Obama wants Nihilism - It means nothing to me!

"No other occupant of the White House can it be said that he owed his understanding of the political process to a man and a philosophy so outside the American mainstream, or so explicitly dedicated to opposing it. The following provides an analysis of the political manual that Saul Alinsky wrote, which outlines his method for advancing radical agendas. The manual was originally titled “Rules for Revolution” which is an accurate description of its content. Later, Alinsky changed the title to "Rules for Radicals."

"Some may want to reconsider what Obama may have really meant on election eve 2008 when he told his followers: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

“Nihilism” comes from the Latin nihil, or nothing, which means not anything, that which does not exist. It appears in the verb “annihilate,” meaning to bring to nothing, to destroy completely.

Nihilism is also the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.  - and so how does an Alinsky radical's "political nihilism" affect our "American Way of Life"?

"The Alinsky radical has a single principle - to take power from the "Haves" and giveSaul Alinsky it to the "Have-nots". What this amounts to in practice is a "political nihilism" - a destructive assault on the established order in the name of the “people” (who, in the fashion common to dictators, are designated as such by the revolutionary elite). This is the classic revolutionary formula in which the goal is power for the political vanguard who get to feel good about themselves in the process."

"Unlike the Communists who identified their goal as a Soviet state - and thereby generated opposition to their schemes - Alinsky and his followers organize their power bases without naming the end game, without declaring a specific future they want to achieve - socialism, communism, a dictatorship of the proletariat, or anarchy. Without committing themselves to concrete principles or a specific future, they organize exclusively to build a power base which they can use to destroy the existing society and its economic system."

"By refusing to commit to principles or to identify their goal, they have been able to organize a coalition of all the elements of the left who were previously divided by disagreements over means and ends." This particular strategy has worked well under Obama to engage other supporters outside his circle. A major complaint is that Obama never offers detailed plans or reasons as he goes forward in his administration. So, without naming his end game, whether it be the Federal Budget Plans, Spending Programs or Presidential policies Obama avoids Congresswoman Nancy Pelosiconfrontational opposition and division overall to build support for his ultimate goals. I believe Nancy Pelosi said it best, "We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it." - so just don't ask for any details to avoid opposition or division ...Sound familiar?

Obama's Rule Book - Learn About Them

Now finally you can get answers on why you have always felt those strange feelings about how odd the Obama presidency started out running so fast and hard to drive the whole country into the toilet financially while growing government intrusion everywhere.

My book review contains excerpted materials directly from "Barack Obama's Rules For Revolution" book by David Horowitz, conservative speaker and writer, to illustrate some of the factual content. The author's extensive research, easy to understand terminology and storyline provide an informative overview to help understand who, what, why and where Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" book fits into President Obama's life as a community organizer and Alinsky's's agenda in planning our country's future.  It also tells how Hillery Clinton met Saul Alinsky personally, wrote her college thesis on his book, "Rules for Radicals", and has followed his program herself - you really can't make this stuff up!  

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is first of all a comradely critique of the sixties’ New Left. What bothers Alinsky about these radicals is their honesty - which may have been their only Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinskyredeeming feature. While the Communist Left pretended to be Jeffersonian Democrats and “progressives” and formed “popular fronts” with liberals, the New Left radicals disdained these deceptions, regarding them as a display of weakness. To distinguish themselves from such popular front politics, sixties radicals said they were revolutionaries and proud of it. New Left radicals despised and attacked liberals and created riots at Democratic Party conventions. Their typical slogans were “Up against the wall motherf-ker” and “Off the pig”, telegraphing exactly how they felt about those who opposed them.

The most basic principle of Alinsky’s advice to radicals is to lie to their opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals. Deception is the radical’s most important weapon, and it has been a prominent one since the end of the sixties. Racial arsonists such as Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright pose as civil rights activists; anti-American radicals such as Bill Ayers pose as patriotic progressives; socialists pose as liberals. The mark of their success is reflected in the fact that conservatives collude in the deception and call them liberals as well.

Alinsky writes of the “revolutionary force” of the 1960s that its activists were “one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians yet they also urge violence and cry ‘Burn the system down!’. They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of Stokley Carmichael & Alinskyillusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book. I once had a Trotskyist mentor named Isaac Deutscher who was critical of the New Left in the same way Alinsky is. He said that American radicals such as Stokely Carmichael were “radical” in form and “moderate” in content; they spoke loudly but carried a small stick. Instead, he said, they should be moderate in form and radical in content. New Left radicals despised and attacked liberals 'world as it is’ and ‘the world as it should be’. And he said that, all too often, we accept the distance between the two and we settle for the 'world as it is’, even when it doesn’t reflect our values and aspirations.”

