8217;ve maybe lost the American people, which is scarier to me.  I called the book &#8220;Obama&#8217;s Four Horsemen.&#8221;  But when I was writing it, I realized it&#8217;s a reflection of what a lot of Americans think about the world now and how it&#8217;s supposed to work.</p>
<p>So I started out thinking about dependency, which to me is the scariest part of what&#8217;s going on.  And I&#8217;m not talking about food stamps, and I&#8217;m not talking about welfare programs; though those are important as well.  I&#8217;m just talking about the way we react to problems, and the way the American people expect government to step in.  I think it happens on almost every level of government.</p>
<p>And it happens &#8212; I&#8217;ll give you a little example.  I wrote a short little piece about sugar subsidies, and how ridiculous what the American government does with that industry was.  Within 20 minutes of the post going up, I had a sugar lobbyist call Human Events and say &#8212; this is ridiculous.  And they brought in like four people.  This is a small publication compared to National Review or others.  I had to sit down with them for about an hour as they told me that red states &#8212; that Republicans were for this, that this was a conservative idea to get into an arms race of sort of subsidizing these sorts of industries.  So it&#8217;s a difficult problem on every level.  It&#8217;s not just Democrats, it&#8217;s conservatives as well.</p>
<p>And then, I thought about debt.  Debt, we were recently told by the President, is not really much of a problem, at least not for 10 years.  And at the very least, politicians used to pretend to think or care that debt was a problem for us in the long run.  We talk about 17 trillion with unfunded liabilities &#8212; could be 50 trillion, 100 trillion &#8212; we don&#8217;t know what we can&#8217;t pay for down the line.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a little subculture, and I&#8217;d say it&#8217;s growing and growing.  The Krugmanites and people like them, in pretty mainstream papers &#8212; econ magazines, business magazines &#8212; are now sort of celebrating debt.  They think deficit spending is the way to grow economies.  That&#8217;s become more and more mainstream.  And I think it undermines something very important about governance.  So that scared me.</p>
<p>And then I thought about national security, and what was going on in North Africa.  And I&#8217;m not an expert on this, but it does not look good to me.  So the way we deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, the way we allow American government to undermine our values abroad &#8212; I just think that is going to lead to terrible things.</p>
<p>And finally, something I didn&#8217;t believe that I&#8217;d care very much about, but it turns out I&#8217;ve changed my mind in a big way, was death &#8212; in which I&#8217;m talking about abortion, basically &#8212; but sort of a culture of death, actually.  I&#8217;m a Libertarian.  I&#8217;m not a social conservative at all, but I&#8217;m very pro-life, for what I think are scientific reasons and for moral reasons in this country.  And I know that there&#8217;s some disagreement here, I was told, about that among people who come to this event.</p>
<p>But the way the Democrats celebrated abortion at the National Democratic Convention was nihilistic, almost.  They value abortion [above] the First Amendment, certainly the Second, the Fourth, the Tenth &#8212; probably all of them.  So, something deeply corrosive about that sort of thinking in this country.  And I have two young daughters, and I don&#8217;t want them to believe that they have to be pro-choice to be pro-woman.  I think that&#8217;s a dangerous, dangerous idea.  And it seemed to me like it&#8217;s spreading.  We&#8217;ll see about that, I suppose.</p>
<p>But within that death chapter, I also talk about how we undermine religious freedom.  Now, I&#8217;m not pro-gay marriage; I&#8217;m pro government getting out of the marriage business.  But I do not like what&#8217;s going on and what the arguments are on that front, either.  I don&#8217;t like how others are forced to accept the lifestyles that they don&#8217;t want to accept.  So I think that there are dangerous areas there as well, and I feel myself being pulled towards and fighting with social conservatives more and more on those issues, which is a weird place for me to be.  But, you know, I&#8217;m happy to be where I think people are right.</p>
<p>I heard Jonah Goldberg speak two weeks ago in Colorado.  And he pointed out something that I think is a really important thing that I’ve been thinking about as well, but he articulates in it a lot funnier and a more compelling way.  The idea that our communities are breaking down, that our families are breaking down locally &#8212; think about this &#8212; Obama, last week or two weeks ago, went to celebrate with a huge abortion mill in this country, with Planned Parenthood.  But yet, we know that the best indicator of wealth and prosperity, and personal freedom and wealth and prosperity, is having a family; is waiting to be married, and then having children.  Staying together, things like that.  Have you ever heard the President celebrate that?  Have you ever heard him?  No.</p>
<p>So the two things that make us wealthy &#8212; free markets and families in local communities &#8212; are the two things that are undermined constantly.  It&#8217;s that kind of &#8212; those politics that scare me the most about the future, and why I wrote this book.  I&#8217;m still sort of a techno-utopian.  I think that in the end, technology overcomes government and things like that.  But even there, I&#8217;m becoming more and more skeptical.  Not a good kind of old-fashioned, conservative, Chesterton skeptical, but kind of a sad, my-children-are-doomed kind of skeptical.</p>
<p>So I hope I&#8217;m wrong.  Because things happen.  9/11 happened, and everything changed.  I&#8217;m not saying we need a tragedy to change things.  But I think that we talk about going over these cliffs all the time &#8212; I think we&#8217;re over those cliffs.  It&#8217;s how we deal with the consequences of debt, dependency &#8212; those are the two that are more tangible than the others &#8212; and how we come out on the other side of that.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m nervous that people turn towards more freedom when they&#8217;re in trouble; I think they often turn towards more government.  And because our communities are falling apart on some level, I think that they&#8217;re turning towards Obama because he&#8217;s offering them sort of what a church might offer people, what a strong local community and family might offer them.  He offers that to them.  It&#8217;s purely an emotional pitch.  And I think he&#8217;s winning on many levels.  So all of that scares me a lot about our future.</p>
<p>I hate to be such a downer.  I was in Colorado, I spoke two weeks ago.  I gave the most pessimistic speech of my life.  And I was almost like &#8212; yeah, afterwards I felt bad about it, in a way.  So tried to make a couple of jokes, didn&#8217;t work.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>So I think that I&#8217;m very pessimistic, and I think that&#8217;s actually a pretty good way to be about &#8212; it&#8217;s a good way to approach government and a good way to think about Washington.  I mean, I come to these events, and I see people who are ready to stand up and fight and make the arguments.  But I&#8217;m not sure that we have the Republican Party who&#8217;s up to the challenge.  I don&#8217;t know if we have enough compelling voices making compelling messages to the American people in the right way.</p>
<p>In Washington, they talk a lot about technology and Twitter, and social media and all these things.  But I think in the end, you really have to appeal to the American people with a really great message, and I just don&#8217;t hear it right now.</p>
<p>But that can change as well.  Ted Cruz seems great, and Marco Rubio.  And I like Rand Paul pretty much on a lot of things.  So that might change.  But right now, I think we&#8217;re in trouble.</p>
<p>So that&#8217;s my pitch.  I hope it&#8217;s not too depressing.  Because I think we don&#8217;t know what the future brings.  And conservatives, especially on the economic front, never pretend to know what the future will bring.  So I think we have to keep vigilant.</p>
<p><strong>Stanley Kurtz:</strong> Actually, I do have some reasons that we oughtn&#8217;t be so pessimistic, but my talk is not going to be one of those.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>So maybe we can get to that in the question period.  Because I do see much more positive scenarios as a potential.  And I&#8217;d love to discuss it.</p>
<p>But before then, I want to really depress you again.  And I&#8217;m going to do that by speaking about the topic of this second book, which is “Obama and the Suburbs.”  And basically, I&#8217;m here to tell you that Barack Obama does not like suburbs.  In fact, if he had his way, suburbs wouldn&#8217;t really exist.</p>
<p>And I know that might sound to some people hard to believe.  But I say it because for nearly two decades, Barack Obama has been a huge supporter of a movement whose main goal is to have city governments swallow up and control suburban governments.  The idea here is to somehow let cities grab control of suburban tax money.  So the bottom line is Barack Obama wants to redistribute the wealth of America&#8217;s suburbs to the cities.</p>
<p>You see, these radical Alinskyite community organizers that trained and mentored Barack Obama back in Chicago all those years ago &#8212; they hated the suburbs.  In fact, they literally wanted to abolish the suburbs.  And the reason they were so hostile to the suburbs is that they blamed the suburbs for the problems of the cities.  Because when people move out to suburbs, they take their tax money with them.</p>
<p>So these mentors of Obama, these radical Alinskyites, put on their thinking caps &#8212; always a dangerous thing &#8212; and they started coming up with all sorts of strategies for undercutting the political and economic independence of the suburbs.</p>
<p>And out of that thinking came a movement which they called the regional equity movement.  The regional equity movement.  Sometimes it&#8217;s just called regionalism for short.  And there are all sorts of other names for this kind of thinking.  You might&#8217;ve heard of smart growth.  Have people heard of smart growth?  Raise your hand if you&#8217;ve heard of smart growth.  Still not that many people.  This kind of stuff travels under the radar, for the most part.</p>
<p>So anyway, Obama&#8217;s mentors, his Alinskyite mentors, and the academics they palled around with, came up with this movement filled with these strategies.  And when I was researching this book, “Spreading the Wealth,” what I discovered was not only was Barack Obama a charter member and supporter of this movement, but to this very day, from the White House, the Obama Administration is channeling huge support to this regional equity movement.  The Obama Administration is a strong supporter of regionalism.  And nobody knows about this.  The mainstream media doesn&#8217;t report on it.</p>
<p>And because the political implications are so potentially explosive, this is not the sort of thing that Obama tends to mention in a State of the Union address or at a news conference.  The moment he did, that would put scrutiny on it.  And so he doesn&#8217;t do it.</p>
<p>But the policies are all there, they&#8217;re in place.  They&#8217;re in cabinet departments we don&#8217;t pay much attention to anymore, like the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation.  Most people don&#8217;t even know who the secretaries are of HUD, Housing and Urban Development; and some of these other programs. Well, they&#8217;re all pushing these regionalist policies.</p>
<p>And Obama is working in his administration now not only with the successors of this regional equity movement, but with some of the very same radical Alinskyite organizers who trained him back in Chicago.  I mean, this is amazing.  If Obama was in the White House coming up with a plan to redistribute America&#8217;s wealth in close consultation with Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright, obviously people would go nuts.  And of course, he&#8217;s too smart to do that.</p>
<p>But he is, in fact, working with a guy named Mike Kruglik.  Now, how many people have heard of Mike Kruglik?  Raise your hand &#8212; there you go.  Nobody&#8217;s heard of Mike Kruglik.  Mike Kruglik was one of the original community organizing buses of Obama out in Chicago.  He was one of the people who came up with this idea of the regional equity movement, and right now he runs that movement.  He&#8217;s working with Obama.  No one wants to report on it.</p>
