OBAMA — THE GREAT COMMUNITY ‘AGITATOR’
Barack Obama shares in Dreams From My Father how Saul Alinsky was big influence in his life. Alinsky wrote several books (some of which were Rules for Radicals and Rules for Radicals Explained which you can find on Amazon (and search the content there) about community organizing. Basically, it’s to stir up the underclass in order to overthrow (and put pressure) on the current system. This IS NOT a civil rights issue. It’s a model of how to employ the Cloward-Priven Stategy in order to bring down our government.
To see the above “associations” image full-size, click here. Then click on the back arrow to be returned to this page.
What do the “Occupy” movement, the focus by the Democrat Party on “contraceptives”, the President calling his Republican challenger a curse word in an interview, the “Beer Summit”, the President saying if he had a son he’d look like Treyvon Martin, the VP’s smirking debate ‘performance’ and the President’s last two hostile debate ‘performances’ have in common? They’re all examples of using Alinsky tactics.
It helps to understand this to see how Obama is employing Alinsky tatics to destroy America. If Obama and the people helping him did what they did to one of Obama’s “friends”, who would want to “see” what they would DO to their enemies?
From the March 19, 2007 article in The New Republic:
Obama initially planned to inherit the seat of a much-admired incumbent named Alice Palmer, a fixture in South Side activist circles since the ’60s. Palmer had opted to run for Congress, clearing the way for Obama to replace her, but, when she lost the primary, she decided she wanted to keep her old Senate seat, after all.
Obama was faced with a decision: step aside and wait his turn or do everything he could to take down a popular incumbent. In one meeting, an old guard of black political leaders tried to force Obama to abandon the race, but he wouldn’t budge. Instead of deferring to Palmer’s seniority, Obama challenged the very legitimacy of her petitions to get on the ballot, dispatching aides to the Chicago Board of Elections to scour Palmer’s filing papers, and, while they were at it, every other candidate’s, signature by signature. Many were fake. Obama won the challenge and cleared not just Palmer but all his potential rivals from the field.
It was a brash maneuver that caught the attention of the Illinois political establishment. “His introduction to the political community was that he knocked off Alice,” said Ron Davis, a longtime Obama political hand who filed the challenge against Palmer and still cackles with glee over their victory.
Alinsky tactic to divide one group against another as Obama does in this interview on Univision before the the Nov. 2010 mid-term election:
If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2
Interestingly enough, The New Republic piece says
Obama decided to take a second look at Wright’s church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for “Buppies”–black urban professionals–and didn’t have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”–included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness.'”
There are too many examples to share but a few are mentioned after the Terkel interview.
Hear Studs Terkel interview Saul Alinsky (begins @ :42)
ANOTHER MAJOR PRAYER POINT (related to Alinsky tactics) as described in an article in the Oct. 29th The American Thinker. An excerpt:
Is President Obama willing to incite civil unrest to win re-election? As we have all been encouraged to wear our dog-whistle decoders these days, one can hardly be blamed for wondering. Worse yet, we know the answer. He is already doing it.
Please bear with me, as this topic requires considerable delicacy.
According to Rolling Stone, Barack Obama has now called Mitt Romney “a bull*****er,” on the record. His anger at the challenger was palpable — that is, carefully staged — during each of the last two presidential debates. And he has made a central theme of his campaign the warning that a Romney presidency would erase all of the “equality” victories of the 1960s and ’70s.
Could Obama really be reduced to attempting to win re-election through mob protests and intimidation — i.e., through a climate of fear?
Let us examine the broad facts. According to the recent polls, most of which have been conducted by organizations sympathetic to Obama, Romney appears to be on his way to victory. Obama’s policy record is insupportable on the basis of its results, and his campaign knows it. His one ace in the hole, his alleged effectiveness in the Middle East, has been exposed once and for all as a disastrous lie. And his opponent’s past seems to be scandal-free, thus eliminating the one major comeback technique his inner circle has shown any past skill in executing.
All appears lost for Obama according to normal campaign channels. It is time for the Hail Mary pass. But do we have any grounds for imagining that he and his team would stoop so low as to seek to incite mass incivility, on or before Election Day?
Let us examine a few more facts. Barack Obama’s primary occupation before electoral politics was as a community organizer in Chicago. He was an adviser to ACORN, the election fraud racket and socialist activism organization founded by former SDS radical Wade Rathke. His mentors in Chicago included Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the Weather Underground leaders who staged the Days of Rage in 1969; Rashid Khalidi, apologist for and promoter of anti-Israeli violence; and Jeremiah Wright, whose most famous words are “God damn America!” In his youth, of course, Obama’s primary male role model was Frank Marshall Davis, a communist and, naturally, a community organizer.
