Obama and Alinsky: Take From Haves and Give to Have-Nots


Obama and Alinsky: Take From Haves and Give to Have-Nots

In his pamphlet on this topic, “Rules for Revolution”, David Horiwitz documents the strong connection between President Obama and Saul Alinsky, the radical revolutionary.

On page 31, he quotes and interprets Alinsky:

Alinsky’s book could easily be called Machiavellian Rules for Radicals, after the man who devised principles of statehood and advice for rulers in his book, The Prince. In Alinsky’s view, the difference between the unethical behavior counseled by Machiavelli and the unethical behavior he would like to see practiced by radicals lies solely in the fact that their political enemies are different. ‘The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,’ Alinsky writes, ‘Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-nots on how to take it away’.

For Alinsky, politics is a zero sum exercise, because it is war. No matter what Alinsky radicals say publicly or how moderate they appear, they are at war. This provides them with a great tactical advantage since other actors in the political arena are not at war. The other actors actually embrace the system, which commits all parties to compromise and to the peaceful resolution of conflicts. It commits them to a pragmatism of ends as well as means. Not every wish can be satisfied. By contrast, Alinsky radicals have an unwavering end, which is to attack the so-called Haves until they are finally defeated. In other words, to undermine the system that allows them to earn and possess more than others. Such a system, according to the radicals, is one of ‘social injustice,’ and what they want is ‘social justice.’ The unwavering end of such radicals is a communism of results.

End quote of David Horowitz.

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D.

To learn much more: Read the following: Click on Quick view.

Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model – Untitled

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
David Horowitz Freedom Center. PO Box 55089. Sherman Oaks, CA 91423. (800) 752-6562. Elizabeth@horowitzfreedomcenter.org http://www.frontpagemag.com
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/…/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20(2).pdfSimilar

Tags: , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Obama and Alinsky: Take From Haves and Give to Have-Nots”

  1. Obama and Alinsky: Take From Haves and Give to Have-Nots | Cultural Survival Skills Says:

    Idella Slot

    Obama and Alinsky: Take From Haves and Give to Have-Nots In his pamphlet on this topic, “Rules for Revolution”, David Horiwitz documents the strong connection between President Obama and Saul Alinsky, the radical revolutionary. On page 31, he quo…

    Like

  2. Austin Radish Says:

    Whats up! I just wish to give an enormous thumbs up for the nice information you have got right here on this post. I will likely be coming back to your weblog for extra soon.

    Like

  3. Jae Boas Says:

    Howdy! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Keep up the great work!

    Like

  4. coral sea splash resort Says:

    coral sea splash resort…

    […]Obama and Alinsky: Take From Haves and Give to Have-Nots «[…]…

    Like

  5. מקדם אתרים Says:

    מקדם אתרים…

    […]Obama and Alinsky: Take From Haves and Give to Have-Nots «[…]…

    Like

  6. vtmawhinney Says:

    Thanks for your extensive comments, Bruce. I know you to be a well-intentioned man, so I do not take insult to your objections to my blog themes.

    Answers to all of your many points will be very time-consuming.

    I will respond in segments, because of my time constraints.

    My first concern is with your use of the word “propaganda”. I state my opinion and judgments based upon a life-time of reading, private life and professional life as a student of human behavior (nearly 70 yr.). I do not censor the comments of others who disagree with me, I invite opposing views. I do not balance many of my comments, because I have already spent years balancing them in my analysis of them. I leave it to others to do whatever balancing they wish. I will provide my opinions and others can accept or reject them…or debate them, as we are now doing. That is how I wish to structure my blog.

    Propaganda is a poorly defined word that can be used to discredit almost any position (much as racist or homophobe can and is used to discredit legitimate concerns and perspectives). Opponents in debate often charge that their counterparts do not “tell it all”, or, are tellling partial truths. They are correct, sometimes, as it is impractical and unworkable to state all sides and all conflicting arguments about any topic. You will note that I provide citations to many of my assertions. My readers are encouraged to privide citations to their literature. That way readers can evaluate the quallity of supporting information for any position or argument, for or against their own.

    Actually, I am not a staunch Republican (I once voted for McGovern). At my age and stage, however, I am predominatley a strong conservative. I am strongly in favor of voting out flim-flamers, liers and cheats in both parties. I suppose that would be more humane than capital punishment for their treasonous behavior.

    Enough for now. VTM

    Like

    • Bruce Says:

      I stand by my assertion that the political climate of the day is filled with GOP propaganda:

      http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/oct/27/we-rate-2010-election-barely-true/

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130861732

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130836771

      FACT: immediately following the election of 2008 when the voters in America gave the Republican party a well deserved and resounding kick in the derriere, GOP central made it clear to their fellow Republicans that they will either tow the party line or be outcasts. Since then, the GOP has been titled ‘The Party of No’ for their blatant attempts to block any legislation in opposition to their #1 agenda – the financial benefit to the wealthy and big business.

      Now, in all fairness, this beholding to big business is also becoming prevalent in the Democratic party, and is the essence of what mean by the use of the terms ‘status-quo’ and the ‘establishment’.

