==
Perhaps this means the explanation in my August 7, 2011 post for applying the ‘T’ word to the Empty Suit Known as Barack Hussein Obama was sufficiently persuasive to avoid the Regime’s wrath. Or maybe not – BHO did, after all, take nine months to arrive at the no-brainer to off UBL when he had the chance. Plus, while inherently lazy (previously explained), my other character flaw is an obsession with perfection in the use of words. So, there are things on this topic I left out of the previous post I simply must add to the thread. Just for clarification.
==
At some point you just have to take what’s happening before your very eyes at face value.
As I explained in my August 7 post, the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back (for me) was BHO blowing up his own so-called ‘Grand Bargain’ debt ceiling deal. So grandly inept, it had to be on purpose. The only remaining question, therefore … why?
And it’s not like we haven’t had ample opportunity to ask ourselves this question in the two and one half year rolling clown car disaster that has been BHO’s reign.
1) Why would the President of all the United States, and his entire political party apparatus, immediately react to citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights (the TEA Party patriots) with repulsive ad-hominem attacks?
2) Why pursue foreign policies in the Middle East that all seem to have only two common denominators: (1) diminishing Israel’s power, and (2) enhancing the Iranian regime’s influence?
3) Why pursue energy policies that only deepen our national dependence on Middle East dictators?
4) Why keep the administration’s boot on the neck of the Gulf oil energy economy for so long?
5) Why “phone in” a 2012 spending budget so silly and unserious even Dingy Harry Reid’s Senate rejected it 97-0, then scrap that budget for a speech CBO can’t score, and use the same empty speech to excoriate the only serious budget plan in town (Paul Ryan’s)?
6) For that matter, the day after receiving the mantle President Downgrade, why step out to the podium and offer up nothing to a nervous public than a petulant whine with no policy solutions?
==
Well, dear reader, it could be because President Downgrade is merely a spokesman for a movement that has a long history, a definite goal, and a tactical playbook. Now I shall attempt to summarize this history and how President Downgrade fits into it. Then you can decide for yourself if the ‘traitor’ shoe fits President Downgrade’s foot.
And who better to use as a source than a reformed sixties New Left radical doing great work on behalf of the Conservative Ascendancy. David Horowitz knows what’s wrong with the Left.
Mr. Horowitz runs a web site one can easily mine to quickly come up to speed on everything that’s wrong with the Left. I thought about carefully breaking down the taxonomy of this site. But I think you, dear reader, are perfectly capable of following the link and digesting the information using your own individual cognitive capacity. That’s what makes me a Libertarian Conservative. So, instead, I’ll pull a
This page on Horowitz’s site is a good “Cliff Notes” on the history of the American Progressive movement.
The ability of scientific ingenuity and expertise to master the physical world, suggested that similar mastery might be achievable in the realms of politics and economics; i.e., that an intellectual elite might be able to assess society's defects and prescribe appropriate remedies. That belief was part and parcel of the progressive vision that flourished in America from the 1890s through the 1920s.
…
As progressives saw things, most societal flaws were attributable to capitalism's inherent injustices.
…
By progressives' reckoning, solving the foregoing problems would require government intervention on a very large scale.
…
In the progressive worldview, the proper role of government was not to confine itself to regulating a limited range of human activities as the founders had stipulated, but rather to inject itself into whatever realms the times seemed to demand.
…
Consequently, the progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people's lives was properly determined not by the outdated words of an anachronistic Constitution, but by whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.
…
R.J. Pestritto writes that the Progressives “detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government”
…
Whereas classical liberalism saw government as a necessary evil whose involvement in social and private affairs needed to be limited wherever practicable, progressivism saw the state as the rightful overseer and regulator of significant portions of American social and economic life.
…
As its name indicates, progressivism suggests movement toward a goal – in this case, bigger government and increased state control.
…
To facilitate this evolution, progressives have sought, ever since their entry into the pages of American history, to infiltrate society's power structure and its key institutions – the schools, the media, the churches, the entertainment industry, the labor unions, and the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judiciary).
==
Saul Alinsky was a Chicago “community organizer” who became a player in the history of this movement beginning in the 1930’s, when American Progressives were playing ideological footsie with Uncle Joe Stalin’s Bolshevik Marxists. (Stalin was, of course, a brutal Russian dictator and prolific mass murderer) Alinsky’s most influential contribution to the American Progressive movement was a tactical playbook under the title Rules For Radicals.
This page on Horowitz’s site offers a quick read (56 pdf page read, that is) summarizing the influence of Rules For Radicals on the career of the Empty Suit Known as Barack Hussein Obama.
[Alinsky’s] entire life was devoted to organizing a revolution in America to destroy a system he regarded as oppressive and unjust. By profession he was a “community organizer,” the same term employed by his most famous disciple, Barack Obama, to describe himself.
…
Like leftists who came of age after the Soviet collapse, Alinsky understood that there was something flawed in the Communist outlook.
…
Alinsky identified the problem posed by Communism as inflexibility and “dogmatism” and proposed as a solution that radicals should be “political relativists,” that they should take an agnostic view of means and ends. For Alinsky, the revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system and then see what happens. The Alinsky radical has a single principle - to take power from the Haves and give it to the Have-nots.
…
Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their focus is on means rather than ends
…
Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power.
…
For Alinsky radicals, policies are not important in themselves; they are instrumental - means to expanding the political base.
…
Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation, and for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method
…
On Barack Obama’s presidential campaign website, one could see a photo of Obama in a classroom “teaching students Alinskyan methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, ‘Power Analysis’ and ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,…’”
…
the focus of Obama’s political activities was the largest radical organization in the United States, Acorn, which was built on the Alinksy model of community organizing.
…
Alinsky begins his text by telling readers exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer
…
In his own mind the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him is a kingdom of heaven on earth
…
the radical’s only real world efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the society he lives in. He is a nihilist.
…
Deception is the radical’s most important weapon, and it has been a prominent one since the end of the sixties.
…
The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.
…
[Alinsky writes,] “…advance your radical goals by camouflaging them; change your style to appear to be working within the system.
…
Alinsky’s advice can be summed up in the following way. Even though you are at war with the system, don’t confront it as an opposing army; join it and undermine it as a fifth column from within.
==
Let’s recall the most disingenuous presidential campaign ever, shall we? Why did BHO run essentially as a blank slate mystery man in 2008? What were they really hiding? It wasn’t the proof of place of birth, the college transcripts we’ve not yet seen, the twenty years listening to Rev. Wright’s Black Liberation Theology rantings, the connections to the mob, or the political ties to convicted domestic terrorists. These were merely indicators, in the way that rotten egg smell indicates a paper mill is nearby. What they successfully obfuscated was BHO’s devotion to the political tactics prescribed by Saul Alinsky - which I will argue are essentially treasonous in relation to the patriotic goal of maintaining the republic’s civil society.
I can’t believe the citizens of my republic can be duped into re-electing the Saul Alinsky candidate a second time. Not a second time.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
If you place any value whatsoever on individual liberty, if you believe in the opportunity and achievement society the original patriots risked everything to found, if you’ve had quite enough of self-appointed progressive ruling elites screwing up everything on colossal scales - the defeat of the Empty Suit Known as Barack Hussein Obama in 2012 is a fundamental imperative.
Update 8/15/11
The "Great One," Mark Levin, channeled through Doug Ross, sums up the stakes neatly.