<p>Actually, when I came out with this book, I had actually told some folks to get a screen capture of a picture of Obama meeting in the White House with this guy, Kruglik.  Because I knew that they would take it down from the Web, you know, when I came out with the book.  So I came out with the book.  And sure enough, they took it down from the Web.  But because I had told some people to capture it, they were able to have stories where they showed this picture of Obama meeting with Kruglik in the Oval Office.  But they literally took the picture down from the Web.</p>
<p>So Kruglik and his top people are shaping Obama Administration policy on urban and suburban issues right now.  So let me give you some examples of what they&#8217;re up to.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s another thing I&#8217;m going to ask you about that probably no one will of heard of, unless they&#8217;ve heard me give this talk before.  Has anybody ever heard of the Sustainable Communities Initiative?  Raise your hand.  Okay, a couple people.  Still not many, but a couple people have heard of it.  Most people don&#8217;t know what it is.  Even if you&#8217;ve heard of it, you don&#8217;t know what it is.  Because what the heck is sustainability?  It&#8217;s got a name that sounds like gobbledygook.  So that&#8217;s one reason that people don&#8217;t pay attention to it.</p>
<p>Another reason is that this is another one of those programs &#8212; like Obamacare itself in many ways, and there are numerous others &#8212; it doesn&#8217;t really fully kick in until well into Obama&#8217;s second term.  This is a great example of how he managed to get reelected by backloading the really controversial parts of his agenda into the second term.</p>
<p>So what is the Sustainable Communities Initiative?  Well, basically, the federal government spends millions of dollars, handing it to these people who support the regional equity movement, smart growth, all the different names for a philosophy of development that says there shouldn&#8217;t be any development in the suburbs.  They say smart growth &#8212; that&#8217;s really kind of a euphemism for no growth.  You know, they don&#8217;t want any development to take place in the suburbs.  They want to channel all development back into the cities.</p>
<p>How do they do that?  Well, the most extreme example is in Portland, Oregon, which is sort of the dream model for these people, where they have what&#8217;s called a development boundary.  They literally have drawn a boundary around metropolitan Portland and said &#8212; you can&#8217;t do any development around here.  And now, the Seattle area, in King County &#8212; they also have one of these borders.</p>
<p>But you don&#8217;t have to do it with a formal border.  There are ways that you can create a kind of de facto development boundary.  So you basically, by controlling the regulations over transportation, over highway building, over housing and such, there are ways to block development outside of the cities, prevent new suburbs from being built, prevent old highways that go out to the suburbs from being repaired; and put all the money back into transportation, housing and education only within the city, only, say, into public transportation that can be used by people who live in densely packed apartments that are close enough so that they can walk &#8212; basically trying to coerce people out of their cars.  In fact, Ray LaHood, the Transportation Secretary who just left, was caught saying &#8212; yeah, sure, we want to coerce people out of their cars.</p>
<p>So the Sustainable Communities Initiative technically doesn&#8217;t have the force of law.  It&#8217;s just a bunch of recommendations.  But all through this second term, as these planning commissions, federally funded planning commissions, start coming out with these regional plans &#8212; plans the structure transportation, housing, education, along with these principles of smart growth &#8212; President Obama is going to have the option of starting to make all kinds of federal funding conditional on local adherence to those plans.  There&#8217;s no guarantee that he&#8217;s going to do that, but there&#8217;s an excellent chance of it.  And that&#8217;s what these Alinskyite folks that are still working with him want him to do.</p>
<p>We saw President Clinton do something like this in the state of Georgia in the last two years of his presidency, after there was no more risk of messing up a midterm election.  Clinton forced the state of Georgia to knuckle under to these smart growth plans on pain of certain penalties and losing federal funding, and Georgia had to go along.  When Clinton left, Georgia went back to it.</p>
<p>Well, the dream of these folks has always been to just have that done across the board.  So it could be done through this Sustainable Communities Initiative.  And if Obama decided to play hardball on that, it could have a transformative effect on the country.  And yet, no one&#8217;s debating it, no one knows about it, no one&#8217;s talking about it.</p>
<p>Okay.  Now, another aspect of this plan turns around a controversy that we&#8217;ve seen in Westchester County, New York.  Does anyone know what I&#8217;m talking about? Raise your hand.  See, very few people.  Some of heard of it, but very few.  Westchester County &#8212; well-to-do suburban county in New York State.  The federal government, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, has decided to enforce an obscure provision of federal housing law in a way that&#8217;s never been done before.  There&#8217;s something written into the law that says if you receive federal aid on housing, you&#8217;ve got to take steps to affirmatively further fair housing, affirmatively further fair housing.  Well, it&#8217;s never been interpreted this way before.</p>
<p>But the Obama Administration has said &#8212; okay, Westchester County, you signed an agreement to this effect.  We&#8217;re giving you federal money; we&#8217;re going to take all that federal money away unless, at your own expense, you build a massive amount of low-income housing.  Not only that, but you need to pass legislation eliminating &#8212; legislation that we call source of income legislation.</p>
<p>What is that?  Right now, if you&#8217;re a landlord, you have the option of turning down a tenant who offers to pay with a government low-income housing voucher, the most popular one being a Section 8 voucher.  You don&#8217;t have to accept someone as a tenant who does that.  Obama Administration wants to change that, and HUD is putting heavy pressure on Westchester County.</p>
<p>So there&#8217;s been no war going on between Obama Administration and Westchester County now for years.  And the Obama Administration has &#8212; this is something that has done publicly, but it doesn&#8217;t get publicity &#8212; it has promised to use the Westchester settlement as a model to export to suburbs all across the country.  And no one&#8217;s paying attention.</p>
<p>Number three, and the last item &#8212; there&#8217;s a practice called regional tax base sharing.  Regional tax base sharing.  This exists right now only in one part of the country, the Minneapolis-St. Paul region.  What is it?  The Minnesota State Legislature compels all of the municipalities in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region &#8212; in other words, the cities and the suburbs &#8212; to kick in a big chunk of their tax receipts to a common regional pot.  You see, the Constitution actually leaves all powers that are not vested in the federal government to the states.  That means technically the states can command localities to do anything they want.  By tradition, we don&#8217;t do that.  But theoretically you can.</p>
<p>So the Minnesota State Legislature was able to override local control.  And when everyone kicks in their money, they redistribute it based on a formula, a demographic and economic formula, that effectively takes the money out of the coffers of the suburbs and puts it into the city.</p>
<p>Now, think about it &#8212; what have I just described to you?  What has just taken place?  I&#8217;ve told you first about a program that tries to push people from the suburbs to move back to the cities, or that prevents them from moving out to the suburbs to begin with.  And then I&#8217;ve told you about a program that takes people from the inner cities and moves them out to the suburbs.  And then I&#8217;ve told you about a program that redistributes the tax money of the people who still live in the suburbs.  Now, when you put that all together, presto &#8212; you have abolished the suburbs.  Sure, the political boundaries still exist.  But in everything that&#8217;s important, politically and economically, the suburbs effectively have been gutted as independent entities.</p>
<p>So that&#8217;s what was on the minds of these Alinskyite organizers who trained Obama.  What they really wanted to do was just have cities outright annex suburbs.  That&#8217;s how they were going to get the control and the tax money.  But most state legislatures made annexation impossible after the 19th century &#8212; you can&#8217;t annex without the consent of the governed.  A novel idea.</p>
<p>And so, how do you get around that?  And these are the strategies they came up with.  Now, is Obama going to go full bore on all of these in the second term?  It&#8217;s hard to say for certain.  You know, maybe if he becomes a total lame duck, he&#8217;ll be afraid to do it.  Or maybe that will liberate him to do it.  But at least we ought to be talking about this.  Because the fundamentals of all these have been put in place.</p>
<p>Oh, I didn&#8217;t mention that on the regional tax base sharing, Obama is working with this Kruglik and these other Alinskyites, lobbying local politicians, mayors and state legislatures at the White House &#8212; it hasn&#8217;t been reported &#8212; trying to get them to pass regional tax base sharing in their states.  So the administration is already pushing all three of the key ingredients of this policy to gut the suburbs.  But he doesn&#8217;t want to talk about it.  And you can read about it there.  That&#8217;s it.</p>
<p>(Applause)</p>
<p><strong>Michael Wienir:</strong> Thank you.  You still have &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>Stanley Kurtz:</strong> I still have two minutes?  Shall I tell you why I have some optimism?</p>
<p><strong>Michael Wienir:</strong> Yes.  Yes, absolutely.</p>
<p><strong>Unidentified Speaker:</strong> No.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p><strong>Stanley Kurtz:</strong> Because the nastiest thing about Obama that I was just talking about &#8212; which is that he backloads his whole agenda, all the worst parts of his agenda, into the second term &#8212; could be the thing that kills him.  What if he actually starts to do all this stuff?</p>
<p>Now, everyone says we&#8217;re going to have a big train wreck.  We don&#8217;t know it for sure, but it sure looks like Obamacare is going to be a huge train wreck.  It&#8217;s going to affect people literally where they live, their lives are going to be at stake.  They&#8217;re going to get really mad.</p>
<p>Someone talked here a little earlier about the Common Core in education.  It&#8217;s just beginning to break into consciousness that there&#8217;s a kind of national rebellion going on at the grassroots against something called the Common Core.  If I had more time, I would&#8217;ve told you about how his suburban stuff affects education.  He&#8217;s got a whole plan to grab a hold of suburban school money and turn it over to city schools.  It runs through this thing called the Common Core.  They&#8217;re federalizing the school curriculum.  It&#8217;s incredible.</p>
<p>People don&#8217;t know about it.  But right now, as parents learn about it, they&#8217;re starting to rebel, they&#8217;re starting to organize.  There are more and more stories about it.  If he tries to do this suburban stuff, they can only keep it under the radar but so long.  If they actually want to enact it, there&#8217;s going to be a big battle.</p>
<p>So the very thing that has been so insidious, the way he leaves everything &#8212; look, they just had a poll that said that 42 percent of the American public doesn&#8217;t even know Obamacare is the law.  They don&#8217;t even know.  So why should I get so depressed that &#8212; of course I&#8217;m somewhat depressed that they reelected Obama, naturally.  But what I&#8217;m saying is if 42 percent of the people don&#8217;t even know that it&#8217;s a law, that means &#8212; yeah, sure, that&#8217;s bad in one way.  But in another way &#8212; man, when they find out it is a law &#8211;</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>&#8211; and their ox is going to get gored &#8212; yeah, sure, some people are going to get subsidies.  But a lot of people are going to be in trouble.</p>
<p>So we really shouldn&#8217;t give up.  Because a lot of this has been done in ignorance, and Obama has kept them in ignorance on purpose.</p>