      Look, long before Obama was elected the general public was voicing concern for the status of health care in this country. Obama is the first president to actually make reform happen and out come the claws. You can’t tell me that politics had nothing to do with that –
      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201010/yet-more-republican-lies-about-health-care-reform

      http://www.newsweek.com/2009/08/28/the-five-biggest-lies-in-the-health-care-debate.html

      http://ushealthcrisis.com/2009/07/three-big-gop-lies-on-health-care/

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080603854.html

      You know well my concerns relating to radical Islam and how it is my belief that liberalism is their path of least resistance to the attainment of their worldwide goal of totalitarianism. But I also feel that if the USA is to move forward, the GOP propaganda machine needs to be stopped as well.

      Like

      • vtmawhinney Says:

        Bruce, I will agree with you that Republican propaganda fills the air, but hope that you will agree with me that Democtrat propaganda fills the air, also. This is nothing new and I wish it would stop. I am sick of trying to know the truth. It really is very time-consuming and few people put the kind of effort into trying to know the truth that you and I do.

        Based upon my life experiences, I believe that conservative principles of smaller government, less spending, and more individual responsibility will lead to a stronger, wiser, and more moral population, as well as a socioculture better able to compete for survival in the world.

        I agree that liberalism is a path that Islam can exploit to achieve their goals, and liberalism is the path that progressives (who have transformed traditional liberalism into a socialist movement) can also take to achive their goals of world domination.

        On Obama Care, Please listen to the radio show bushwhack of a political staffer (Big Lies, July 20, 2009). For an underling, he did well. Notice that when he said his concern was that Obama Care will force millions to change insurance policies, he talked of companies dropping insurance and this forcing people onto government plans. The interviewer abruptly changed the topic. Well, it is in the news from different sources that many large companies are poised to do just this…This interview was in 2009, the realities of 2010 appear to be confirming at least this prediction.

        Obama Care was rammed down the throats of an electorate largely opposed to it. It was done in secret and, as Pelosi said, we need to pass this bill to find out what is in it…this is a close paraphrase (I saw her say this numerous times).

        I say no to Obama Care. VTM

        Like

  7. Bruce Says:

    Tom, I take it from your posts that you are a staunch Republican. While I understand your patriotism and eagerness to identify perceived dangers to the American way of life, I think you would benefit from a more central political perspective.

    From my point of view, with regard to the political jousting of the day, I believe what we are seeing is fear mongering by the “establishment” for what they, (being big corporations and politicians in their back pockets), see as being a trend which risks separating them from the status-quo. It is quite obvious to me that Obama is not as beholding to large corporations to the extent that the establishment would be comfortable, and that it is big business who is propagating the lies and misgivings surrounding this election year.

    I’ve received several political mailings from various GOP candidates and direct from the RNC. Each say exactly the same thing – “Obama is bad. The Whitehouse is bad. Health care is bad. Take America back.” and so on. What is suspiciously missing from these mailings is indicators of what GOP would do if returned to power, other than to repeal what Obama has worked toward, (a return to the same status-quo that caused the many issues facing us today), and the hinting of turning social security over to the “private sector”, which few would argue means turning a mega cash store over to the mega rich – the same mega rich who mismanaged their affairs so badly as to cause an economic nightmare, and the same mega rich who have demonstrated an insidious lack of honor and outright thievery.

    Imagine that if you will – Give the only real large pool of capital left in the government to the mega rich to extort and deplete, only to be graced with a slap on the wrist, a shrug from the establishment, and a hand extended to what is left of the middle-class to make up the difference. How does 2% population with all the wealth and 95% of the population in the poor house stack up as a preferable model toward fighting what you call a slant to socialism? Wouldn’t this effectually result in the same thing? How is the continued overburdening of an ever shrinking middle-class equate to a sustainable model?

    I’m fascinated by the outrage toward Obama’s health care bill, as so many people seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that the US already has government run health care. The military is tax payer based health care with govt paid doctors. Medicare/medicaid is tax payer based health care for many retirees, welfare recipients, and children with no insurance otherwise. The people who seem to suffer the most in this country are those who actually try to do the right thing, who end up getting very low paying jobs instead of being on welfare. They are the ones who can’t afford astronomical health bills, (including the small businessman who cant afford top rate insurance for his employees). I’d rather help those who are trying to help themselves than career welfare recipients.

    Tom, at the heart of the right wing propaganda is partial truths. The full truth puts them in as bad a light as the next politician. Let me state again what I’ve stated in the past – Tom, your misgivings are incomplete. Why do you not post articles concerning the atrocities of the right wing if what you are truly interested in is the saving of America?
    You state that you are against the taking of money from those with money and giving to those without money. I’m more against the taking of money from those with some money and giving it to those with most of the money already. At least if you give money to those without, chances are that they will spend the money. Rich people do not become rich because they spend – trickle down economics is a fallacy.

    Respectfully,

    Like

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


%d bloggers like this: