rules for radicals (3)

by: Trent Derr - American Exceptionalism


As part of their dogma, the Left believes society only operates “fairly” when more power is concentrated in the Federal Government and fewer rights are exercised independently by individuals. In their view, one of the major purposes of the Government is to equalize outcomes across society (try to find that in the Constitution). Note that it’s the equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunities, that is their definition of fairness. To achieve that goal, Liberals need an excuse to take rights and responsibilities from individuals and shift that power to the Government. Then that Governmental power can be used to institutionalize fairness by passing laws and regulations that provide for the equality of outcomes across society. However in spite of these plans, the Left has a major cultural roadblock in their way. One of our traditional American values is to treasure and defend our individual rights. When Americans are thinking rationally, we rarely, if ever, voluntarily give up any of our rights.


When the Liberals want to influence American opinion on an issue, they need to overcome that obstacle. To do so, they use a consistent formula to warp the public perception in their favor. Their approach does not involve an in-depth analysis of the facts with the subsequent generation of possible alternatives to be evaluated. Frankly facts get in their way. Their strategy is simply based on manipulating the public’s emotions. Liberals want to generate guilty feelings or stir up hate or trigger rage. Their tactic is to generate strong emotions in the public and with those emotions shut down rational thought. Create a crisis. Create an injustice. Pretend there is no time to think about, discuss, or even read the bill. We have to act now! Sound familiar?  Continue...
Read more…

Rajjpuut's Folly: The Devils, You Say!

Three Leftist Books Every Informed

American Voter Should Read

Saul Alinsky: “Rules for Radicals”

Wade Rathke: “Citizen Wealth: Winning the Campaign to Save Working Families”


And the “last shall be first” it’s said, so we’ll begin by looking at Hillary Clinton’s Honor Thesis “There is Only the Fight . . .” An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. Not too much needs be said, the work speaks for itself. Alinsky is clearly a personal hero and Clinton fawns over him and his books “Reville for Radicals” and “Rules** for Radicals” like a blushing high school freshman. Both Alinsky and Hillary Rodham were native Chicagoans. Young Ms. Rodham interviewed Alinsky twice and was even offered a job by Alinsky but ultimately turned him down and went to law school instead. But her worship is, nevertheless TRUE LOVE, equating Alinsky in the summation with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Walt Whitman saying, “. . . each embraced that most radical of political faiths: Democracy.”

In this she appears willfuly ignorant that the country (which she said Alinsky was such a patriot of) is a Republic and that the methods Alinsky espouses are all “power plays” rather than having any basis in integrity or honor. Democracy to Alinsky means tyranny of the masses, or at least the tyranny of all those Alinsky can mass together for a demonstration. Alinsky calls himself a Marxist and, of course, Marxism seeks to replace the American Constitution more or less with “Das Kapital.” Rodham does mention numerous inconsistencies that she implied made her head swim (“After spending a year trying to make sense of his inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor” she described her turning down Alinsky’s job offer and heading off instead to law school). But she clearly admires Alinsky’s practical power in making things happen for the poor and yet is taken aback by notions that the ends justify the means and other inconsistencies. So unlike the Marxist ideologue Barack Obama who was raised a Communist from birth, Hillary Clinton, nee Rodham shows she’s been exposed to a another ethical approach to government.

This is why Clinton is so dangerous. Unlike the true believer and foreign-developed Marxist Barack Obama (who must act in pre-catalogued ways in accord with Das Kapital), Clinton is an American-developed semi-Marxist who like her husband really has a feel for American institutions and traditions. Expect Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2012 or expect Bill Clinton to do a body transplant into her body and run again that way. In any case we haven’t heard all there is to say from the Clintons and that is one great reason that reading this thesis is highly recommended by Rajjpuut.


Wade Rathke: Citizen Wealth: Winning the Campaign to Save Working Families is a recent book written by the founder of ACORN and SEIU and a lieutenant of George Wiley (who along with Cloward and Piven bankrupt NYC between 1968 and 1975). His latest imperatives? A. Using the internet to accelerate the demise of capitalism. B. “The Maximum Eligible Participation Solution” which is nothing more than an updated but apparently not improved (Thank God!) version of Cloward-Piven Strategy relying upon the ultra-leftist politicians to create some stupid program which the ultra-radicals on the street can abuse to every thinking person’s lament.