<p>(Applause)</p>
<p><strong>J. Christian Adams:</strong> It is indeed great to be here and see so many old friends and meet new ones.</p>
<p>What I&#8217;m going to talk about today is a little different from sort of the broader themes that we&#8217;ve heard.  And I&#8217;m going to share some specific examples of particulars of how the Left has seized the machinery of the law, frankly, and how it&#8217;s corrosive.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve heard a lot this weekend about how the Left has seized the narrative.  But the thing I like to talk a lot about is how the Left has seized the process &#8212; the process of governance, the process of law, the process of our American elections.  And that&#8217;s really my specialty that I&#8217;ll lean toward in my talk.</p>
<p>But I watched this up close when I was at the Justice Department.  A quick recap of the New Black Panther case &#8212; you guys have, I’m sure, all seen the video of the Black Panthers in front of the polls in Philadelphia.  And at the time, I was back in Washington on Election Day manning the Washington desk &#8212; I was lucky.  All the other attorneys at the Justice Department Voting Section were scattered around the country.  Actually, one of the reasons I was there is because the Voting Section chief did not trust the attorney who was normally manning the desk, because he was a leftist who would allow his personal views to affect his Justice Department job.  And so you put me in the place of this person.</p>
<p>And this came over the wires &#8212; you&#8217;ll remember the Philly polling place.  And we all thought &#8212; wow, that&#8217;s a violation of section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which says it is against the law to intimidate, threaten or coerce a voter or those aiding voters &#8212; doesn&#8217;t take a voter, it could be a poll-watcher, for example &#8212; or attempt to do the same.  Pretty simple stuff.  If standing in front of a polling place in a paramilitary uniform of an anti-Semitic hate group with a billy club doesn&#8217;t violate the law, what does?  I guess you have to start swinging the club.</p>
<p>So we obtained approval from the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Grace Chung Becker, and we filed a voter intimidation case.  The defendants never answered the case.  Those of you who have ever gotten a parking ticket or a speeding ticket know what happens if you do not respond to this.  We had a default entered against the Panthers, but then the Obama Administration ordered us to dismiss the case, except a tiny little part against one defendant that was short in time.  That ultimately led to me resigning and writing a book, and having far more fun outside the Justice Department than I did inside.</p>
<p>But I raise this to illustrate something.  And this is the main thing I want to leave with you today is &#8212; these people view law not as a confining obligation, but rather as a nuisance to be worked around in the implementation of a radical agenda.</p>
<p>There is a stark difference in philosophy between how the Bush Administration handled justice and how the Obama Administration handle justice.  I would go so far as to say &#8212; and I wasn&#8217;t there &#8212; that even the Clinton Administration probably handled things much like the Bush Administration did.  Okay? But there was a sharp line of demarcation where you could see it happening in daily decisions at DOJ on lots of issues &#8212; not just the New Black Panther case &#8212; where the law was a suggestion.  It wasn&#8217;t a rule of law.</p>
<p>Going back, Mike, to your original questions &#8212; is this philosophy compatible with the core mission of the Horowitz Center?  Well, I would submit it&#8217;s precisely the reason that the Horowitz Center exists, is to do battle with this, frankly, relic of another age.  Because the rule of law is what sustains us.  The notion that parliaments or congresses or legislatures pass the ground rules, and everybody has to comply with them &#8212; that is a uniquely Anglo-American idea.</p>
<p>And so this Justice Department began to use the law not as a fence but as a suggestion.  And you saw it happen in the New Black Panther case.  There&#8217;s a lot of other voting cases that I won&#8217;t get into.  But let me give you a couple of other hard examples to demonstrate my point.</p>
<p>Mohawk Central School District New York.  Mohawk Central School District New York had a male child who decided to go to school dressed in drag.  This is in 2009.  He wore a miniskirt, he wore stiletto heels and a pink translucent wig.  This is real, folks.  This is America, 2009.  And the school said to this eighth-grade boy &#8212; you really can&#8217;t come here like this, it&#8217;s disruptive.  So please stop doing it.  Well, what does the Obama Administration do?  It sues the school.  It&#8217;s a real case, it&#8217;s in my book.</p>
<p>And here&#8217;s how they twist and contort the law.  The Civil Rights laws protect discrimination on the basis of gender &#8212; against women.  You know, you’re treated poorly by your boss, for example, because you’re a woman.  Well, that gives you a cause of action under the law.  But what this Justice Department has done is adopted a radical philosophy of gender identity perception that &#8212; and you guys have probably caught whiffs of this lunacy &#8212; that if you perceive yourself to be a woman but you&#8217;re a boy, that&#8217;s a protected federal civil right.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s one problem &#8212; Congress has never said so.  No court has ever said so.  But this Justice Department, this Attorney General, used the resources of the federal government to shake down Mohawk Central School District and get a consent decree in place that forces that school to accept the eighth-grade drag queen, to spend $75,000 a year in gender identity sensitivity training, and to spend $150,000 on other things to make the eighth-grade drag queen feel welcome.  Okay?  Did you read that in the New York Times?  Of course not.  And if you do read it, it&#8217;s going to be presented as something favorable.</p>
<p>But the bottom line is it twists the law.  And since we’re a nation of law, we worry about whether something is based in the law, not whether it feels good.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s go to the second illustration.  This is Berkeley School District in Illinois.  There was a math teacher there in the middle of exams, who said &#8212; I want to go to Mecca for the Hajj, for the pilgrimage to Mecca.  And the school said &#8212; are you kidding?  You&#8217;re in the middle of finals right now, you&#8217;re our only math teacher.  You cannot go.  Go next year, the moon sets at a different time.  I guess it has some relation to the lunar calendar.  They said &#8212; go next year.  And she said &#8212; no, I want to go to do the Hajj, I need 21 days off, please.  And they said &#8212; you aren&#8217;t going to get it.  And so she quit.</p>
<p>Guess what happens next?  The Justice Department sues the school district.  Because the school district did not make a religious accommodation for the math teacher who wanted to go on the Hajj.  And this was done with much fanfare, no shame &#8212; trust me, no shame.  They&#8217;re very proud of these cases.</p>
<p>And there has never been &#8212; let me give you a statute.  The statute requires a reasonable religious accommodation.  That’s roughly what it says.  The school district must be reasonable, an employer must be reasonable.  There had never been a court case where more than three days was granted for religious accommodation; she got 21.  And the school district got spanked.  They got sued, and it entered into a consent decree allowing the 21-day trip to Mecca.  It&#8217;s another example of how this administration does not view the law as a constraining device, but rather as a nuisance to get around to implement a very radical agenda.</p>
<p>Let me take it now, for a final example, to my area of expertise, and that is elections.  When I was in the Justice Department, we found dozens and dozens &#8212; actually, 255 &#8212; counties across the country that had more voters on the rolls than they had people alive.  Okay?  Eight states were in this situation &#8212; had more people on the rolls than people alive.  And the Voting Section Chief, Christopher Coates &#8212; who has been on Fox and testified like I did about the Black Panther case &#8212; said &#8212; hey, we have a case here under what’s called Motor Voter Section 8.  Remember Motor Voter in 1993?  Well, there was a provision of Motor Voter that said you have to clean up your voter rolls.  You can&#8217;t just have deadwood on the rolls.</p>
<p>And so we said &#8212; we have a case here where these states are violating the law, and it enables voter fraud to occur when there&#8217;s people who shouldn&#8217;t be voting.  We presented this to the incoming Obama Administration simply to open up an investigation &#8212; not to sue anybody; just give us the power to make those target inquiries &#8212; why do you have so many people on the rolls?</p>
<p>They would not even allow us to investigate these clear violations of Section 8 of Motor Voter.  And they actually gathered everybody in the room in the Voting Section and said &#8212; we have no interest in enforcing this law, “because it does nothing to increase minority turnout,” spoken by a political appointee, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General named Julie Fernandez.</p>
<p>Once again, the law to them is not something to be executed faithfully, but rather as a nuisance.  If it does not suit their ideological agenda, they simply don&#8217;t do anything about it.</p>
<p>Right now, there are four million ineligible voters on the rolls, according to the Pew Charitable Trust &#8212; two million deads, two million ineligibles &#8212; that were on the rolls during the last election.  The Left understands process, they understand election laws.  They&#8217;ve brought hundreds of cases to keep dead people on the rolls, to do all sorts of mischief.  And our side has absolutely no response.  None.  We don&#8217;t do it, we don&#8217;t engage in these kind of fights.  And the party, frankly, runs from them very frequently.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why I&#8217;m suing Indiana and Ohio to get them to clean up their rolls.  We’re suing in St. Lucie County &#8212; I don’t think Congressman West is still here &#8212; in his race.  We just sued two Mississippi counties last week that have 124 percent registered voters from people alive on the rolls.</p>
<p>But let me leave you with this &#8212; in January &#8212; and you can read this in Mother Jones &#8212; yes, they still publish Mother Jones &#8212; the Left met in January and launched what&#8217;s called the Democracy Initiative.  All the big boys &#8212; AFL-CIO, SEIU, NOW, NARAL &#8212; pledged $100 million over the next four years to permanently transform America by affecting election process laws.  Voter ID, Motor Voter, same-day registration &#8212; what they&#8217;re doing in Colorado, which is an automatic mail-out of &#8212; every single registered voter gets a ballot in the mail even if they don&#8217;t request it, including inactive voters who haven&#8217;t voted for eight or nine years.  These things are all happening underneath your feet.  And they&#8217;re changing the rules of the game so they maintain a permanent left-wing tilt to the United States.</p>
<p>And that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m evangelizing, and I will leave it at that.  Thank you all for your time and attention.</p>
<p><strong>Michael Wienir:</strong> Thank you.</p>
<p>(Applause)</p>
<p><strong>Unidentified Speaker:</strong> Thank you.  This is to Mr. Adams.  I have a question &#8212; you said you&#8217;re suing these different counties or states.  Under what program are you doing that?</p>
<p><strong>J. Christian Adams:</strong> Motor Voter Section 8 &#8212; the statute that I and others of the DOJ wanted to bring cases against the states &#8212; has a private attorney general provision, which means any party &#8212; and I don&#8217;t mean political; I mean with a heartbeat &#8212; can go in and sue places to force them to clean up their voter rolls.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll go down the roster &#8212; Indiana &#8212; the parties are Judicial Watch and True the Vote.  Ohio &#8212; Judicial Watch and True the Vote.  Mississippi, Jefferson Davis County &#8212; the American Civil Rights Union.  It&#8217;s an organization with Ed Meese, Ken Blackwell, Walter Williams, me, Susan Carlson.  True the Vote versus Gertrude Walker, St. Lucie County.  So you&#8217;ve got Judicial Watch, True the Vote, and ACRU.</p>
<p><strong>Michael Wienir:</strong> Let me just take one minute, as long as you were telling us about this.  Can you say a couple of words about the organization which you started, the Election Law Center in Virginia?</p>