In the same vein, Alinsky chides New Leftists for being “rhetorical radicals” rather than “realistic.” New Leftists scared people but didn’t have the power to back up their threats. The most important thing for radicals, according to Alinsky, is to 'deal with the world as it is' and not 'as they might want it to be'. Alinsky added, "As an organizer I start from the world 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 the 'world should be' - it is necessary to begin where 'the world is' if we are going to change it to what we think the 'world should be'. That means working in the system."

This is the passage from which Michelle Obama selected lines to sum up her husband’s vision at the Democratic convention that nominated him for president in August 2008. Referring to a visit he made to Chicago neighborhoods, she said:

“And Barack stood up that day, and he spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘the world as it is’ and ‘the world as it should be.’ And he said that, all too often, we accept the distance between the two and we settle for the world as it is, even when it doesn’t reflect our values and aspirations.” She concluded: “All of us are driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do - that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be."

The Alinsky Strategy: Boring From Within

Conservatives think of war as a metaphor when applied to politics. For radicals, the war is real. That is why when partisans of the left go into battle, they set out to destroy their opponents by stigmatizing them as “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes” and “Islamophobes.” It is also why they so often pretend to be what they are not (“liberals” for example) and rarely say what they mean. Deception for them is a military tactic in a war that is designed to eliminate the enemy.

CLICK ON PICTURE TO READ BOOK ONLINEBarack Obama’s Rules for Revolution

The Alinsky Model

David Horowitz

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” - Barack Obama, Election Eve, 2008.

Barack Obama is an enigma, a mystery in a puzzle. He won the 2008 presidential election claiming to be a moderate and wanting to bring Americans together and govern from the center. But since he took office, his actions have been far from moderate. He has apologized to foreign dictators abroad for sins he alleges his own country committed, by-passed congress through executive orders and appointed other radicals to top White House posts. He has used the economic crisis to take over whole industries and has nationalized the health care system. In his first term in office, these actions had already made his presidency one of the most polarizing in history. The second term has only exacerbated more problems in both national and international affairs.

The online book has a small footprint due to its "pocketbook size", only fifty-six pages, so it is a quick read.  It does offer, still, a complete overview which will not disappoint the reader of Saul Alinsky's book.  (CLICK ON THE PICTURE TO READ THE BOOK ONLINE) 

Copyright 2009

David Horowitz Freedom Center

PO Box 55089

Sherman Oaks, CA 91423

(800) 752-6562

Obama & UN Agenda 21 Gun Control Laws

ISecretary of State John Kerry's "White Flag" Global-Test Plan Kit.t recently came to my attention about a letter from the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, UNODA, that has been sent around the Internet. The issue according to the letter is about the UN Agenda 21 outlawing and confiscating of firearms through codifying laws to make illegal the possession of firearms and ammunition.

The footer below the main article contains an image of the UNODA Letter that has been sent around the Internet. It contains "official UN" gun control directives overriding U.S. Constitutional law that will certainly inflame the ire of many of the Second Amendment advocates, and maybe that is the point?  It has basically been debunked by most as a phony letter due to erroneous document numbers, irregular UN logo, incorrect meeting dates, misspelled words and defective bar code symbology at the bottom of the letter. Still, some have pursued it further to make sure. They have followed up with the UN, several say they actually spoke to some representatives, others say they have not heard back yet which breathes life into conspiracy theories that may or may not be true.  

Introduction

Although that Internet UNODA letter was apparently a ruse, the firearms confiscation issue is at the crux of many people's real concern. Jack Sloan brings out an even balanced analysis that embraces the whole matter which is really about an attack by the UN Agenda 21 Program on our sovereignty and Constitutional rights to bear arms. Secretary of Defense John Kerry wants to unconstitutionally sign our 2nd Amendment away with his signature on this treaty as soon as it is passed by Congress - John Kerry and Barack Obama, however, have no such unilateral powers to do so either.  

Arms Trade Treaty…… Be Afraid… Be Very Afraid

Written on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 by Jack Sloan - Patriot Update

Bio: Jack G. Sloan is a freelance writer who has written in many different genres from short stories and technical writing, to daily devotionals and political editorials.UN Agenda 21 Gun Muzzle

"The UN Arms Trade Treaty, in spite of what you might have heard, is not about gun registration. It states that it, “seeks to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security.” It is not about peace and security. Study this treaty and you will see it is perfectly setup for outlawing gun ownership.

