Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton And Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”

Saul Alinsky’s book. “Rules For Radicals,” was first named “Rules For Revolution,” and has caused untold controversy since Alinsky published the book in 1971. I realize that one post will not be enough to communicate the content of destruction this book holds for our Republic. When I first bought the book, I vowed to read it cover to cover before donning my pencil to write even one word. Alinsky opens in the book’s prologue by writing, “The revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, “Burn the system down!” Alinsky’s tactics were based not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but instead on the neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the, “dialectic process” rather than bloody revolution. Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes. At this point, I would like to define, “dialectic process:” Reasoning in which question-answer approach (dialectic) is used to examine the correctness, legitimacy, or validity of an assumption, idea, opinion. Alinsky writes on page 10, “A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into a new social order, or the “dictatorship” of the proletariat and finally the last stage, the political paradise of communism.” A letter from Saul Alinsky’s son David States: “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we his approach 100th birthday.” Obama taught workshops on Alinsky’s theories and methods for years and in 1985, he started working as a community organizer for and Alinskyite group called, “Developing Community Projects.” While building coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama was criticized for not attending church and decided to become an instant Christian. He then helped fund the Alinsky Academy. Obama was a paid director of the Woods Fund, which is a non-profit organization used to provide start-up funding and operating capital for Midwest Academy, which teaches the Alinsky tactics of community organization. Obama sat on the Woods Fund Board with William Ayers, the founder of the, “Weather Underground,” a domestic terrorist organization. Hillary Rodham as a student at Wellesly in 1969, interviewed Saul Alinsky and wrote her thesis on Alinsky’s theories and methods. She concludes her thesis by writing, “Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such he has been feared, just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths, “democracy.” Alinsky offered Hillary a job upon graduation from Wellesley but she decided to attend Yale Law School where she met her husband Bill Clinton. “Rules For Radicals,” page 113, “From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams, eats, breaths, sleeps only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no issues.” Page 59, “But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making a deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, compromise for 30 percent, you’re 30 percent ahead.” In closing, I would urge every conservative or constitution minded person to know your enemy. Buy and read this book. Your adversaries have memorized and are using the principles within its covers to destroy our great republic. Make no mistake, the Progressive Liberals or Radicals’ goal is to tear down the republic and shred the Constitution. The problem is, they have nothing to replace it with; they are only bent on destruction. A Nation can only be disgraced by the failure of its citizenry to take action in the face of tyranny Donald Raleigh Ayotte, August 2010

111 thoughts on “Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton And Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals””

  1. Heartache? You don’t know the meaning of the word heartache, sport, if you think it involves hair.

    And you’re quite wrong about the Dark Ages. You’re reciting the grade-school textbook version. Reality for the average person was far different.

  2. Geezer 101
    “And you’re quite wrong about the Dark Ages.”

    Actually Jon is not wrong about the Dark ages in the statement that he made. I’ve quoted his statement below and from what I’ve studied from University level British history, he is accurate. I took British History I and II. What he states is essentially true.

    “The Dark Ages involved the absolute power of local feudal lords and regional kings, in which people had no rights or freedom whatsoever. One could not even move from one village to the next without the permission of the feudal lord.”

  3. Something that called itself a Christian Church, but wasn’t, was deeply entangled and intertwined with the government

    Good thing we all agree that should never happen again.

  4. “the absolute power of local feudal lords and regional kings, in which people had no rights or freedom whatsoever.”

    Yet government itself was minimal. Most people had no contact with it. You are confusing “power” and “government.”

    And I’m not surprised that your “study” of history taught you very little. I’ve seen the writing produced by your English degree.

  5. “Something that called itself a Christian Church, but wasn’t,”
    Isn’t there any way to get this theocrat to ST*U?

  6. Geezer 105
    “And I’m not surprised that your “study” of history taught you very little. I’ve seen the writing produced by your English degree.”

    When you can’t win a debate or you are just plain wrong, you always resort to the art of the, “politics of personal destruction.” A famous teaching of Saul Alinsky. Good luck with that. I’ve also heard that tactic on your radio show!!!

  7. Right, Don. Other than wetting your pants over mythical menaces, insulting people is all you do.

    I already won the debate. You just don’t realize it because you don’t know the difference between power and government.

  8. Geez 108
    In Feudal England in the dark ages, (that’s what we’re talking about) there was little difference between the application of government and the Feudal lords that, in reality owned the land and the peasant population. They considered the peasants as personal property and by law, owned them as personal property, and in many cases, treated them as such. It wasn’t until the Middle ages that this changed, ever so slowly.

    When you get off your “high horse of faux elitism, you may address the subject without a personal attack. I’m sick and tired of your crap. You can get away with it on your show, but please spare me your infantile tactics.

  9. Actually, limited government gives the privileged free rein to feast on the poor and middle class…

    Limited government built the greatest nation on earth…and modern unlimited government is destroying it.

  10. Again, Geezer wrote in #99:

    I’m trying to figure out why Dr. Moseley deserved to make any money from prescribing minoxidil off-label. I’m also wondering about the mental health of someone whose “dreams” were “crushed” because he couldn’t make a buck off male vanity.

    But another thing: Rogaine *DID* make a fortune for “BIG PHARMA” — big business.

    The issue is not the legitimacy of the product or the business. Big business preserved this market for itself and CHARGING A MUCH HIGHER PRICE made a fortune.

    The only question is whether big business “deserves” to keep the profits only for itself, using the power of government to suppress competition, denying opportunity to others.

    The issue is that BIG BUSINESS — USING THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT — wanted to keep the profits concentrated in the hands of the few, with the power and influence to lobby the government, rather than allowing the middle class to engage in free enterprise.

    Notice the inherently marxist analysis by Geezer as to whether someone “DESERVED” to make any money.

    Who gets to decide whether someone “DESERVES” to engage in business or not. Notice how inherently marxist this attitude is.

    In a freedom society, everyone can decide for themselves what they want to do, and it is up to the customer if they want to buy or not buy the products and services offered to them. No one has to justify to you what they “deserve.”

    But since big business did, in fact, make a fortune off the product, this is irrelevant. THE ISSUE IS THAT GOVERNMENT PROTECTS THE RICH AND POWERFUL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE POOR AND THE MIDDLE CLASS.

    Try this: Dress up like a stereotypical burglar, to the extreme, and sneak around a rich neighborhood in Beverly Hills, California, or even Claymont. See how fast the police in a rich neighborhood shows up to question why you are sneaking around the homes of rich people.

    Then try the same thing in Annacostia, Maryland, a poor area of Washington, DC, that many police say they are afraid to go into.

Comments are closed.