<p><strong>J. Christian Adams:</strong> Well, look &#8212; when you&#8217;re at the Justice Department in the Voting Section, you learn &#8212; David Mamet’s book, please read it &#8212; it’s “The Secret Knowledge.”  You learn the secret knowledge of what’s going on in the Left in the election area.  Because you have to work with them.  They are the Justice Department.</p>
<p>And so what we&#8217;ve done is we&#8217;ve set up sort of this Francis Marion style counterattack, where we borrow their tactics of suing states under the election laws, that they&#8217;ve been doing unopposed for 20 years.  True the Vote’s taken a big lead.  And we&#8217;re going in and playing their game, taking a page, frankly, from David&#8217;s playbook.  And that is to beat them at their own game faster, cheaper and more aggressively.  And that&#8217;s really what we do.</p>
<p><strong>Frank Gaffney:</strong> Can I just ask &#8212; Christian, you laid out a number of practical things that you&#8217;re doing, and I commend you for them.  One that you are also involved in but that you didn&#8217;t mention &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>J. Christian Adams:</strong> I know.</p>
<p><strong>Frank Gaffney:</strong> &#8212; is kind of the connective tissue on several of the things that you were citing &#8212; is something that everybody in this room could help with this week.  And I would just commend you to talk about &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>J. Christian Adams:</strong> Tom Perez?  Okay.</p>
<p>The single most radical nominee that would be the most radical cabinet member since &#8212; is it Henry Wallace, who was the Ag Secretary for FDR, and frankly was surrounded by Soviet agents &#8212; he was probably &#8212; but, I can say safely, all of his aides were Soviet agents &#8212; Perez would be the most radical cabinet secretary since then.  He&#8217;s been nominated for Secretary of Labor.  These kooky things I told you about, the drag queen stuff &#8212; this is all his idea.</p>
<p>And so if you have any relation with your senator, whether Republican or Democrat, call them and say don&#8217;t confirm Tom Perez.  Something you can do.  And we managed to get Perez&#8217;s vote delayed, which is a big deal in a Democrat-controlled Congress.  It was set for a week or two ago, Frank, I think.  And we managed to get it delayed to this coming Thursday because of the questions that have been raised about his radicalism and his competence.</p>
<p>And make no mistake &#8212; no other nominee would be worse than Tom Perez.  He&#8217;s as bad as they get.  He is the culmination of 50 years of left-wing fantasies all in the presidential cabinet.  He&#8217;s probably more radical than Obama.</p>
<p><strong>Unidentified Speaker:</strong> In the off-year elections, are we going to have enough people that are just totally dissatisfied with Obamacare?  And we&#8217;ve heard in the last few days that there&#8217;s 42 percent of the Americans that don&#8217;t even know what Obamacare is, or anything like that.  But is there going to be enough that&#8217;s going to hit the fan by the time the midyear elections come out, to dissolution a lot of Americans that, you know, this is just a disaster, and it&#8217;s happening?  I&#8217;ll let you just take the ball from there.</p>
<p><strong>Stanley Kurtz:</strong> Right.  That&#8217;s the $64,000 question.  I mean, no one fully knows.  I mean, there&#8217;s a little bit of a cottage industry of conservative critics of Obamacare who are spinning out all the horror scenarios, and the Democrats are listening.  This is why Max Baucus, who helped to write the law, so famously said now that he thinks it&#8217;s going to be a train wreck.  The Democrats are very afraid that they&#8217;re going to lose the midterms and lose them badly because of the number of people who will have their rates raised or who will be booted off of employer insurance and forced into exchanges &#8212; they&#8217;ll have to get the kind of care that they don&#8217;t want; or people whose work is being cut back to part-time work &#8212; these are the fundamental bad scenarios.</p>
<p>And, I mean, since Obamacare is essentially redistributing income from all of those people to people who aren&#8217;t currently insured, there could be a massive backlash.  But on the other hand, there are going to be a lot of people, some of whom don&#8217;t even know Obamacare exists, you will discover that now they can get health insurance on these exchanges.  And what Obama’s betting on is that when they get their insurance, they may be people who don&#8217;t even vote that often necessarily.  And now they will say &#8212; don&#8217;t take this away from us.  That will be the whole Tocqueville thing.  And nobody knows how the mathematics and politics of all that is going to play out.</p>
<p>But I can tell you that the Democrats are very, very nervous.  And Obama put this off to the second term for a reason &#8212; because they weren&#8217;t completely confident that it would work out to their advantage politically. Their goal is to minimize the disruption of the transition as much as possible, tell people not to pay attention to the bad things happening to them, until enough people get the benefits that they will rebel before they&#8217;re taken away.  It&#8217;s anyone&#8217;s guess.</p>
<p>But it&#8217;s a close-run thing.  That&#8217;s why we shouldn&#8217;t despair.  This could easily go our way very easily.</p>
<p><strong>David Harsanyi:</strong> Well, I think we should despair.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>But I will say that I think Stanley’s right about Obamacare.  You know, after the election was lost, many leftist pundits came out with advice for Republicans &#8212; mostly to be more like them was the advice.  But quite often they said, you know, stop trying to overturn Obamacare, stop talking about it, it’s law.  And that&#8217;s terrible advice. Because Obamacare most likely will be a train wreck, if, historically, other programs mean anything.  So I think it&#8217;s one of the best weapons Republicans have.  And we see it happening now.</p>
<p>I think they&#8217;re ratcheting up that opposition again, even though we heard Boehner and others say, you know, it&#8217;s the law, we can&#8217;t do anything.  Have you ever heard a Democrat say &#8212; oh, that&#8217;s the law, we&#8217;re going to stop fighting on that?</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>Or &#8212; oh, that was a Supreme Court decision, now we’re done &#8212; with Citizens United, that&#8217;s the law.  So you never hear that, and you shouldn&#8217;t hear it from the Right, either &#8212; specifically on Obamacare, in my opinion.</p>
<p><strong>Michael Wienir:</strong> Patients are getting upset.  You come into our office for consultation.  And if you&#8217;ve had an electrodiagnostic study that we do all the time, it may not have been done properly, and maybe things have changed.  Under new guidelines already, we can&#8217;t do another study.  We can&#8217;t do it.  The government won&#8217;t pay for it.  There are more and more restrictions.  And this is even before 15 unelected bureaucrats decide how we can work up and evaluate the individual with cerebrovascular disease, or how we can treat somebody that&#8217;s had a stroke, or how we can deal with somebody who has multiple sclerosis.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve got all kinds of fancy new drugs, but they&#8217;re really expensive.  They work, but they&#8217;re expensive.  And what&#8217;s happening is we&#8217;re getting more and more guidelines that say &#8212; well, you know, you just can&#8217;t use these.  Maybe people can pay cash for them, but they&#8217;ll cost $34,000 or $40,000 a year to pay for the drug.</p>
<p>Our patients are not happy with that.  And a lot of these folks are left-wing Medicare patients who realize that even now, even before Obamacare has been completely manifested, their access to healthcare is going away.  We tell our patients &#8212; they come in for medical care; we give them politics.  But that&#8217;s just what happens in our office.</p>
<p>And the reality is more people are going to have health insurance.  The reality is they&#8217;re not going to have healthcare.</p>
<p><strong>Stanley Kurtz:</strong> I’d just like to say that this 15-member board he&#8217;s talking about is what&#8217;s called the IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board &#8212; the death panel, quote-unquote.  And it&#8217;s really interesting &#8212; not only did Obama backload the IPAB so that it wouldn&#8217;t be formed until his second term; he actually just missed the deadline.  He was supposed to have nominated &#8212; Congress was supposed to have nominated &#8212; the Democrats, basically, were supposed to have nominated this 15-member &#8212; they haven&#8217;t done it.  They haven&#8217;t done it.  Because they know how furious everyone would be.</p>
<p>Now, in a way, that&#8217;s also insidious.  Because according to the law, if the board is not formed, the powers devolved to Secretary Sebelius.  So now, it’s like the Death Secretary.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p>And there are a lot of constitutional problems with the IPAB.  And I think it becomes even more obvious when some of the outrageous powers that were given, that really are thoroughly unconstitutional in my view, would then be given directly to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  But this is another great example of how Obama, recognizing the bad politics &#8212; he hasn&#8217;t even done this, even though he backloaded it, and he still hasn&#8217;t done it.</p>
<p><strong>Unidentified Speaker:</strong> (Inaudible)</p>
<p><strong>David Harsanyi:</strong> But he was only going to wait till after 2012.  So isn&#8217;t it interesting that he keeps having to wait?</p>
<p>So for his agenda to fully come out is potentially very, very bad for him.  And it&#8217;s got to come out at some point.</p>
<p><strong>David Harsanyi:</strong> Could I just address that for a second?</p>
<p><strong>Stanley Kurtz:</strong> Yeah, sure.</p>
<p><strong>David Harsanyi:</strong> You made a great point about how terrible things will be, and that will essentially be hitching a ride to misery, and then we will turn it around. The problem with that is, you know &#8212; FDR, Great Society &#8212; when leftists institute &#8212; once things get going, they&#8217;re very hard to stop.  Very hard for us to hold them back.  I think about welfare reform.  Obama, like that, essentially undid a lot of great work.  So that&#8217;s what scares me about these sort of large programs that get their hands into every part of American society.</p>
<p><strong>Stanley Kurtz:</strong> I’m scared, too.  The bad scenarios are very realistic.  But I think the good scenarios are, in this case &#8212; because this is something &#8212; it affects us where we live &#8212; our healthcare.  People are really going to notice this, they&#8217;re really going to get mad.  And so many of them don&#8217;t even know it exists.  What are they going to do when they wake up to the fact that it does?  I just don&#8217;t know.  We&#8217;re back to the first question &#8212; it could go either way.</p>
<p><strong>Unidentified Speaker:</strong> This question is for Christian Adams.  I got any mail a few days ago that Obama has once again signed another executive order establishing a Presidential Commission for Election Administration, where he can appoint nine members which, in effect, based on what this article says, takes control out of the hands of the states and into the hands of the federal government.  Is this true?</p>
<p><strong>J. Christian Adams:</strong> Well, I hope you&#8217;re not reading my Washington Times column on that commission that says federalizing state elections &#8212; but here&#8217;s what that is.  In the State of the Union, Obama complained about long lines.  And he has a bipartisan commission that members have not yet been named, sort of like that.  And they&#8217;re going to make recommendations about long lines.</p>
<p>What this is is part of my overall theme of they know how to control process rules.  And they&#8217;re going to come out with the commission that says &#8212; we need same-day registration; all the things &#8212; the cornucopia the Left loves &#8212; vote-by-mail, weeks and weeks and weeks of early voting, you don&#8217;t have to go to your correct precinct &#8212; I mean, I could just go down the inventory of left-wing election things they want.  That election commission won&#8217;t have power to implement any of these things, but it helps push the narrative a little, a little, a little, a little.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the people who are representing the Republicans I do not believe understand the nature of the Left and how process is important to them.  I had a conversation with the Republican Chairman.  And I just hope that it comes out positive, but I&#8217;m not optimistic.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a 30 second legal lesson &#8212; no, 20 seconds &#8212; if a voting law is enacted with a racially discriminatory intent, it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The leftist enemies of Sandy Springs are saying that the decision to incorporate and get away from Atlanta has a racially discriminatory purpose.  Because you don&#8217;t have to vote with the black people.  And they&#8217;re going to get some traction in that argument, and they&#8217;re going to present expert witnesses.</p>