• I know the overwhelming sentiment is that it will not pass the Senate. However, this is way too important, just to trust that it is not going to pass.

John Kerry has stated; The Arms Treaty will not “interfere with national sovereignty, or infringe on the rights of American citizens, including our Second Amendment rights to bear arms,” and he affirmed that he would sign it.

The administration has quoted from the treaty to indicate that it was not an issue for domestic guns. “Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system.”

The problem is that this and every other quote they have used to validate their position, in fact is not in the treaty. They have all been quotes from the preamble and are not binding. The preamble is nothing more than the desired “PR”; this is what they want the public to perceive as intent. The preamble ends with the words, “Have agreed as follows” thereafter, is the binding part of the treaty.

• The full text of the UN Arms Trade Treaty can be viewed, on the UNODA Web Site. UNDOA is the “United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs” (Note: English portion of treaty starts pg.22)

This treaty deliberately uses vague language, leaving it open to broad interpretation, which is never good. Let me explain just one of the ways, it would be easy, to go from having Second Amendment rights, to guns being outlawed in a very short time.

Article 2 “Scope” (1.) “This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following (a) Battle Tanks, …(h) Small arms and light weapons.” (2.) “For the purposes of this Treaty, the activities of the international trade comprise export, import, transit, trans-shipment and brokering, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”“

Small arms and light weapons, ok, that pretty much covers everything. They will continue to say that it is just for export, international trade.

Article 5 “General Implementation” (2.) “Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.”

This is national registration, but not for just guns,  Article 3 includes ammunition,  Article 4 includes parts and components. They will maintain that this again is just for the treaty dealing with exports and imports, “international trade” however, according to the treaty we do have to account for everything.  I am sure they will show you pictures of child soldiers from some corner of the world, “this is what it is all about, it’s for the children” they will say.

Article 5 & 13 both require that the “national control list” be shared with all Parties of the treaty. You were concerned about our government having a list of all gun owners, what about all the nations that sign the treaty.

Once this is in place where all gun sales, transfers, ammo purchases, all part and component purchases will be part of the “national control system.” Most likely, it will go through FFL dealer or perhaps some new entity, as part of the “national control system, including a national control list.” I am sure they will make the transition easier by drastically reducing cost of processing.

They wouldn’t attempt anything diabolical. You know, like creating an ammunition shortage and then after the “national control system” is in place, cancel all government contracts for ammo. Creating a glut on the market driving prices down, causing increased purchasing. Thereby reduce the time needed to develop the “national control list.” I doubt that it is anything like that, it is probably something simple, the DHS just needed a 1000 rounds more per man than the Army for their dedication to be the best, or killing nonconformist, which ever comes first.

Then they will say, oh, wait a minute. Article 2 (2) states, “For the purposes of this Treaty, the activities of the international trade comprise export, import, transit, trans-shipment and brokering, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”” We now realize that an FFL dealer is functioning as a “broker” therefore domestic guns, ammo, and parts fall under all Articles of the treaty. [bro-ker (1.) One that acts as an agent for others, as in negotiating contracts, purchases, or sales in return for a fee or commission.]

Now we are just one easy step away. They will come up with something like, In view of the fact that we have proof of violations of Article 11 “Diversion” They will perhaps use “Fast and Furious” or something like it that has yet to be detected.

They will almost certainly “double down” with something like, in addition to this our close neighbor to the south has voiced their feelings of “undermined peace and security” due to this diversion and the overwhelming quantity of privately owned guns. The president will declare that in keeping with the spirit of Article 15 and to “facilitate international cooperation” with support and solidarity for the UN Arms Treaty we agree that private ownership of guns, ammo, parts, “would contribute to or undermine peace and security” [Article 7 (a).] Therefore, all possession of guns, ammo or parts is from this point forward illegal. Since we already have the list, expect a visit, if you do not report to reclamation center. How many years has the left has been saying, that the fact we own guns undermines their peace and security?

According to Article 14 “Enforcement” they can only use “appropriate measures to enforce,” I’m sorry what did we decide appropriate measures were again? Oh, yea, Drone strikes, I forgot.

Article 16 “International Assistance” Any Party of the treaty can seek assistance. “Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.” You might want to read that again. That’s just scary.

