United States of Community Organizing…

We all know that President Barack Hussein Obama studied the teachings of Saul Alinsky, the well known ‘community organizer’ and author of the book, “Rules for Radicals.” But what is a community organizer, exactly?

From Wikipedia – “Community organizing is a process by which people living in proximity to each other are brought together in an organization to act in their common self-interest. Unlike other forms of more consensual “community building,” community organizers generally assume that social change necessarily involves conflict and social struggle in order to generate collective power…”

If any of that process sounds familiar, it should. Our President is utilizing these radical rules to govern our country. If he isn’t doing them actively, himself, he is allowing those around him to put these rules into place. So what are the “Rules for Radicals” and how is this administration and his cronies using them? Let us take a look.

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. – This quite possibly might be the only rule of Alinsky’s that Obama isn’t bothering with. I mean he has the full backing of the might of the American government.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat. – Obama did this during the campaign. He hid his Islamic roots and his political machine castigated anyone who brought it up. Even saying his middle name brought about rebukes and the liberals were quick to throw up the race card. He knew that to be elected to the White House, he needed to downplay his Islamic roots. Rather than showcase them as diversity, he hid them for he realized that the average American was not ready to accept a former Muslim in the White House.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. – Remember Obama’s first few weeks in office. He talked down the economy so much that it created fear and thereby the opportunity he needed to pass the so-called ‘Stimulus Bill.’ Obama talked of the economic crisis and possible catastrophe so much that the stock market reacted very adversely to his rantings. Finally, Bill Clinton had to admonish him to “tone it down a bit.”

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.” – While campaigning, Obama touted the ‘bipartisan’ philosophy, deriding the partisan way of getting anything accomplished in Washington. Yet once in office, he is throwing those rules out the window and blocking the Republicans from even attending certain committee meetings. Hard to obey the rules with this going on.

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. I only need three words to explain how the Obama machine utilized this rule – “Joe the Plumber.”

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.” – Chris Matthews from MSNBC was having such fun when Obama won the election that he had to share with us this salient point. “Its part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg.” The mainstream media is having more fun as of late than they did the entire eight years of the Bush administration. Have no fear though, for it is possible to drown in a vat of honey and even our far-left liberal media will eventually tire of being cheerleaders. One can only hope, that is.

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues. – I believe that this was part of the rationalization that Obama used when he tried to tackle so many different things at once in his first few months in office, the economy, Gitmo, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the stimulus, the car companies, the financial institutions, foreign policy, enhanced interrogation techniques, just to name a few.

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.” – This is very similar to rule #7 in that the more items he tackles at once, the more pressure it is for his opposition to keep up with him.

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. – Our healthcare industry is under attack by this very manner under the Obama administration. He continues to tell us how dangerous it is to put off ‘fixing’ our healthcare in America. He did this with the stimulus bill and we have already seen that it was not true. Remember him saying that without it, we would see 8% unemployment? What happened? AFTER it was passed, we are well on our way to 10% unemployment. He used the ‘threat’ of unemployment to get the spending bill (disguised as a stimulus bill) passed.

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?” When confronted with just such a question, Obama always avoids answering it directly. This is nothing new; in fact most politicians do the same thing.

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. – Blame Bush, blame Republicans, oh did I say Blame Bush?

So where does that leave us, ladies and gentlemen? Well it leaves us with someone who has done nothing substantial in his life, save for being elected to public office. We have a community organizer in the White House and he is governing as a community organizer. You can see it in everything he does and it is also the reason he still ‘campaigns’ even though the elections are over. Barack Obama will go down as one of the most unique Presidents this country has ever seen. And with the mainstream media at his side, he is constantly seen on television. But just being on TV doesn’t make you Presidential. No, Barack Obama isn’t much of a President, but he does play one on TV.


