Monday, December 21, 2009

Obamacare Looms Because Alinskyite Obama Has Not Been Exposed

The political correctness forces sold the American people a bill of goods on both Tiger Woods and Barack Obama, because it fit their secular extremist political agenda. Yes, Tiger is great with golf clubs, Barack is great with a tele-prompter and both can act and perform under pressure. But neither was scutinized by the liberal media, because that did not fit their political correctness agenda. Tiger as great husband and father was a pretense. So was the notion that Obama favored bipartisanship and would govern from the center. NOW the American people see though Tiger's image, thanks to his one-car accident and that car window smashed with a gold club by his wife. Unfortunately, many still don't realize that the radical Obama's bipartisan/moderate clothes are like the new clothes of the Emperor in the childhood fable: imaginary. But the scurrilous tactics being used to impose Obamacare on America is opening many eyes.

Congressman Steve King, Republican of Iowa, on Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska announcing his support for Obamacare: “Ben Nelson has traded innocent unborn human lives, a fundamental moral principle, for a monetary concession – set aside exclusively for Nebraska.”

That's true.

Publius (pseudonym for the BigGovernment.com editorial board) admittedly put it plainer:

"We’ll be blunt. The ‘health care reform’ legislation under consideration in the Senate is the most corrupt piece of legislation in our nation’s history. Yes, we understand that is a strong statement and there have been other abominations throughout our nation’s life. But never before did corrupt legislation threaten to radically and forever change the live’s of every American.

"Exhibit A is the outright bribe extracted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Corn Huckster State) from Sen. Harry Reid. As a result of Nelson’s performance in his role of Hamlet in the health care deliberations, we will have two health care systems in this country; one for Nebraska and one for the other 49 states."

Wordier, but true too.

The passage of Obamacare looming now that Senator Nelson has been "bribed."

Why?

The answer is that the liberal media establishment wants it to be so and therefore has not reported the really "inconvenient truth" and the so-called conservative media, which should have focused on that, instead focused on the "Pimp and Pro" ACORN story, which does not involve Obama, and failed to focus America on the reality that Obama is really a well-trained radical community organizer tightly tied to ACORN, SEIU and La Raza and determined to implement their radical agenda as fast and fully as politically possible, regardless of the views of most Americans.

Michael Walsh wrote a two-part piece on the top ten underreported stories of 2009 but omitted the most important one: this year, like last year, the most important underreported story is that President Obama blatantly lied about his relationship with subversive, corrupt, criminal ACORN in order to fool the voters and win the presidency, ACORN had an illicit relationship with the Obama presidential campaign, The New York Times killed a pre-election Obama/ACORN expose on October 21, 2008 and the mainstream media either willfully or obliviously did not scrutinize Obama and instead whitewashed his ugly ACORN connections.

Walsh, in "Clueless’ Clark Alert: The Top Ten Undernews Stories of the Year, Part II" (December 18, 2009), listing ACORN as the second most underreported story of the year and explained why the mainstream media "ignored" the story: "Because 25-year old James O’Keefe and 20-year old Hannah Giles acted on a hunch, took a risk, sought the truth and shone a giant light on corruption. If it weren’t for media daredevil Andrew Breitbart their story would have never caused the shockwaves it did. The MSM is afraid of stories like Giles’s and O’Keefe’s because: 1) it makes them look useless; why aren’t the professionals breaking stories like this? How dare the tykes take the initiative? 2) The release method and style of the videos was intended to resonate with everyday Americans, not gain the approval of the media elites 3) The story had everything to do with a corrupt entity. And unfortunately, rather than exposing corruption the MSM has itself adopted a questionable and shady lifestyle."

Tragically, (1) Walsh is right about the mainstream media and (2) the "Pimp and Pro" ACORN story allowed Obama and Congressional Democrats to distance themselves in the public perception from ACORN. ACORN was dropped as a partner in the next census and a bill passed overwhelmingly by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by President Obama cut some funding to ACORN until a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against de-funding ACORN as a violation of the constitutional ban on bills ofattainder.