<p><strong>Unidentified Speaker:</strong> (Inaudible)</p>
<p><strong>J. Christian Adams:</strong> I know &#8212; listen, I’m not on their side.  I mean, believe me, anybody who knows me knows I’m not on their side.  I&#8217;m just articulating how the Left is armed to the teeth over these voting process issues, and they will drag Sandy Springs into federal court for a decade over this.</p>
<p><strong>Stanley Kurtz:</strong> And you can see how Christian’s and my &#8212; the suburbs issue &#8212; you know, they come together here.  And in Westchester County, they didn&#8217;t even have to allege in Westchester County that there had been no discrimination.  In fact, Westchester County had been praised for its non-discriminatory housing.  But this provision I was talking about of affirmatively furthering &#8212; it&#8217;s kind of like a parallel to affirmative action.  So they have a lot of ways of coming at you.  And in this case, this is kind of an invented way.  I mean, no administration, Democrat or Republican, had even enforced it.</p>
<p>So they manage to force all of this on grounds of racial discrimination, without even alleging racial discrimination.  It&#8217;s just incredible what they&#8217;re able to accomplish.</p>
<p><strong>Michael Finch:</strong> Michael, if I could, I’d like to ask a quick question.  Then we&#8217;ll give Carol, I think, the last question.</p>
<p>If the four horsemen arrive, David, as you write about in your book &#8212; the worst happens in the next three and a half years &#8212; even if we get the next Ronald Reagan, can all these worst things be undone?  Or is it going to be too late?</p>
<p><strong>Unidentified Speaker:</strong> Don’t have to know.</p>
<p><strong>David Harsanyi:</strong> No.</p>
<p>(Laughter)</p>
<p><strong>David Harsanyi:</strong> I’ve worked in the federal government, okay?  I&#8217;ve been a federal employee in a bureaucracy.  And I&#8217;ve written a lot about it at PJ media as much as I can.  By the way, there was a great piece at FrontPage I wrote about the left-wing election process control.  Please read it if you want to get a full sense of this.</p>
<p>The Leviathan is so entrenched.  There is so much inertia.  And any time a committed ideological conservative is placed in a political position, at a mid-level position in the federal government, he is annihilated by the Left.  And the centrist Republicans flee from the defense, and Leviathan rolls along.</p>
<p>And from my experience in the federal government &#8212; I&#8217;m sorry to say, there&#8217;s no turning this back.  It&#8217;s too entrenched.</p>
<p><strong>J. Christian Adams:</strong> He’s worse than me.</p>
<p><strong>David Harsanyi:</strong> Yeah.</p>
<p><strong>Michael Wienir:</strong> Resurrect this.</p>
<p><strong>David Harsanyi:</strong> On life issues, I think there can be &#8212; we can turn it around if you&#8217;re on my side on this &#8212; because of science, because of the things we see, because I think that&#8217;s an issue that connects with people emotionally in some way; I think that can be turned around.</p>
<p>Debt’s going to be a tough one because nothing can get done.  You still have the national trauma that sequester was &#8212; essentially no cut at all.  So I can&#8217;t imagine when there&#8217;s a real cut.  But at some point, interest rates go up.  Servicing that debt starts to take a bigger piece of the budget.  And people are actually going to see cuts in things they care about, and there could be a backlash.  But I think there&#8217;s going to be some suffering before we get there.</p>
<p>And dependency &#8212; you know, I think Mitt Romney had it wrong when he said the 47 percent, because he had the wrong people.  A lot of people don&#8217;t pay taxes because they&#8217;re young, because they&#8217;re older, because they&#8217;re &#8212; you know, they will or they have.  But there is definitely a growing number of people who are dependent on government in other ways, and they&#8217;re going to vote that way.  So I think that that’s troublesome.</p>
<p><strong>Michael Wienir:</strong> Carol, last question.</p>
<p><strong>Carol:</strong> Mr. Kurtz, the things that you&#8217;re talking about, are those &#8212; Agenda 21 &#8212; does that even exist, or is that a conspiracy type of thing?</p>
<p><strong>Stanley Kurtz:</strong> Right, that&#8217;s a great question, and I get that question a lot.</p>
<p>There is something very real called Agenda 21.  It&#8217;s an agenda, a set of policy recommendations which is very, very similar to everything that I&#8217;ve been talking about.  And in fact, it was promulgated by the United Nations.  It&#8217;s real, it exists.  However, Agenda 21 and the UN has no real formal power over the United States.  It&#8217;s just a list of recommendations.</p>
<p>So conservatives tend to use Agenda 21 in two ways.  Sometimes they use it as just code for a whole set of policies that are kind of like the policies I’m talking about.  But sometimes they mention it as though the chief force behind these policies were the commands of the United Nations.  And that’s where the Left jumps on it and calls all of this a crazy conspiracy theory.</p>
<p>What I try to do in the book is basically &#8212; I don’t talk much about Agenda 21 &#8212; what I basically say is it’s the homegrown groups.  After all, Barack Obama was, you know, part-and-parcel of one of these homegrown groups.  We don’t even know that these homegrown groups exist.  And they very consciously fly under the radar.  I’ve got quotes from them.  When you read their own literature, they say it’s good not to be able to have to talk about this too much openly.  You know, this could be very controversial.  Let’s just put it in terms of environmentalism and global warming, and not &#8212; so you can actually catch them saying that.</p>
<p>So what I’m trying to do is educate conservatives to focus on the issues raised by Agenda 21 but to recognize the real challenges coming from these homegrown movements that tend to fly under the radar screen, and that we have to educate ourselves about.</p>
<p><strong>Michael Wienir:</strong> Well, I want to thank all three of you for participating in this.  And I want to thank all of you for staying this afternoon for the panel.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/obamas-radical-transformation-of-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Six Alinsky Rules That Explain Obama’s Words and Deeds</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/6-saul-alinsky-rules-that-explain-obamas-words-and-deeds/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=6-saul-alinsky-rules-that-explain-obamas-words-and-deeds</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/6-saul-alinsky-rules-that-explain-obamas-words-and-deeds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 04:55:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jack Kerwick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rules for radicals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=184445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How Obama is implementing the vision of the Godfather of radical community organizing. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/6-saul-alinsky-rules-that-explain-obamas-words-and-deeds/dh-9/" rel="attachment wp-att-184447"><img class=" wp-image-184447 alignleft" title="DH" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DH.jpg" alt="" width="287" height="437" /></a><strong>To read or order David Horowitz&#8217;s pamphlet, <em>Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model</em>, <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2009/david-horowitz/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-rules-for-revolution-the-alinsky-model-by-david-horowitz/">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p>In spite of the media’s conspicuous silence on the matter, it is no secret that Saul Alinsky’s manual for “community organizers”—<em>Rules for Radicals—</em>exerted an immeasurable influence over the world’s most well recognized community organizer, President Barack Obama.  Thus, to understand why Obama does what he does, we need to be familiar with the vision that Alinsky delineated in his book.</p>
<p>Below are six ideas, six “rules,” that the Godfather of community organizing packs between the covers of <em>Rules, </em>ideas that Obama’s imbibed hook, line, and sinker.</p>
<p>(1). <strong>Politics</strong> <strong>is all about power relations, but to advance one’s power, one must couch one’s positions in the language of morality. </strong></p>
<p>Community organizers are “<em>political realists</em>” who “see the world as it is: an arena of power politics moved primarily by perceived immediate self-interests, where morality is rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self-interest” (12).</p>
<p>(2). <strong>There is only three kinds of people in the world: rich and powerful oppressors, the poor and disenfranchised oppressed, and the middle-class whose apathy perpetuates the status quo. </strong></p>
<p>“The world as it is” is a rather simple world.  From this perspective, the world consists of but three kinds of people: “the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores.”  The Haves, possessing, as they do, all of “the power, money, food, security, and luxury,” resist the “change” necessary to relieve the Have-Nots of the “poverty, rotten housing, disease, ignorance, political impotence, and despair” from which they suffer (18).</p>
<p>The Have-a-Little, Want Mores comprise what we call “the middle class.”  While Alinsky believes that this group “is the genesis of creativity,” (19) he also claims that it supplies the world with its “Do-Nothings.” The Do-Nothings are those who “profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change [.]”  Alinsky remarks that in spite of their reputable appearances, the Do-Nothings are actually “invidious” (20).</p>
<p>This being so, they are as resistant to change as are the Haves.</p>
<p>(3). <strong>Change is brought about through relentless agitation and “trouble making” of a kind that radically disrupts society as it is.  </strong></p>
<p>Since both the middle and upper classes have none of the organizer’s passion for radical change, he must do his best to “stir up dissatisfaction and discontent [.]”  He must “agitate to the point of conflict.”  The organizer “dramatizes…injustices” and engages in “‘trouble making’ by stirring up” just those “angers, frustrations, and resentments” (117) that will eventuate in the “<em>disorganization of the old and organization of the new</em>” (116 emphasis original).  He is determined to give rise to as much “confusion” and “fear” as possible (127).</p>
<p>(4). <strong>There can be no conversation between the organizer and his opponents.  The latter must be depicted as being evil.</strong></p>
<p>If his compulsion to “agitate” makes it sound as if the organizer is disinclined to converse with those with whom he disagrees, that is because, well, he is. Alinsky is blunt on this point: “You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue” (89).    It is true that “moral rationalization is indispensable,” (43) that the organizer must “clothe” one’s goals and strategies with “moral arguments” (36). But there can be <em>no conversation </em>with one’s opponents, for to converse with them is to <em>humanize </em>them.</p>
<p>The organizer’s objective is to <em>demonize </em>those who stand in the way of his designs for change.</p>
<p>The reason for this is simple: “Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition [is] 100 per cent on the side of the devil.” The organizer “knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree” (78).</p>
<p>Elaborating on this theme, Alinsky asserts that in “charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting” this “with qualifying remarks such as ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband,’” one convicts oneself of “political idiocy” (134).  The winning strategy is to “<em>pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it</em>” (130 emphases original).</p>
<p>(5). <strong>The organizer can never focus on just a single issue.  He must move inexhaustibly from one issue to the next.  </strong></p>