9 comments on “United States of Community Organizing…

  1. I was originally going to comment on each of your nonsensical points but I don’t care to waste my time. I will, however, point out that Obama is NOT a former Muslim; his father was. The man stood up in front of a predominantly Muslim audience and declared “I am Christian.” Those of you who persist in focusing on the entire Muslim, Arabic theme are displaying your own bigotry. Finally; I applaud the President’s decision to tackle various problems at the outset of his first term-they have been ignored for far too long. Your entire piece is testimony to the fact that the GOP is in the toilet right now.
    “…someone who has done nothing substantial in his life.” Really? I guess you have joined the Limbaugh train and conveniently ignore his senatorial contributions, his education, his courage to admit to mistakes made by our government, and his attempt at bridging the gaps between the US and Middle Eastern countries (more bigotry). Finally; your definition of social organizing contained a part that called for conflict in order to bring about social change as if that were a bad thing and how incredibly hypocritical. Conflict often initiates debate which in turn can bring about change. I find it difficult to remember an administration (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) that caused more conflict than they did; all the while lying to the American people.
    You quickly changed course from one entry to the next. Your first entry that I read contained some intelligent suggestions. This one reeks of jealousy by a member of a party that is now being led by a windbag pundit. Nice touch with advocating a boycott of GM-let’s put more Americans out of work. Very patriotic.

    • Community organizing is a process by which people living in proximity to each other are brought together in an organization to act in their common self-interest. Unlike other forms of more consensual “community building,” community organizers generally assume that social change necessarily involves conflict and social struggle in order to generate collective power for the powerless. A core goal of community organizing is to generate durable power for an organization representing the community, allowing it to influence key decision-makers on a range of issues over time. In the ideal, for example, this can get community organizing groups a place at the table before important decisions are made.[1] Community organizers work with and develop new local leaders, facilitating coalitions and assisting in the development of campaigns.-From Wikipedia.
      It seems you left out some important details of the definition. Wow-how un-American to want to be heard when otherwise ignored.

  2. I ask you to point to ONE thing, one substantial thing that Obama did prior to being elected to office. He didn’t run a business, he didn’t serve in the armed forces, his time in the Senate is marked by his extreme left leaning decisions.

    To paint me with the broad brush you did, is bigotry on your part. See rule #5, you just followed it brilliantly.

    I will tell you what I find un-American. What I find to be bad for our country. Pouring BILLIONS into GM and Chrysler, with Obama saying over and over that bankruptcy wasn’t an option, just to have him force them into bankruptcy so he could pander to his far left and give HUGE chunks of the car companies to the UAW. THAT is un-American.

    Anyone with any political experience knows that being a community organizer is NOT the way to run a country.

    Now to answer your point that I am a “Islamaphobe.” That is crazy, but I ask you this. Had G.W. Bush said the following, wouldn’t you be upset that he said it?

    “So I have known Christianity on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Christianity must be based on what Christianity is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity wherever they appear.”

    Obama said it about Islam and the mainstream media just let it go. Since when did our President appoint himself as the defender of Islamic faith?

    You must understand that someone with the proper experience for the office would have told his speech writer that that statement was wrong. And he did deny his Muslim roots during the campaign. Now when it suits him, he trots them out and holds them up in an effort to be more likable. THAT is what is laughable.

  3. The critique is of Obama is irrelevant, being a community organizer is politics. Running a business is not something that gives you foreign policy insight. Look I don’t care for Obama a bit but if I criticize him it will be on policy not his roots as a community organizer. He received a Machiavellian education doing community organizing, that’s what politics is all about. Try reading “the Prince”. No I don’t like the way the bailouts have gone, but he I benefited directly and significantly from the stimulus package. And NO other President has done anything that I could ever say helped me, so Obama has the record for doing the most for me, not that I approve of anything else he has done but its hardly reasonable to criticize him for being a community organizer. And to talk about how he should have told his speech writer to change things, PLEASE! Get serious love him or hate him he is a master orator and compared to GWB he is a silver tongued devil. So come on this is mainly just Obama hatred, which I would not complain about if it had more substance. Complaining that all he has done is get elected, TO THE SENET AND PRESIDENCY! I think of that as basicly a criminal resume but it is not insubstantial.