Would any of the people I just named stop short of using intimidation or civil unrest to achieve their political ends, if they believed it would be effective — or that it was their only hope?
Too speculative, you say? What does any of this have to do with Obama himself, you ask?
A few more facts. On Election Day 2008, New Black Panther militants, one carrying a billy club, stood threateningly in front of a polling station in Philadelphia. (See here.) They were charged with voter intimidation. Obama’s Justice Department dismissed the charges. In March 2012, when Florida was on pins and needles over the Zimmerman-Martin case, and the Al Sharpton types were trying to escalate the tensions and incite racial unrest, Obama spiked his presidential message of national “soul-searching” with the race-baiting Sharptonesque observation that “[i]f I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
Obama has spoken sympathetically of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and, more importantly, embraces its leftist class warfare rhetoric. His stock line about Romney’s economic plan is, “it turns out that it’s just a one-point plan — a sketchy deal that says folks at the very top get to play by a different set of rules than you do.” Pure “99 percent” stuff. Ayers and Dohrn, who hosted his first ever political campaign event, have given presentations to OWS groups.
ALINSKY’S RULES FOR RADICALS
Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.
- Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
- Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
- Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
- Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
- Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
- Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
- Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
- Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
- Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
- Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
- Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” 
If you saw any of the last two Presidential debates and the V.P. debate, you saw examples of Obama/Biden employing Alinsky tactic #5 (ridicule).
It would appear that in these last debates, Obama and Biden were trying to get a “reaction” out of Romney and Ryan. Interestingly enough, that is an Alinsky “tactic” — pressure.
“The action is in the reaction.”
In Jeff Hedgpeth’s Rules for Radicals Defeated, he shares “these (Alinsky) overarching principles:
The real action is in the enemy’s reaction.
The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.
Tactics, like organization, like life, require that you move with the action.
In our approach to understanding, Alinsky’s methods as he used them, and as they have been refined for use in the current political environment, we can encapsulate in one sentence the web that holds the entire model together. Memorize it!
The driving force of the Alinsky model is in the action, specifically in guiding the action in such a way that you cause your “enemy” to react rather than act . . .
Hedgpeth, pg 56:
The intent of the tactics is to keep your enemy off balance. Whether by mockery, subterfuge, or any other available strategy, the purpose behind the tactics is to keep the pressure on your opponent, constantly jabbing and goading them until they lose their clarity of thought, and react in a way that you can exploit to defeat them. Again from Rules for Radicals,
The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an “agitator”, they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function — to agitate to the point of conflict.
Hedgpeth wrote this in April 2012:
. . . the Obama Administration is engaged in a campaign that is based on rules two and three. By introducing social issues during the GOP Primary campaign, they not only seek to show the Republican Party as uncaring, they are also seeking to push the candidates as far Right as they possibly can. Obama’s people know that their weakness lies with the losses of support they have suffered among Independents and with female voters.
Their answer – claim that the GOP is engaged in a concerted effort to deny women their reproductive rights. Currently, Liberal mouthpieces are parroting the line, “There is a war on women in the Republican Party”. Is it true? It doesn’t matter. What matters is the perception they are able to engender. They seem to have successfully moved the argument from a religious freedom issue (should Catholics be forced to provide health care that covers things the Church views as sinful) to an issue of women’s reproductive rights.
The Right, in general, has fumbled this issue because they don’t understand Alinsky methods, and if they do, they have no clue how to counter them. The intent of the Obama team is to paint every Republican as an extremist that you can’t trust making decisions in Government. This serves the dual purpose of obfuscating the Leftist extremism embrassed by President Obama, and forcing the Right to address social issues instead of staying on Obama’s abysmal record as President.
By luring GOP candidates into a discussion of women’s reproductive rights, they have effectively changed the subjects. They have taken the public discourse from a discussion of Obama’s handling of the economy, Iran, Israel, gas prices, health care, government intrusion, over regulation, etc. to social issues where they not only poll well, but poll well in a key demographic – namely, women.
If the candidates were savvy, they would just say that they are pro-life, but that they support women’s rights to choose what is right for them, and that they believe it is critical that the Government stay out of the business of telling churches what they can do. They should then expose the tactic, and pivot. Don’t mention Alinsky, simply say that President Obama is attempting to move the conversation to social issues for shameless political reasons, and that he constantly misstates the position of Republicans on the matter. Furthermore, he is exploiting women with attempts to frighten them into believing that the GOP is somehow going to take away women’s rights. All the while, he uses this to obfuscate the real issues of the economy, Government overreaches, and foreign policy; . . .
