Author Archives: Barry Kelly

About Barry Kelly

Author of "Justice Beyond Law," "Justice Without Mercy," "Shades of Justice," "Justice Without Mercy," and "Run to Freedom," as well as two ,"nonfiction books ,"INSIGHTS-The Transforming of America," and "INSIGHTS-Stepping Stones to Tyranny. He also is the author of the blog "8 Decades of Insights." Barry Kelly is no stranger to the world of espionage, counter-terrorism, weapons, deep cover, and the inner workings of the governmental security apparatus. His immersion in the Cold War began with enlistment in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War. Following his discharge, he earned a BA from the University of Pittsburgh and a master’s degree from Duke. His career in the CIA included deep cover operations and overseas experience, primarily in South and Southeast Asia. He has been awarded the Certificate of Merit with Distinction, the Intelligence Medal of Merit, the Cross of Gallantry with Silver Star, the Distinguished Intelligence Medal and the Intelligence Officer of the Year Award. After retiring from the CIA, Kelly served as a special assistant to President Reagan. He holds a first dan black belt in hap-ki-do. Visit www.factsandfictions.com or find the author on Facebook.

by Barry Kelly | March 7, 2013 · 6:46 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 39

OBAMA’S FLAWS

After winning the last election with a brilliant, if ugly, campaign and besting the House Republican leadership at nearly every encounter, President Obama is looking invincible. If he had ten percent of the wisdom of Saul Alinsky, his radical political guide and now deceased Chicago community organizer, he would be. But he doesn’t. I doubt that Mr. Alinsky would have selected Barack Obama from the ranks of his followers

AMERICA: HE THINKS YOUR STUPID AND HE’S GONNA PLAY YOU ‘TILL THE BITTER END (Photo credit: SS&SS)

to be his standard bearer. Obama doesn’t have the right experience, a strong enough intellect, or the tough courage that a true revolutionary needs. He would be a better leader and manager if he did. The Obama flaw that will in the end thwart his socialistic transformation of America lies in his personality traits. Before going further in our look into President Obama’s basic flaws, though, we need to look at ourselves.

The American people are not imbued with the same cultural traits as the pre WWII Germans, Japanese, Russians, or Chinese, all who fell captive to attractive ideologies and charismatic leaders. We distrust too much government, at least in the center/right of our people. We have a personal and national belief in the power of the individual. We can name individual Americans who built our nation and protected our freedom. Our first (or for the record our second president) George Washington walked away from becoming a president/king. While our past leaders have had personal political ambitions, they managed to serve the nation in times of crisis rather than self or party. With them the issue was always the issue, unlike President Obama where the issue is never the issue. Saul Alinksy taught the Progressives to use every issue in any way to destroy the existing form of government to prepare the way for a more just society.

This is where President Obama’s flaws are exposed by his slavish adherence to Alinky’s teaching. The American people do not respect those whose word cannot be trusted. Obama is not subtle enough to jump to opposite sides of issues in his zeal to use all issues to destroy the opposition party. First he was for sequestration and then he was against it. No reason or rationale for the switch. We would have accepted good explanations for shifting. Instead he denies, or, more accurately, pretends he made no change. It is, was, and always will be the fault of someone else. When your word is no good, you cannot fool the people by always blaming someone else. He plays the tough guy president worse than Nixon did. Personally I believe Obama is the wimpier of the two. If you don’t respect the people enough to treat them with respect, do not expect them to respect you, Mr. President. When the people lose their respect for a president, they also distrust said president. From distrust it is an almost inevitable step to being embarrassed by the president’s words, demeanor and actions. Who is this person? After embarrassment come the jokes. That is the point of no return. Game over.

The president’s arrogance, narcissistic behavior, disdain for any opposition, willingness to make wild and scary claims, and his general dislike of Americans and our national history and culture all make it almost a certainty he will never transform America in his image. Thank God. But keep your guard up.

By the author of the Jack Brandon thriller series.

Eight Decades of Insights 37 (factsandfictions.com)
The Real Barack Obama (nationalreview.com)
Obama Prepares to Community-Organize America (frontpagemag.com)
Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor (seniorcitizenspublicsquare.com)

4 Comments

Filed under Intelligence & Politics

Tagged as acorn, Barack Obama, Chicago, George Washington, Obama, President, Republican, Saul Alinsky, United States

by Barry Kelly | March 4, 2013 · 12:59 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 38

OBAMA’S LEGACY

The president has almost four years left to serve. It is presumptive to judge his legacy at this point. But it is not too early to look at the last four years and discuss what he may want his legacy to be. After all, aren’t presidential or anyone’s legacies derived more from results rather than words?

English: President Obama in Tucson: “The Forces that Divide Us are Not as Strong as Those that Unite Us” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I can not score the president’s work on important issues, such as unemployment, energy self-sufficiency, taxation policies, immigration, debt reduction, balance of trade, strategic military, or foreign policies. Or even health care. You see, I believe none of these issues in themselves are important to President Obama. He gives constant partisan speeches on the issue of the moment. Sometimes on both sides of the issue. But the issue is never the issue. In President Obama’s world issues are the tools used to destroy the opposition. He has total flexibility and even moral authority to use any side of any issue at any time to attack the opposition. How else could any rational person, let alone a sitting President, be openly in favor of Sequestration, sign it into law, threaten to veto any legislation that tries to change its implementation and blame the Republicans for the projected spending cuts?