  4. First of all, I don’t hate anybody. I would never give someone that much power over me. This isn’t hatred of Obama, it is a comparative piece showing his tactics and how they come from his four years learning the Saul Alinsky teachings.

    I don’t complain that he did nothing but get elected to public office. I say that is ALL he has done. Please, prove me wrong. Other than his short stint as Editor of the Harvard Law Review he has done little else. Community organizing is his only claim to fame – pre public office, that is.

    You want me to get serious about his master oratory skills. Yet he cannot speak without teleprompters or extensive notes. When Bush debated Kerry, the leftist media tried to claim Bush had a microphone shoved into the back of his suit. Yet now Obama talks of putting a computer screen into the podium so that he can have his staff send him answers to questions. Master orator? I think not.

    I am glad to hear that you have been helped by Obama. You are one of a very select and small group of people.

  5. Let me first start out with your statement of Obama’s senatorial contributions, what exactly were those? Can you point to anything significant or substantial that in any way facilitated social, economic, or political benefit or reforms? Don’t bother because there aren’t any, his tenure was mixed and flaccid at best. Point of fact, during his campaigning he did not point out or purvey any facet of his term as a critical reflection that would collaterally relate to the experience of running the highest office in this country. His education is relative as it pertains to the theoretical mechanisms one will utilize as a methodology for running a body politic. To disallow that connection and the influence that could manifest because of his indoctrination is criminal. Try again.

    So which is worse; asserting this author (allegedly) follows a radio personality, or you, an individual who is willing not to question a man, and his administration, who are collectively illiterate with respect to economics and fiscal responsibility and restraint? Don’t bother answering, I know the answer. Their attempt at economic equilibrium and reducing inequalities in the distribution of wealth, by way of Keynesian economics, will prove to be an utter failure. If you do your research you will discover that the vast majority of politicians have never run a business, much less start one from the ground up. And these same individuals influence economic policy. I have my own business, do you? Would you run it this way?

    “Every government interference in the
    economy consists of giving an unearned
    benefit, extorted by force, to some men
    at the expense of others.”
    — Ayn Rand

    I find it disconcerting that you do not see the inherent dangers within the GM deal, if you were a bond holder I am sure your perspective would change. Your implication that the author displays disloyalty by boycotting GM products is rather stunted and trite. I have heard that pathological diatribe from similar political affiliations in the past and it doesn’t hold water. Try again.

    Lastly, his explication of community organizers was spot on, look at ACORN. It is common knowledge that the abundance of similar organizations are collectivists who proselytize and advocate progressivism, which in finite terms is nothing more than concentrated redistribution. The moment you have community organizers aligning themselves politically it stifles a barrier needed to keep the politicians honest. The problem with individuals who applaud and encourage social change, and execute it with vicious expediency, is that invariably individual sovereignty gets trampled on by the peremptory commands of the collective necessity, who demand participation. Change happens, and within the realm of reason and relativity it is required, but judiciousness and a concerned consciousness must be applied. This is not what’s happening.

  6. Ok well I am as far from an Obama supporter as you can find. Editor of the Harvard law review.. Hmm do our credentials compare to that… Look I think he is a corporate slug.. But he has the office and to compare his skills to Bush’s in terms of oration is a no brainer.. Like I said Bush could not even pronounce “nuclear”. And while I could care less about ryand the above quote is correct… Governemt interveens for private capital, always has. But there are plenty good things to critisize Obama about PLENTY.. I just dont see them being discussed here.

    • I was merely attempting to shed some light on his methods. I run into plenty of people that blindly support him and it can be frustrating. Although, I will say there are fewer Obamamania drones with each passing day.

  7. If you fail to see the veracity and the parallelisms in the author’s article it is because you choose not to, or you simply cannot. And again, his (Obama’s) credentials do not impress me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s