Mostly the book is a hodge-podge of community-organizer war stories with a bit of his perspective of “the future of community-organization.” Interestingly, Rathke has thus far defied ACORN’s recent firing of him and still works with three of their affiliate organizations (the ACORN name has been changed on Rathke’s orders to COI for Community Organizations International). Rathke’s brother Dale was involved in nearly $1 million worth of embezzlement from ACORN over many years and it appears that Wade covered-up the scandal for at least eight years – ah me, trouble in Utopia.

Anyone who reads this book has super-fodder for contradicting doubters who refuse to believe in Cloward-Piven and their plots and even in the bankruptcy of NYC by Rathke’s mentor George Wiley.


Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” is a small book with a big wallop. Starting out with the book’s dedication (to the devil no less!) through its repeated emphasis that the end justifies the means . . . one gets the picture quickly here: these are nasty people. Remember Hillary Clinton read it and wrote her thesis on it; Barack Obama read it and later taught a class in Rules for Radicals as well as practicing its tenets as an ACORN lawyer shaking down mortgage companies; Richard Cloward and Frances Piven read it and created their infamous Cloward-Piven Strategy. A must read for anyone interested in preventing progressive takeover of the USA.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


** This is NOT precisely true, Hillary's thesis was created in 1969 and Alinsky's Rules for Radicals was not published until 1971. The "second book" of Alinsky's was his "Training Manual" created some time after Reville for Radicals, and ever expanding. About 95% of the content of that TM went into his second book Rules for Radicals which showed his followers the evolution in his community organizing that took place over the next 25 years.

Read more…

Would Hillary Clinton Make a Better President
than Barack Obama?
The recent huge drop in favorable job ratings for President Barack Obama coupled with the resurgence in campaign-helper activity by ex-President Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton’s present status as a well-respected Secretary of State and the most-favored of notable Democrats for 2012 . . . begs four questions . . .
A. Does Hillary Clinton actually want to be President?
B. Could Hillary Clinton oust Barack Obama and become the Democratic standard-bearer in 2012?
C. Could Nominee Hillary Clinton win the presidency in 2012?
D. Would Hillary Clinton make a better president than Barack Obama?
The answer to question A is a clear not only “Yes, but hell Yes!” HRC craves power the way nymphomaniacs and Rajjpuut’s crave sex. She got within a heartbeat of being the Dems nominee in 2008, and she actually lost because she was cheated by Obama and again cheated when the Democratic national organization refused to honor her just grievances. Barack Obama won the nomination only because he was able to win thirteen of the fourteen caucus states by nefarious means like voter intimidation, dirty tricks (Black Obama supporters coming early and locking out Clinton supporters with chained doors, for example) and most infamously egregious bussing in of out-of-state supporters to yell at the top of their lungs during the proceedings.
Some of these states had dual primary voting and evening caucuses and Clinton actually won the voting in eight of them but was “swamped in the caucuses for eleven of the states. One wonders if the Democrats are going to continue such an antiquated and easily corrupted system in the future? In any case, she was cheated and knows she was cheated and it must rankle immensely.
Question B is far more problematical, could she oust Obama? Short of a complete collapse by Barack Obama, say to 25% overall favorability on job performance . . . it’s just NOT likely. She would likely be seen as a traitor to her party. Of course, Obama’s dirty tricks and overall lack of integrity could get him impeached IF the Republicans win the house and senate (technically, only the senate is necessary, but the chances for success clearly rely on huge popular outcry against him) and, of course, a reasonable impeachable offense.
Obama seemingly is going out of his way to rack up this opportunity for Republican opposition. Just plain old “incompetence” surely is an issue . . . his administration is amateur hour at best. The creation of a group of czars with clearly communist leanings who have shown themselves interested (in word and deed) in bringing down the government is virtual treason to many such as one Rajjpuut. Much of the Blagojevich and Sestak and Romanoff situations is very distasteful.
The corruption in handing out stimulus funds is enormous. The CCX conflict of interest scandal while pushing for cap and trade is an enormous evil. If it can be proved, and it well may be proved, that Obama gave the word to Ms. Fernandez and others in the DOJ to drop the voter intimidation case against the New Black panthers, and to refuse prosecuting cases against Black perpetrators when victims were White, and to refuse to investigate violations of the Motor Voter Act . . . that would do it also. Certainly, he’s not winning friends and influencing people with his despotic treatment of Arizona and outright refusal to protect our borders.
If an investigation into Obama’s background including that of his birthfather and his mother and grandfather and his mentor Frank Marshall Davis proves they are indeed, as Rajjpuut has long maintained, communists and it’s shown that he has made innumerable public falsehoods, that could do it also as far as impeachment. But the whole process would be tatamount to open revolution against the revolutionary Obama administration. Best would be if he’s found to be openly corrupt as Richard Nixon was . . . and he’s surely at least that bad . . . communists are lowlife scum believing that the ends always justify their notorious means, period.
So the best inroad for the 2012 nomination going to Hillary Clinton would seem to be ongoing, continued and even grosser incompetence by Obama resulting in the bottom dropping out of his favorability ratings . . . or . . . discovery of a clearly ugly and impeachable offense (not that UNlikely in Rajjpuut’s not-so-humble opinion). Obama, despite his three-pack a day cigarette habit, seems very healthy so death in office is not likely, and even then she’d have to overcome Joe Biden and would again be regarded as a great traitor unless Shoe-in-Mouth Joe self-destructs or chooses not to run. One thing’s for sure, if he’s breathing, Obama, the power-crazed incumbent, is definitely running in 2012 .
Question C Could she win the 2012 election? Based upon current events, NO, the progressives have tarnished the name of the Democrats so badly, drumming up enthusiasm for admittedly progressive HRC seems impossible! Could she win under other circumstances? Probably NOT. The Republican Party and the TEA Party would both have to completely lose their anchors for such an event to occur allowing the Democrats to grab virtually every Independent vote available. HRC most probably has missed her one opportunity, cheated out of her destiny (she had much higher ratings against McCain then Obama). However, she might have a chance as a vice-presidential nominee on the one hand . . . . and Ol’ Rajjpuut not actually being clairvoyant the last time we checked, she might overcome the many obstacles against her in a fashion not forseen by your favorite blogger and get the nomination and win . . . .
Question D is the rub? If she were nominated and elected would Hillary Clinton make a better president than Barack Obama? Clearly so, it’s hard to imagine anyone doing a worse job. Barack Obama has been called “the Anti-Christ” by some right-wing fundamentalists, but in Rajjpuut’s understanding, it’s hard to see, forget the Anti-Christ, how Satan himself could have done more to threaten the dissolution and collapse of the American Republic than Barack Obama has. Barack Obama, though no one seems to want to admit it is an utterly committed Marxist and he wants to create a totalitarian communist state to replace our Republic, period.
But the question becomes then, would she do a good job as president? And the answer is probably yes and probably no. On the one hand Clinton, whatever else she is, is a loyal American patriot. Barack Obama was NOT raised to be a loyal American patriot. On the same hand, Clinton and her husband Bill are immensely practical. When the Republicans stormed back in response to Hillary’s health care antics and Bill’s left-wing agenda in ’93 and ‘94, Bill Clinton retreated to the middle and did a largely yeoman like job. But Hillary is not Bill, in some ways she is very much like Barack Obama.
While Barack Obama was teaching a Constitutional law course in Chicago he was simultaneously teaching a course on Saul Alinsky’s infamous book “Rules for Radicals.” He became an Alinsky-styled community organizer, an ACORN attorney shaking down mortgage lenders to force them to make bad home loans to unqualified applicants. HRC grew up years earlier in Chicago’s suburbs and while in college was offered a job by Alinsky, which she turned down, but she wrote her honors thesis “There is Only the Fight . . .” subtitled “An Analysis of the Alinsky Model” and provided a glowing review of the man and his methods and goals . . .
so while Obama is a communist, progressive at best for you who refuse to believe the obvous, Hillary Clinton is a socialist and a self-admitted progressive (progressives see the Constitution as outdated and flawed and even ill-conceived in many cases and therefore in their greater wisdom, see a strong need to “progress” beyond the Founding Fathers’ vision.
So her vision of things is not different enough from Barack Obama’s that the country could count on her to restore us to solvency, let alone greatness. Like all progressives she sees “human equality” and wealth redistribution by government as the be-all-end-all . . . not understanding that the only equality that doesn’t threaten liberty is equality of opportunity. HRC, was after all, pushing for “Obamacare” before anyone knew who Obama was . . . and, like Obama, she was looking for far more government control of 16% of the nation’s economy and using it as a tool for wealth redistribution.
In sum, given that the touchstone for Obama and Hillary Clinton is Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” the most likely BEST and BRIGHTEST possible Democratic candidate for 2012, clearly has her own shortcomings. The best hope for the country in 2010 and 2012 seems to be an enlightened Republican Party held in check by the TEA Party and other independents holding their feet and the Democrats’ feet to the fire based upon their “Contract FROM America.”
‘Tis a sad state of affairs when the former greatest and most powerful country on earth finds its hopes come down to one viable political party . . . .
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Read more…