They will say that I am just perverting the intended meaning, maybe, maybe not. What makes you think someone in power would interpret it any different. Why should they, if this interpretation suits their needs? Of course, if they really have a problem selling this interpretation, Article 20 says they can amend the treaty with just “a three-quarters majority vote of the States Parties present and voting.” Three-quarters majority of those present, oh… this is such a good idea.

We really need to be harrying our representatives, from the highest down, petition the government for a redress of grievances, loudly. We need to be talking to our friends, co-workers, anybody and everybody and get them to contact their representatives.

The Conservative Caucus is a great source for contact information including your representatives, fax, email, etc…

I believe our country stands at great peril on many fronts. The only good solution is if “we the people” wake up and get involved. The culture of lethargy that has been propagated has made our response ruefully late and thus the need is desperately urgent. We must be armed with the truth and than personally campaign to do away with the uninformed and the misinformed. If we are diligent, America might just survive without things turning far uglier than any of us would ever want to see."

FACTOID: Below is the image of the UNDOA Letter that has been sent around the Internet. 

Obamacare Payers Take Hook, Line & Sinker

The Republican and Democrat Capitol Hill politicians believe they are better than the rest of us, more valuable to society than us that deserve the Obamacare subsidy waivers as their work is too important while the work we do is meaningless. Both sides of the aisle also cry that they would experience a "brain drain" due to their youthful, less financially abled, Capitol Hill aides who spurred by the threat of spiking health insurance costs would head out elsewhere for better, well-paying jobs if not included too. So, give them all waivers and breathe a big sigh of relief: WHEW! - I'm sarcastic, just kidding.

The Obamacare insurance premium increases won't even be unconsciously noticed by Capitol Hill aides as members of congress and their staffs will be able to purchase the most expensive Cadillac Health Plans available on the exchange since Politicians are going to squeeze it out the wallets of millions of American families. Does this mean that we pick up the bill for all their 75% health insurance subsidies? -- In Obama's own words, "YES WE CAN!"

Meanwhile, all other Americans, with no subsidies, must by Federal Law pay for their mandated Obamacare coverage starting in 2014 as scheduled. However, some employers and employees cannot access any state government insurance exchanges because not every state is going to exchanges. How much it will cost to buy health insurance on these new exchanges is still unknown too, some states are predicting double digit increases in current private plan premiums. The health insurance rates will all depend on the allowable coverage and deductibles for wellness program visits, primary care, speciality care, hospital care, out-patient care and the bureaucratic red-tape and time involved to go through the healthcare system.

Starting next year, we'll be asked about health insurance when we file our taxes. We have to tell the I.R.S. whether we have insurance coverage or not. Many will simply refuse to pay for insurance, but they will find out the hard way that the government tells them what to do or else.  Ha! Ha! Ha! - Jokes on them, they voted for Obama! If you don’t have coverage, you’ll pay the penalty.  The individual penalty under the Obamacare Affordable Care Act is $95 or one percent of your income, whichever is greater. So if you earn $40,000, you’d pay $400 or buy a federal subsidized insurance policy for about $315 a month/$3,780 a year. By 2016, the penalty ratchets up to 2.5 percent of your income. So, if you earn $40,000, you'd pay $1000 -- And, if it's like any other I.R.S. government tax programs, the I.R.S. levies, fines and penalties keep piling right on top!

Bottom line: Obama believes "the people" will buy Obamacare health insurance because they need it. - Not really, because they are forced by the I.R.S. to buy it. How many young adults need so much coverage, except for major medical, when they are healthy under 30?  They really don't, but they must pay for all of the eldercare doctors and other's hospital bills in the healthcare system. It's also lucky for the many other "disadvantaged Democrat voters" who have the government to help them pay for Obamacare along with their food stamps (SNAP - Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program), welfare checks, disability checks, housing checks and childcare checks, just to name a few federal and state assistance programs.

George Carlin told the truth as it was...Why did Obama give businesses a pass on joining into Obamacare until 2015?  And give the insurance companies a delay in capping out-of-pocket expenses postponed indefinitely while creating enormous premium profits? And why is Obamacare collecting premiums for a ten year period according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  while paying out benefits for six years? How can Obama be double counting medicare cuts as overall General Budget line item savings and then also recasting them as paying down on Obamacare costs in order to "balance" the Affordable Care Act budget too? - And don't even pretend that you think that the "normal", "Joe-average" voter can comprehend these budget manipulations, just refer to George Carlin's assessment of them.