Here’s how the “war on women” comes into play NOW which is another example of why pro-family voters should NOT vote for Obama AND should be concerned about WHAT’S going on
See this link for explaining the commercial featuring Lena Dunham who explains that voting for Obama in ’08 is like losing one’s virginity to ‘a really great guy’. Are you kidding me? See the commercial yourself . . . maybe you’ll see this for the first time. Be sure to NOT have young kids with you when you watch it and be sure to have your Facebook wall open so you can exclaim to all of your friends, “HOW could he (Obama) ‘approve this message’?
The 1% vs. 99% explanation:
Under (Alinsky) Rule 1 – Power is not what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The essence of Alinsky’s first rule is that if you do not havethe numbers or any real power, you can organize in such a way that you appear to have more power than you do. Marches and planned occupations like Occupy Wall Street claims to be the 99% , but in numbers, they are more like the .01%. With a complicity median, they are able to appear larger, and more influential than they truly are. alinsky’s point with the first rule is even if you don’t have the numbers or the power, you can make it look like you do.
Power is not only what you have, but whath the enemy thinks you have — while this may e effective, it is also dishonest. This is not “fake it until you make it”, which is a valuable tool to correct your behavior. This is “fake it until you make them do it your way”. he has no problem hiding behind a facade to reach his goals. he sees nothing morally corrupt about pretending to be what he is not in order to convince others to think and act in ways he deems appropriate.
EVEN the infamous “you didn’t build it” comment can be traced to an Alinsky tactic (#5 ridicule) as this post explains:
(Notice Alinsky’s RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” at play here. Obama has never created a private sector job in his life. His entire existence has been one “help” from the government “system” after another. His paychecks derived from others, not his own hard work. But it’s not enough for the radical to just let be that which he doesn’t understand, he must ridicule it, destroy it so the “system” can be “transformed”.)
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer“
Saul Alinsky dedicates his book, “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer.
“Thirteen years after Alinsky died, some of his former students hired BarackObama to a $13,000 a year job as a community organizer in South Chicago. In a few years he became very proficient in the Alinsky Method of community organizing and became an instructor and teacher of theAlinsky Method to other community organizers.”
“Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.”
Read more at Wikipedia:
“that in the world of Barack Obama, community organisers are a key strategy in a different game altogether; and the name of that game is revolutionary Marxism.”
”His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated toLucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’.”
Sep 7, 2009
Throughout Barack Obama’s campaign for the White House, he never tired of referring to the three years he spent as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side and its relevance to his life since then.
However generic the term may sound to the average ear, it had a very specific meaning to young Barack Obama. It was a term of art used by the self-described Marxist tactician Saul Alinsky, author of “Rules for Radicals” and erstwhile mentor of Obama.
As an organizer with the Developing Communities Project in the mid-1980s, the young Obama learned Alinsky’s tactics, and found a way to bring about the radical changes he and his friends had discussed during their days at New York’s Columbia University.
In his first book “Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race And Inheritance,” Obama writes that he chose his friends at Columbia carefully — chiefly politically active black students, Marxist professors, structural feminists and punk rock performance poets.
The president recalls that he and his friends would discuss radical topics such as “neocolonialism, Franz Fanon (a French Marxist revolutionary), Eurocentrism and patriarchy.”
Obama’s affinity for radical politics didn’t end after he started getting into local Chicago politics. According to the Chicago chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the president participated in a 1996 forum co-sponsored by the Young Democratic Socialists of America chapter at the University of Chicago and the Chicago DSA during his first run for the Illinois State Senate.
The Chicago Democratic Socialists, in a 2000 mailing to members, described the positions Obama took during this meeting as “well within the mainstream of European social democracy.”
As an organizer trained in Alinsky’s tactics, Obama learned to work within the existing system and to avoid using radical slogans that could alienate potential middle-class supporters. This was key: use disarmingly moderate language while promoting radical ideas. The goal was always to appeal to people’s self-interests in the quest for power and influence.
Consequently, the president today avoids invoking divisive and inflammatory terms such as socialism, neocolonialism, or patriarchy during his speeches because he knows that doing so would alienate those in the middle class whom he needs to maintain his power base and because such concepts are outside their experience, which Alinsky strongly warns against.
In Alinsky’s mind, the primary purpose of organizers was to create dissatisfaction and discontent with the present system.
Obama masterfully used his speeches to play up popular discontent with the Bush administration’s policies during the campaign and to associate John McCain with the status quo, by using dismissive humor rather than provocative rhetoric.
Obama skillfully applied Alinsky’s “Fourth Rule for Radicals” — ridicule your opponent — against McCain by arguing his election would be the equivalent of a third Bush term.
Most of all as an organizer, the president learned how to manipulate the masses in the quest of achieving radical change, and Obama’s campaign slogans of hope and change are peppered throughout Alinsky’s book.
“The organizer’s job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate with hope and a desire for change and to identify [himself] as the person most qualified for this purpose,” Alinsky wrote. “Change comes from power. Power comes from organization.”
In Obama’s campaign speeches, he continually identified himself as the agent of hope and change by telling his supporters they held the key to the radical changes he has in mind. Remember “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”? This tactic follows another of Alinsky’s recommendations, that an organizer should rely on messages of optimism and use his ego to get them to believe they have it within themselves to effect change.
“The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a ‘great creator’ — to play God,” Alinsky wrote. “How can he convince people that they have it within themselves, that they have the power to stand up and win, if he does not believe it of himself?
“Ego must be so all-pervading that the personality of the organizer is contagious, that it converts people from despair to defiance, that is creates a mass ego.”
This mass ego played out with effectiveness during the campaign, as Obama deftly projected his own ego into the frenzied crowds who followed him wherever he went.
Alinsky also advised his organizers to make use of leading questions to get people to do their bidding, and Obama became a master of this tactic in his campaign. Obama’s constant refrains about the “last eight years,” which many American had decided were flawed and embarrassing, gave him the ability to manipulate the masses into choosing him as the solution to their problems because they were generally dissatisfied with the Republicans.
The Alinskyian nature of the Obama presidential campaign was not lost on Alinsky’s son in a letter to the Boston Globe. L. David Alinsky wrote, “The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style. Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness.
“It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. 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 approach his 100th birthday.”
After winning the election, Obama converted his campaign into the group Organizing for America, which inherited the president’s e-mail list of millions of Americans who supported his campaign.
This fulfills Alinsky’s 10th Rule for Radicals, which calls for “the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
However, the group’s effectiveness has been called into question amid the recent healthcare debate because those who supported Obama the candidate have shown less enthusiasm for pushing for the enactment of his policies than they did embracing the seductive centrism of Obama’s campaign speeches.
“As president, I will need the help of all Americans to meet the challenges that lie ahead. That’s why I’m asking people like you who fought for change during the campaign to keep fighting for change in your communities,” Obama said in a Jan. 15 Internet address announcing the establishment of Organizing for America.
Obama told his supporters their mass support would be essential to keeping the pressure on Washington to accomplish his goals.
Since taking office, Obama has not ceased engaging in activities that could derive from Alinsky’s playbook.
What appears to some as the president’s apparent flip-flop on healthcare could be one example. In 2003, Obama told an NAACP gathering that he favored a single-payer system as the way to reform healthcare, but by the time the 2008 campaign came around he adopted a more pragmatic approach that he has kept into the present debate.
“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably move in the direction of a single-payer plan,” Obama told a gathering of community organizers on Dec. 1, 2007, at the Iowa Heartland Presidential Forum.
Obama’s actions make perfect sense because Alinsky instructed organizers to be “pragmatic” and “nondogmatic” in pursuit of their goals, and to view compromise as a “key and beautiful word.”
He taught that organizers should always adapt to changing situations, and Obama has likely correctly identified that it is impossible to pass a single-payer system through Congress at this point in time.
“If you start with nothing, and demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, then you are 30 percent ahead,” Alinsky wrote.
Alinsky also advised that revolution can only happen after a period of “reformation” because a revolution needs popular support to survive; consequently, compromise becomes a revolutionary tool. And Obama likely will compromise on healthcare to get “30 percent” closer to his ideal situation of a single-payer system over time if he continues to follow the lessons he learned from Alinsky.
Both Obama and his administration have mastered the use of Alinsky’s 13th Rule for Radicals, which calls for organizers to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
His administration has singled out opponents such as talk show host Rush Limbaugh in an effort to polarize the nation against him and ridiculed him as “the leader of the Republican Party,” although the effort ultimately failed.
Obama’s underlings have also turned their efforts polarization and ridicule efforts against diverse groups of people, including corporate CEOs, the “Birthers” who question his legitimacy and opponents in the healthcare debate who have been labeled as “crazies.”
The administration has also continued to associate itself with groups and individuals with Alinskyian leanings, such as ACORN, which it enlisted in March 2009 to help it recruit 1.4 million temporary census workers despite its long history of engaging in voter fraud.
The Obama administration’s pick for “diversity chief” at the Federal Communications Commission likewise has ties to Alinsky’s way of thinking and has promised to give liberal-oriented public broadcasting a greater role on the nation’s airwaves at the expense of large commercial broadcasters.
Barack Obama is not the only Alinsky disciple in the new administration. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also has Alinsky ties. She knew him personally and wrote her honors thesis about him in the late 1960s.
Although Saul Alinsky wrote “Rules for Radicals” 38 years ago, reading it today produces regular flashbacks to the 2008 presidential campaign, and the same themes remain evident throughout the first eight months of the Obama campaign.
Colin A. Hanna is president of Let Freedom Ring
Original Article: Newsmax.com
Written By: Colin A. Hanna