<p>The organizer “must develop multiple issues,” (76) for “multiple issues mean constant action and life” (78).  Alinsky explains: “A single issue is a fatal strait jacket that…drastically limits” the organizer’s “appeal,” but “multiple issues…draw in…many potential members essential to the building of a broad, mass-based organization” (120).  The only “way to keep the action going” is by “constantly cutting new issues as the action continues, so that by the time the enthusiasm and the emotions for one issue have started to de-escalate, a new issue” has emerged “with a consequent revival” (161).</p>
<p>(6).<strong> Taunt one’s opponents to the point that they label you a “dangerous enemy” of “the establishment.”</strong></p>
<p>Finally, in order “to put the organizer on the side of the people, to identify him with the Have-Nots,” it is imperative that he “maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy’” (100).</p>
<p>Just because Barack Obama has left behind the low-income Chicago communities in which he once agitated doesn’t mean that he left behind the skills as a community agitator that he learned from Saul Alinsky.  Rather, he now regards <em>the country </em>as his community to organize as he sees fit.</p>
<p>Obama not infrequently invokes American ideals, even while he conspires to “fundamentally transform” America.</p>
<p>In spite of what he says, Obama does not want national unity.  There can be no unity with a people who one wants to fundamentally transform.</p>
<p>The President regularly speaks and acts as if there is perpetual class warfare being waged by “the Haves” on “the Have Nots.”  Indeed, this is what he wants for Americans to believe.  It is this desire on his part that accounts for why he spares no occasion to demonize both “the richest one percent” who he accuses of refusing to pay “their fair share,” as well as those Republicans who threaten to impede his plans to raise taxes.</p>
<p>Again, Obama <em>does not want </em>unity.  He wants division.</p>
<p>Obama constantly moves from one divisive issue to the next, from Obamacare to gun-control, from amnesty for illegal immigrants to support for “same-sex marriage.”  We see now why this is so.</p>
<p>Obama does not want unity.  He wants to keep the country as polarized and disoriented as possible.</p>
<p>To know why Obama speaks and acts as he does, we need to know about Saul Alinsky’s <em>Rules for Radicals. </em></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/6-saul-alinsky-rules-that-explain-obamas-words-and-deeds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>102</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Alinsky Tactics Go into Overdrive</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/john-perazzo/obamas-alinsky-tactics-on-full-display/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-alinsky-tactics-on-full-display</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/john-perazzo/obamas-alinsky-tactics-on-full-display/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 04:45:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Perazzo]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community organizing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organizing for Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Socialist]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=183828</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A carefully planned frenzy of radical organizing. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/john-perazzo/obamas-alinsky-tactics-on-full-display/obama_alinsky/" rel="attachment wp-att-183831"><img class=" wp-image-183831 alignleft" title="obama_alinsky" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/obama_alinsky-450x300.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="180" /></a>In back-to-back interviews with a pair of Spanish-language television networks last Wednesday, Barack Obama expressed <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/28/obama-says-immigration-bill-could-pass-by-summer/">confidence</a> that an immigration-reform bill—i.e., a path-to amnesty for 10 to 20 million guaranteed Democratic voters—could be passed “certainly before the end of the summer.” The following day, Obama <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/us/politics/obama-makes-impassioned-plea-for-gun-control.html">surrounded himself</a> with surviving relatives of the Newtown massacre victims and issued a renewed call for “common-sense” gun-control measures that purportedly would save many innocent lives. Also on Thursday, our busy-as-a-beaver president signed an executive order establishing a special commission “to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/us/politics/obamas-2013-state-of-the-union-address.html?pagewanted=all&amp;pagewanted=print">improve</a> the voting experience in America,” particularly as regards such <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/28/obama-signs-executive-order-to-create-commission-to-address-voting-issues/">issues</a> as the voter-ID requirements which Obama and his Justice Department view as discriminatory measures designed to disenfranchise African Americans.</p>
<p>So many crusades, so little time. One day it&#8217;s voting rights; the next day, gun control and immigration reform; then health care; then student loans; then climate change; then oil drilling; then the coal industry; then gay marriage; then minimum-wage and living-wage laws; then a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/health/obama-brain-research/">brain research</a> initiative. And of course, every so often we are treated to presidential sermons about the need for tax hikes on the loathsome “corporate-jet owners,” “<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2009-12-13-obama-bankers-small-business_N.htm">fat-cat bankers</a>,” and “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-missing-facts-in-president-obamas-news-conference/2011/06/29/AGpQMPrH_blog.html">millionaires and billionaires</a>” who are “<a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/2008-09-08-2751442748_x.htm">sitting pretty</a>” at “<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/06/remarks-president-economy-osawatomie-kansas">the very top</a>” of the economic hierarchy, largely as a result of their “<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/06/remarks-president-economy-osawatomie-kansas">breathtaking greed</a>.”</p>
<p>The <em>Washington Free Beacon</em> notes precisely the same type of “<a href="http://freebeacon.com/organizing-for-millionaires/">hyperactivity</a>” in the daily doings of the new big-money, pro-Obama advocacy group, <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7774">Organizing for Action</a>. “Not a day goes by without this grassroots organization inserting itself into another policy dispute,” observes the <em>Beacon</em>. “First it was the debate over gun control. Then Organizing for Action said it would become involved in the immigration debate. After that, the group banged the drum for legislation to reduce carbon emissions. And after that, Organizing for Action suddenly discovered a passionate interest in an obscure campaign finance battle in New York state that has nothing to do with the president’s agenda.”</p>
<p>So, what&#8217;s up with this merry-go-round of issues, crises, and calls-to-action? Above all, it is vital to understand that <em>none</em> of this “hyperactivity” is random or accidental. <em>Every single, solitary bit of it</em> has been carefully planned and orchestrated by Obama and his political allies, for the purpose of advancing the transformational change the president so zealously seeks to impose on America by means of the tactics taught by the late, famed godfather of community organizing, <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314">Saul Alinsky</a>.</p>
<p>When Obama was coming of age as a socialist community organizer in Chicago, he was <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTY5ZTA5NmEwMGY4MTFhNDg2ZDg4NjU2MDkxOGYyYTE=&amp;w=MA==">mentored</a> by people who themselves had been trained at the Alinsky-founded <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7493">Industrial Areas Foundation</a>. Later on, Obama himself <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/31/The-Community-Organizer-In-Chief-Part-One-The-Alinsky-Ethics">taught workshops</a> on the Alinsky method. Alinsky was a communist fellow-traveler who helped establish the tactics of infiltration that have become central to left-wing activism in recent decades. In the Alinsky model, “community organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” promoting the systematic redistribution of wealth and power, and the radical transformation of America&#8217;s social and economic structure. But Alinsky&#8217;s brand of revolution is not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight changes. Rather, Alinsky advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of existing institutions such as churches, schools, media outlets, labor unions, and political parties—and to remake them gradually and incrementally, as insiders.</p>
<p>Foreshadowing Obama, Alinsky despised “the larcenous pressures of a materialistic society,” preferring instead a socialist alternative that would place “human rights far above property rights” while “fight[ing] conservatives” and all their “privilege and power.” Moreover, Alinsky exhorted left-wing radicals to help society “advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization,” where “the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful.”</p>
<p>Understanding the limits of the human attention span, Alinsky emphasized how vital it was for radical organizers to focus on multiple issues and adopt multiple approaches, just as we see Obama doing today. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag,” Alinsky wrote. “Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time … New issues and crises are always developing…” “Keep the pressure on,” he continued, “with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”</p>
<p>Toward that end, Alinksy advised radical organizers to be sure that they always kept more than one “fight in the bank”—i.e., a stockpile of varied crusades to which they could instantly turn their attention at a moment&#8217;s notice. These “fights in the bank” work synergistically, Alinsky explained, serving to prevent one another from going “stale” as a result of excessive public exposure. “Multiple issues mean constant action and life,” he said.</p>
<p>This, in a nutshell, is why Barack Obama is constantly shifting our attention from one issue to another, to another, to another, to another. The Alinsky disciple learned his lessons well. It&#8217;s that simple.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/john-perazzo/obamas-alinsky-tactics-on-full-display/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Prepares to Community-Organize America</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/obama-prepares-to-community-organize-america/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-prepares-to-community-organize-america</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/obama-prepares-to-community-organize-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:58:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community organizing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organizing for Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organizing for America]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=174455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president's massive Alinsky-inspired agitation group becomes a permanent feature of American politics. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/obama-prepares-to-community-organize-america/obamaforamerica1/" rel="attachment wp-att-174461"><img class=" wp-image-174461 alignleft" title="obamaforamerica1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/obamaforamerica1.png" alt="" width="270" height="203" /></a>In his latest unprecedented move in American history, President Obama announced he is converting his campaign apparatus into a permanent in-your-face campaign aimed at furthering Obama&#8217;s divisive, radical politics.</p>
<p>The new tax-exempt advocacy group, Organizing for Action, will “play an active role” in “mobilizing around and speaking out in support of important legislation” during Obama&#8217;s second term, the president said last week.</p>
<p>In the same vein, in his second inaugural address yesterday, Obama bullied the opposition. Reinforcing his long-running “spread the wealth” theme, the president hectored successful people, declaring that “our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.”</p>
<p>Obama also seemed to signal in his mercifully brief oration that he’s going to go all-out to make government bigger.</p>
<p>Americans, he said, “reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.”</p>
<p>Now, like a Third World <em>caudillo</em>, Obama will be able to pursue his policies from inside government and from outside through his OfA thug army.</p>