Fittingly (for an article posted at Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com), Walsh chose "the end of the media as we know it" as the most underreported story of the year and quoted Breitbart's explanation as to its importance: "The absolute admission by the reigning media class that they are not objective journalists and earnest gumshoe reporters is cause for celebration. The cabal that made sure George W. Bush became a toxic name to the body politic had even greater plans in 2008 when it offered up one-term senator and former Punahou School benchwarmer, Barack Obama, as the candidate of the millennium. Now that the deed is done, multiple scandals that would have felled mere-mortal presidents have gone completely unreported. Who needs Teflon when it’s not you who’s frying in the pan?"

Breitbart is right about the mainstream media not being objective (and admittedly not objective himself). But Breitbart and the "Pimp and Pro" ACORN story he masterminded did NOT put Obama in the frying pan (or on the griddle) and thus did not thwart Obama personally or the passage of Obamacare, a key part of the ACORN/SEIU/LaRaza political agenda.

For Obama to be thwarted, he must be exposed as a lying community organizer in the radical tradition of Saul Alinsky who considers himself above the "rules."

That's BAD.

How radical was Alinsky?

In Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, published in 1971, Alinsky quoted himself as follows: "Lest we forget at least an over-the nshoulder acknowledgement 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."

Alinksy and his ilk belong in Lucifer's 'kingdom," and none of Alinsky's faithful followers is fit to serve in a nation based on a belief in the God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Alinsky wrote (p. xviii): "First, there are no rules for revolution..., but there are rules for radicals who want to change their world....To know these is basic to a pragmatic attack on the system. These rules make the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one who uses tired old words and slogan...and has so stereotyped himself that others react by saying, 'Oh, he's one of those,' and then promptly turn off."

Obviously Obama learned the art of communication well.

Alinsky: "The failure of many of our younger activists to understand the art of communication has been disastrous. Even the most elementary grasp of the fundamental idea that one communicates within the experience of his audience--and gives full respect to the other's values--would have ruled out attacks on the American flag. The responsible organizer would have known that it is the establishment that has betrayed the flag while the flag, itself, remains the glorious symbol of America's hopes and aspirtations, and he would have conveyed this message to his audience."

To win the presidency, Obama wore an American flag lapel pin. (It calls to mind the comment of a king of France, Henry of Navarre, that "Paris is worth a Mass".)

To win passage of Obamacare, Obama cleverly put up the traditional White House creche after all and finally ordered a surge in Afghanistan. (First things first. Obama can't afford yet to show how radical he really is.)

Alinsky explained (p. xix): "AQs an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be--it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system."

Obama understands!

That means "bribes" for Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, in order to bring about the maximum "fundamental change" currently politically possible in what remains a center-right country.

Alinsky (pp. xxi-xxii):

"We will start with the system because there is no other place to start except political lunacy. It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be proceeded by reformation. To assume that a political revolution can survive without the supporting base of a popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics.

"Men don't like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience; they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives--agitate, create, disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate."

Obama understands.

Alinsky (pp. 78-79): "...the organizer must be able to split himself into two parts--one part in the arena of action where he polarizes the issue to 100 to nothing, and helps to lead his forces into conflict, while the other part knows that the time comes for negotiations that it really is only a 10 per cent difference--and yet both parts have to live comfortably with each other. Only a well-organized person can split and yet stay together. But this is what the organizer must do."

Obama understand that too. But he's going for "fundamental change," not "a 10 per cent difference," with Obamacare and planning to come back for the rest, even though the now aware American people prefer no change to Obamacare by a substantial majority.

If the truth about Obama and ACORN was generally known, Senators Nelson and Landrieu would not dare to back Obamacare.

But it is not. Instead, Breitbart, BigGovernment and Fox News focused on ACORN's penchant for facilitating crimes NOT involving Obama and Fox reached a detente with the Obama administration than secured Bill O'Reilly an invitation to a White House Christmas party (and maybe an ACORN cookie).

Michael J. Gaynor

No comments:

Post a Comment

How To Design A Damn Good, Untouchable Lifestyle in Just 6 Minutes.