You working stiffs better get an extra job otherwise the others can't live up to the life style they are accustomed to in the United States - And you think I'm joking? - Just watch your payroll taxes grow and paycheck take-home pay shrink further!

It Doesn't Take A Psychic To See Obama's Future

Question: Haven't you seen people that you know what they're going to do before anything happens?  Sounds psychic, mysticalCarnac the Magnificant and clairvoyant; but in practice, it's just the art of listening! So, put down your smart phones, tablets, iPods and pull out your ear buds to listen to what is being said directly to you, the electorate. 

You are being warned repeatedly by this President about his threats to the checks and balances in our Constitutional Government. The United States was never intended to be a parliamentary system and yet Obama ignores the two other branches of government - the Judiciary and Congress.

Dictator Benito Mussolini - "Il Duce" ("the Leader") Created the Fascist Party in Italy.Obama is rebalancing the system toward a "national-leader model" that is alien to the American tradition.  It is Meta-leadership, a model to build government connectivity, overarching leadership that intentionally connects the purposes and work of different organizations or organizational units. Thinking and operating beyond their immediate scope of authority as the titular head, the meta-leader entirely provides guidance, direction, and momentum across organizational lines that develop into a shared course of action and a commonality of purpose among people and agencies that are doing what may appear to be very different work to leverage system assets, information, and capacities, particularly critical functions for government. It is not democratic governance by or for the people, but autocratic leadership merging into unbridled totalitarian rule that imperiously seeks to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary for the common good of all the people.

A "national-leader model" is not a constitutional democracy that is constrained and limited by ingrained bureaucratic patterns of behavior. A constitutional democracy has a judiciary branch of justices making decisions based on constitutional laws and a legislative branch of representatives of the people who are proposing, passing and signing into law legislation that is mandating, establishing or regulating society as a check and balance to counter the powers of the President in the executive branch who is administering the legislation to uphold the will of the people. 

So, Obama's vision of our nation's future is devoid of any individual constitutional rights, infrastructure or guidelines, a country that truly is without misconceptions - what you see is what you get - and it ain't much, as the government excesses and largess drains its treasury to rob its citizens of their wealth, freedom and future. It is a battle of redefining the government's role as a servant of the people verses growing the over-powerful, ever-oppressant, bloated, centralized federal nanny-state bureaucracy redistributing wealth.

Relying on many to forget, it was just back during the 2010 State of the Union Speech that Obama denounced the Supreme Court Justices seated in front of him. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. winced at Obama's accusation and muttered, "Not true" under his breath, as he respectively remained quietly seated. Obama was extremely rude many said; an act of intimidation of one branch of government by another. Obama's repeated flouting of their decisions on labor issues and voting rights with Eric Holder are undermining its institutional authority, as Obama intended.

Obama and the punditocracy, his opinionated expert savants, branded House Republicans as "GRIDLOCK". This condemnation is true about "The House of Representatives", the one branch of government "representing the views of all Americans", which is chosen by this electorate to vote for them - So Obama is directly blaming the American people for all his gridlock problems with the code word "Congress".

Obama criticizes Congress, which is the American people themselves, as he mocks them over and over again by saying things like they have: "the endless parade of distractions", "political posturing", "made things worse", "ignored problems", "manufactured crises" and "created phony scandals".  Obama excoriates his "Congressional bogeymen" while standing arms length away from their supporters in order to still pander for their votes in the upcoming mid-term elections - it will be a big game changer if Obama loses his political clout, his cache', in attracting voter turnout and more donations.

Obama has at least four references in a recent speech to his intent to act on his own authority, as he interprets it: "That means whatever executive authority I have to help the middle class, I'll use it." (Applause.) And: "We're going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress." (Applause.) (July 24, 2013 speech at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill.) It's very painful watching an audience applaud as Obama punches them in the face by attacking their chosen, duly elected "Congressmen" that Obama now has deemed to "put party and politics over the nation interests". Twisting the facts to the contrary, however, will not deny that it's still the will of the people's "Congressional Representatives" who are putting the national interests first over Obama's own party and partisan politics.

But in this administration, Obama is now free-wheeling on his own Presidential fiat that guarantees him open range on whatever he decides to do. That is up to and including dumping any laws as passed by congress or whether he is obligated to execute any laws either.

An unchecked, unbalanced Presidential system finally arrives!

Is the U.S. a Democracy or Obamaocracy?