<p>OfA is a less violent version of Mussolini&#8217;s black shirts and Hitler&#8217;s brown shirts, or of the government-supported goon squads that Venezuela&#8217;s Hugo Chavez and Cuba&#8217;s Castro brothers use to harass and intimidate their domestic opponents. OfA units brought muscle to the recent fight in Wisconsin over that state&#8217;s out-of-control government labor unions. OfA has bludgeoned Democrats that Obama deemed insufficiently left-wing, especially red-state congressional Democrats who had been wavering on the issue of Obamacare.</p>
<p>OfA also dabbles in state politics. In 2009 it meddled in a congressional race in New York’s 23rd district, backing winner Democrat Scott Murphy over Republican Dede Scozzafava. It also involved itself in the Virginia gubernatorial contest, championing eventual loser Democrat Creigh Deeds over Republican Bob McDonnell.</p>
<p>OfA will carry on Obama-style community organizing. This anti-capitalist agitation revolves around the nebulous Marxist concept of “social justice.” It’s about making people angry so they push for change. It artiﬁcially creates pressure for government spending on whatever happens to be fashionable in leftist circles that day.</p>
<p>Giving OfA nonprofit status institutionalizes the brutal, sometimes violent organizing techniques of Saul Alinsky within America&#8217;s partisan political infrastructure.</p>
<p>This has long been Obama&#8217;s goal.</p>
<p>“We may have started this as a long-shot presidential primary campaign in 2007, but it’s always been about more than just winning an election,&#8221; Obama wrote in an email to his fans last week.</p>
<p>&#8220;Together, we’ve made our communities stronger, we’ve fought for historic legislation, and we’ve brought more people than ever before into the political process,” he wrote. “Organizing for Action will be a permanent commitment to this mission.”</p>
<p>OfA aims to make community organizing hip and mainstream. The group is an outgrowth of the president’s 2008 presidential campaign, and its name is adapted from Obama for America, the name of the Obama campaign organization.</p>
<p>OfA isn&#8217;t, strictly speaking, a new group. After the 2008 election, the group, then known as Organizing for America, was a phony grassroots campaign run by the Democratic National Committee that sought to replicate the community organizing techniques Obama learned from the teachings of his fellow Chicagoan, Saul Alinsky. OfA was created because the White House could not legally use the 13 million e-mail addresses that the campaign compiled in 2008.</p>
<p>Organizing for America is not subject to IRS nonproﬁt regulations because it has no independent legal status outside the Democratic National Committee. DNC ﬁnancial ﬁlings disclose little about the group&#8217;s structure and day-to-day operations. The party’s spending on the project is not separately accounted for in public disclosures, so its actual scope has been difﬁcult to determine.</p>
<p>The incorporation of OfA won&#8217;t lead to information about the group&#8217;s donors, which OfA still will not have to disclose, but the group will have to disclose basic information about its budget and operations. When it lacked corporate personality, public disclosure requirements did not apply to it, making it easy for the DNC to conceal its activities and how much money was being spent on projects.</p>
<p>Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, Jim Messina, will become Organizing for Action&#8217;s national chairman.</p>
<p>&#8220;The formation of the group will make Messina the de facto political director for Obama, and is an implicit rejection of DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an Obama outsider not close to the president, as the [Democratic] party’s operational leader,&#8221; according to <em>Politico</em> newspaper.</p>
<p>OfA&#8217;s board of directors will include Obama adviser David Plouffe, along with spin doctors Stephanie Cutter and Robert Gibbs.</p>
<p>Running OfA&#8217;s day to day affairs will be executive director Jon Carson.</p>
<p>Carson, a Wisconsin native, is not afraid of getting his hands dirty.</p>
<p>While he served as director of the Obama White House Office of Public Engagement, Carson was involved in a concerted effort to game the electoral system to help Democrats. At the White House he met with former ACORN attorney Estelle H. Rogers, now director of advocacy at Project Vote, to make it easier for illegal aliens to vote. Project Vote is the unit of the ACORN network that President Obama worked for in 1992 when he ran a successful get-out-the-vote drive in Illinois that helped to solidify his reputation as an effective leader and organizer. The group vilifies as a racist anyone who thinks voter ID requirements are a good idea and constantly presses to make voting requirements even more lax than they now are.</p>
<p>Carson was previously chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality serving under Van Jones. Jones, a self-described “communist,” was forced out in 2009 as Obama’s green jobs czar after he was revealed to have signed a 9/11 “truther” petition accusing President Bush of complicity in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.</p>
<p>Before joining the administration, Carson was National Field Director for Obama’s 2008 campaign. He also worked on Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign and served in the Peace Corps in Honduras for two years, building water systems for rural villages.</p>
<p>OfA will be “the largest grassroots network in the history of politics,” Carson says. It will be involved in “organizing locally and nationally to put pressure on Washington to act in the interests of ordinary Americans” and will “train the next generation of grassroots organizer to do this work so that they’ll be ready to take on the fights of the future.”</p>
<p>Carson urges supporters to get in others’ faces and enlist them in the fight for OfA’s most important immediate priorities which he listed as, “immigration reform, reducing gun violence, and tackling the budget in a balanced way.”</p>
<p>In its earlier incarnation, Organizing for Action never shied away from confrontation.</p>
<p>As outraged voters packed town hall meetings during the nationwide battle over changes to health care law, Organizing for America sent out a mass email attacking the good faith of opponents, by now a standard Obama White House tactic. Those who questioned the wisdom of Obamacare weren&#8217;t Americans who sincerely disagreed with the president, but &#8220;Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”</p>
<p>The institutionalization of Organizing for Action is more bad news for conservatives who in many respects seem outgunned by the activist Left.</p>
<p>As David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin note in <em>The New Leviathan</em> (Random House, 2012), “[a]s of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left identified by our researchers added up to $104.56 billion,” or 10 times greater than the financial assets of the 75 major foundations of the Right.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/obama-prepares-to-community-organize-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>52</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marxist Radicals Mug Paul Ryan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/marxist-radicals-mug-paul-ryan/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=marxist-radicals-mug-paul-ryan</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/marxist-radicals-mug-paul-ryan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 04:49:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACORN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iowa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marxist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=140423</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Alinskyites bring out their ground game. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/35546125001_1783783133001_heckler.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-140424" title="35546125001_1783783133001_heckler" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/35546125001_1783783133001_heckler.gif" alt="" width="375" height="250" /></a>The same Marxist agitators who tried to silence Mitt Romney in the Hawkeye State a year ago tried to shut down his new running mate Monday.</p>
<p>Two days after the presumptive GOP presidential nominee named Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) as his vice presidential pick, Ryan was aggressively heckled by the agrarian socialists and union goons of the ACORN-like Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (Iowa CCI) throughout a stump speech at the Iowa State Fair.</p>
<p>At last year’s Iowa State Fair members of Iowa CCI <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/matthew-vadum/a-marxist-group-not-a-liberal-group-heckled-mitt-romney/">badgered and berated</a> Romney, shrieking and interrupting him as he attempted to share his views on reforming entitlement programs like Social Security. They baited Romney into making his arguably impolitic admission that “corporations are people.”</p>
<p>Left-wing activists call this “accountability,” an Orwellian euphemism. Accountability, as the term is used by leftists, is not about transparency or good government. Perhaps partly inspired by the father of the New Left, <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1608">Herbert Marcuse</a>, who was in favor of silencing non-leftists, accountability actions focus on harassing and intimidating political enemies, disrupting them and forcing them to waste their campaign resources dealing with activists’ provocations.</p>
<p>After Iowa CCI activists loudly demanded Ryan halt the “war on the poor” they perennially accuse Republicans of waging, these broken records of the Left <a href="http://cciaction.org/uncategorized/paul-ryan-bird-dogged-at-state-fair-soapbox/">bragged</a> about the trouble they caused as they “challenge[d] Ryan on vitally important issues to everyday Iowans.”</p>
<p>They claimed victory over the congressman, declaring they shaved 30 percent off his speaking time. “Ryan spoke for only twelve minutes, well under his allotment of twenty.”</p>
<p>Several protesters were removed from the event by police. One Iowa CCI activist even <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-heckled-iowa-video_n_1773747.html?utm_hp_ref=politics">reportedly punched</a> a Romney-Ryan volunteer during the speech. Of course the use of physical violence on opponents is <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/matthew-vadum/acorn%25E2%2580%2599s-patron-saint-saul-alinsky-loved-violence-%25E2%2580%2598subversion-inc-%25E2%2580%2599-book-preview-part-2-of-4/">an important tactic</a> for the community organizer, as <em>Rules for Radicals</em> author Saul Alinsky admitted to his protégé Nicholas von Hoffman.</p>
<p>True to form, the left-wing Talking Points Memo website <a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/video-paul-ryan-interrupted-by-hecklers-in-iowa">got a key detail of the attempted squelching</a> of Ryan’s speech wrong. TPM’s Igor Bobic fell for Iowa CCI’s spin, referring to the nonprofit as an innocuous-sounding “nonpartisan progressive group.”</p>
<p>Although friendly reporters use the adjectives <em>progressive</em> and <em>liberal</em> to describe Iowa CCI, <em>Marxist</em> or <em>neo-communist</em> are more appropriate descriptors.</p>
<p>Iowa CCI has been praised by Bill Moyers and labeled the “Most Valuable Grassroots Advocacy Group” of 2009 by John Nichols of <em>The Nation </em>magazine. Nichols approves of the group’s “in-your-face activism.”</p>
<p>Iowa CCI’s anti-capitalist, anti-American activism guarantees it generous support from hard-left philanthropies. The group has taken in funding from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation ($600,000 since 2001), Ford Foundation ($575,000 since 2003), McKnight Foundation ($415,000 since 1999), Annie E. Casey Foundation ($260,000 since 2001), Rockefeller Family Fund Inc. ($225,000 since 2000), Needmor Fund ($140,000 since 1999), the George Soros-funded Tides Foundation ($40,000 since 2000), Ben &amp; Jerry’s Foundation ($30,000 since 2007), and Threshold Foundation ($25,000 since 2008).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/marxist-radicals-mug-paul-ryan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>74</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defeating the Jewish Alinskyites</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/defeating-the-jewish-alinskyites/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=defeating-the-jewish-alinskyites</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/defeating-the-jewish-alinskyites/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 04:20:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pascrell]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=134516</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Jewish community has been infiltrated -- and the stakes couldn't be higher.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Saul_Alinsky_27.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-134526" title="Saul_Alinsky_27" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Saul_Alinsky_27.gif" alt="" width="375" height="263" /></a>Originally </em><a href="http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=273110"><em>published</em></a><em> in The Jerusalem Post.</em></p>
<p>Saul Alinsky, the godfather of subversive radical political action, had a very clear strategy for undermining and destroying his enemies: Infiltrate, divide and destroy.</p>
<p>Since his disciple Barack Obama was elected US president in 2008, Alinsky&#8217;s impact on Obama has received a fair amount of attention.</p>
<p>Less noticed has been the adoption of Alinsky&#8217;s methods by radical leftist Jews in the US and Israel for the purpose of undermining the American Jewish community on the one hand, and Israel&#8217;s nationalist camp on the other. This week we saw the impact of both campaigns.</p>
<p>The striking weakness of the American Jewish community was exposed on Tuesday with the Democratic primary defeat of Rep. Steve Rothman in New Jersey. In Israel we saw the impact of the campaign to undermine and destroy the nationalist camp with the defeat of the proposed legislation aimed at saving the doomed Givat Haulpana neighborhood in Bet El.</p>
<p>Ahead of the 2008 US presidential elections, the anti-Israel pressure group J Street made a sudden appearance. Claiming to be pro-Israel, the anti-Israel lobby set about neutralizing the power of the American Jewish community by undermining community solidarity. And it has succeeded brilliantly.</p>
<p>Rothman is Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel. His defeat at the polls in New Jersey by Rep. Bill Pascrell owed in large part to openly anti-Semitic activism by Pascrell&#8217;s Muslim supporters.</p>
<p>According to an <a href="http://freebeacon.com/jersey-roar/">investigative report</a> of the primary campaign by the <em>Washington Free Beacon&#8217;s</em> Adam Kredo, in February Pascrell&#8217;s Muslim supporters began castigating Rothman and his supporters as disloyal Americans beholden only to Israel.</p>
<p>Aref Assaf, president of the New Jersey-based American Arab Forum, published a column in the <em>Newark Star Ledger</em> titled, &#8220;Rothman is Israel&#8217;s Man in District 9.&#8221; He wrote, &#8220;As total and blind support becomes the only reason for choosing Rothman, voters who do not view the elections in this prism will need to take notice. Loyalty to a foreign flag is not loyalty to America&#8217;s [flag].&#8221;</p>
<p>These deeply bigoted allegations against Rothman and his supporters were not challenged by Pascrell. Pascrell also did not challenge Arabic-language campaign posters produced by his supporters enjoining the &#8220;Arab diaspora community&#8221; to elect Pascrell, &#8220;the friend of the Arabs.&#8221; The poster touted the race as &#8220;the most important election in the history of the [Arab American] community.&#8221;</p>
<p>Rather than challenge these anti-Semitic attacks, Pascrell enthusiastically courted the Muslim vote in his district.</p>
<p>Pascrell was a signatory to what became known as the &#8220;Gaza-54 letter.&#8221; Spearheaded by J Street, the 2010 letter, signed by 54 Democratic congressmen, called on Obama to put pressure on Israel to end its &#8220;collective punishment&#8221; of residents of Hamas-controlled Gaza.</p>
<p>Pascrell&#8217;s race was far from the only recent instance of anti-Semitism being employed by Democratic candidates to win their elections. In Connecticut&#8217;s 2006 Democratic Senate primary, anti-Semitic slurs and innuendos were prominent features of Ned Lamont&#8217;s successful race against Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Defeated in his party&#8217;s primary, Lieberman was forced to run as an Independent. He owed his reelection to Republican support.</p>
<p>LIEBERMAN&#8217;S GENERAL election victory over Lamont did not force all of his fellow Democrats to rethink their use of anti-Semitism as a campaign strategy. At a candidate&#8217;s debate in this year&#8217;s Connecticut Democratic Senate primary race, candidate Lee Whitnum attacked her opponent Rep. Chris Murphy as a &#8220;whore who sells his soul to AIPAC.&#8221;</p>
<p>Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Americans are supporters of the Democratic Party, it should have been assumed that they would have responded to Whitnum&#8217;s anti- Semitic slurs by seeking to get her expelled from their party. They also could have been expected to pour resources into defeating candidates like Pascrell who actively court the votes of open Jew-haters. But this didn&#8217;t happen.</p>
<p>Instead, due to J Street&#8217;s agitation, and the penetration of the Jewish organizational world by J Street <a href="http://israelmatzav.blogspot.co.il/2011/08/where-your-federation-dollars-are-going.html">fellow travelers</a>, for the past three years, the American Jewish community has been fighting among itself about what it means to be pro-Israel. At a time when the US Jewish community&#8217;s party of choice is increasingly falling under the influence of radical leftists and Muslims who reject Israel&#8217;s right to exist, rather than standing tall, Jewish communities around the US are being neutralized by the solipsism of self-defeating, J-Street-invented issues like whether AIPAC is legitimate and whether Jewish anti-Zionists can be considered pro-Israel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/defeating-the-jewish-alinskyites/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>110</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Soros-Funded Alinsky Smear Machine Invades Congress</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/soros-funded-alinsky-smear-machine-invades-congress/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=soros-funded-alinsky-smear-machine-invades-congress</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/soros-funded-alinsky-smear-machine-invades-congress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 04:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Center for Social Inclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maya Wiley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Welfare Rights Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soros]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=131871</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“It’s emotional connection, not rational connection that we need,” says radical activist, Maya Wiley. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_131875" style="width: 385px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/mayawiley-1024x768.gif"><img class="size-full wp-image-131875" title="mayawiley-1024x768" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/mayawiley-1024x768.gif" alt="" width="375" height="244" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Maya Wiley of the Center for Social Inclusion</p></div>
<p>George Soros is behind a newly uncovered effort to teach Democratic congressmen how to smear their opponents as racist.</p>
<p>Last week House Democrats invited the radical, left-wing, Soros-financed group called the Center for Social Inclusion “to address the issue of race to defend government programs,” according to documentation reviewed by Joel Gehrke of the Washington Examiner.</p>
<p>“The prepared content of a Tuesday presentation to the House Democratic Caucus and staff indicates that Democrats will seek to portray apparently neutral free-market rhetoric as being charged with racial bias, conscious or unconscious,” Gehrke writes.</p>
<p>According to Gehrke, trainer Maya Wiley of the Center for Social Inclusion blasted “conservative messages [that are] racially ‘coded’ and had images of people of color that we commonly see used” and suggested ways to combat Republicans’ supposedly racially-coded rhetoric.</p>
<p>Facts don’t matter in Wiley’s estimation. “It’s emotional connection, not rational connection that we need,” she said.</p>
<p>Wiley offered that Newt Gingrich calling Obama a “food stamp president,” cannot be “a race-neutral statement, even if Newt Gingrich did not intend racism.” In other words, all criticism of Obama is rooted in racism.</p>
<p>Wiley, a so-called civil rights attorney, is the daughter of the late George Wiley, the leader of the now-defunct National Welfare Rights Organization. NWRO created ACORN in 1970 and President Obama worked for ACORN in his community organizing days, as I note in my book, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/vadumbook" target="_blank">Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers</a>.</p>
<p>Maya Wiley also did consulting work for two of Soros’s philanthropies, the Open Society Institute and the Open Society Foundation, and now chairs the board of the Tides network of nonprofits.</p>
<p>The radicalism of Wiley shines brightly on the website of the Center for Social Inclusion. “For more than a quarter century, right-wing rhetoric has dominated debates of racial justice – undermining efforts to create a more equal society, and tearing apart the social safety net in the process,” the propaganda portal opines. Of course only a Marxist with an agenda would argue that “right-wing rhetoric” has somehow torn apart the ever-expanding social safety net. About $16 trillion has been spent on the doomed War on Poverty since it was launched in the mid-1960s and President Obama wants to waste another $10 trillion more.</p>
<p>The Center for Social Inclusion, an Orwellian name if ever there was one, practices the same pathological mixture of Marxism and identity politics that President Obama was raised on. The group was founded based on the assumption that America is an evil structurally racist country that systematically oppresses everyone who is not Caucasian.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/soros-funded-alinsky-smear-machine-invades-congress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>To Have and Have Not: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part IV &#8211; NewsReal blog</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/mb-snow/to-have-and-have-not-alinsky-beck-satan-and-me-part-iv-newsreal-blog/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=to-have-and-have-not-alinsky-beck-satan-and-me-part-iv-newsreal-blog</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/mb-snow/to-have-and-have-not-alinsky-beck-satan-and-me-part-iv-newsreal-blog/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MB Snow]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[David's Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radicals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://851864.660642.test.prositehosting.net/?p=14165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Aug 19, 2009 by David Horowitz To Have and Have Not: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part IV The epigraph for the first chapter of Alinsky&#8217;s Rules for Radicals which explains &#8220;The Purpose&#8221; of the rules is from the book of Job: &#8220;The life of man upon earth is a warfare&#8230;&#8221; For Alinsky and his [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aug 19, 2009 by David Horowitz</p>
<p>To Have and Have Not: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part IV</p>
<p>The epigraph for the first chapter of Alinsky&#8217;s Rules for Radicals which explains &#8220;The Purpose&#8221; of the rules is from the book of Job: &#8220;The life of man upon earth is a warfare&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>For Alinsky and his Machiavellian radicals politics is war. No matter what they say publicly or pretend to be, they are at war. They are at war even though no other factions in the political arena are at war, because everyone else embraces the System which commits all parties to compromise and peaceful resolutions of conflicts. For tactical reasons they will also make compromises, but the entire mentality and approach of Alinsky radicals to politics is based on their dedication to conducting a war against the System itself. Don&#8217;t forget it (although if history is any indication Republicans almost invariably will).</p>
<p>via <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/readBlog.aspx?BLOGID=1051"> FrontPage Magazine &#8211; To Have and Have Not: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part IV </a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/mb-snow/to-have-and-have-not-alinsky-beck-satan-and-me-part-iv-newsreal-blog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1086/1196 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 11:36:53 by W3 Total Cache -->