Let’s take the immigration issue. Obama’s only interest in immigration is to secure the vast majority of the Hispanic vote for the Progressive Party, formerly called the Democratic Party. The last thing he wants is for the Republicans and the Democrats to work together to bring about an immigration policy that is good for the Nation, fair for the immigrants and acceptable to both parties. If that happens, how can he use the immigration issue to attack the opposition. Remember when he was first running for President, he clearly told Hispanics that he would bring about immigration reform as his first legislative effort. But, no, socializing the health industry was a more important use of the issues available to him. The Hispanics could wait. They would vote for him anyway. His analysis was brilliant. The opposition still hasn’t figured out what happened. Except one seventh of the US economy is now under federal government control. Not a bad start when your real program is to transform American into a Socialist (elitist) top down managed economy like Europe or Cuba.

When you can take a issue, such as Debt Reduction, that the vast majority of Americans favor and turn it into a partisan attack on the Opposition that is a political genius at work. President Obama even has respectable, or formerly respectable Democrats, chanting “there is no spending problem.” Where have they been. I thought every informed American knew we are borrowing forty cents for every dollar we spend. How can that not be a spending problem? Turning to Clint Eastwood‘s talking chair we learn if the rich were just willing to pay a little higher taxes, the debt could be paid off. The truth is if we taxed the rich at 100% it would make very little difference in the national debt.

The only result President Obama and his insiders want for a legacy is, they transformed America into a one party government run by a progressive elite. At this point they are on schedule.

by the author of the Jack Brandon thriller novels. http://www.factsandfictions.com

Pages: 1 2

4 Comments

Filed under Alinsky, class warfare, Conservative views, Intelligence & Politics

Tagged as Barack Obama, Democratic Party (United States), DREAM Act, Hispanic, Immigration, Progressive, Republicans, United States

by Barry Kelly | February 26, 2013 · 1:49 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 37

OBAMA‘S SEQUESTRATION

Sequestration is as dumb as GOING OVER THE CLIFF. Can you even remember what that was about? We’re talking about 2% of the annual budget. Of course we don’t have a budget even though an annual budget is required by law. So sequestration is 2% of what the president might spend. I’m sure he will try to exceed his past record of overspending one trillion plus. Two percent wouldn’t even be noticed in the final accounting. Government spending will still be more this year than last. How is that for fiscal discipline? Oh, don’t overlook that the 2% is only to be applied to discretionary spending. Mandatory spending where we really spend money won’t be touched. We will still spend one trillion plus more

English: President Barack Obama signs the Budget Control Act of 2011 in the Oval Office, Aug. 2, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

than we take in. Taxing all the rich people in America at the 100% rate will not pay down our $17 trillion debt so you could notice the difference. Only drastic spending cuts, inflation and growth can make real inroads on our national debt. What combination appeals to you?

Where did sequestration come from? It seems very clear that this is one of those Alinsky issues where the issue is never the issue. How else can you explain President Obama being on both sides of sequestration? The idea, according to the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance committee, came from President Obama. Some White House staffers said the same thing when the White House backed sequestration. Author Robert Woodward also reports the idea came from the president. It was the president who used sequestration to force a Republican House to come up with a balanced plan. In Obama terminology debt reduction is done through revenue (disguised word for taxes) and investment (another disguise for increased government spending). There would also be token cuts in the rate government spending increases. Isn’t it strange the Congressional Super Committee failed to reach agreement? Without further deep cuts in federal spending, sequestration cuts will have a marginal effect.

When the failure of the super committee was apparent, President Obama said he would veto any bill to change sequestration. Now when sequestration is imminent, it is now longer the president’s child. He claims it was a Republican idea. It is now an issue to be used to blame the hapless Republicans, who are outgunned when it comes to explaining their views with a message they don’t have. The really stupid part of sequestration is that it is an across the board cut with no discretion for the executive to cut marginal programs and not vital ones. This is a power President Obama doesn’t want for if sequestration hurts no one, he cannot use it to diminish the opposition party. The far left, where Obama lives, is salivating at the chance to cut the defense budget. In the grand scheme of deficit reduction, sequestration is much ado about nothing. Watch the president’s actions. Pay no attention to his words. Like the weather, if you don’t like them just wait a few days.

By the author of the Jack Brandon thriller series. www.factsandfictions.com

Senator Baucus: Sequestration Was Obama’s Idea (nationalreview.com)
LAMBRO: Sequestration was Obama’s idea in the first place (washingtontimes.com)
President Obama’s Sequestration Lie (independentsentinel.com)
Exposed: Obama’s Hysterical Reaction to “Sequestration” (townhall.com)

2 Comments

Filed under Alinsky, Conservative views, fiscal cliff, Intelligence & Politics

Tagged as Barack Obama, Budget, Government spending, Obama, politics, Republicans, Sequestration, United States, White House

by Barry Kelly | February 19, 2013 · 4:09 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 36

PLAYING THE ISSUES

If you have been following my recent blogs, you know I believe President Obama is following the guidance of Saul Alinsky, a brilliant radical tactician. The core of Alinky’s teaching is that “the issue is never the issue.” The only goal is the destruction of the existing order and replacing it with the Progressive (socialist/communist) blueprint for a new and better world where everyone gets a fair shot and everyone pays their fair share. Under this political social philosophy, even a discussion of ends justifying the means is meaningless. If you are striving for power, the means are always morally justified. This strategical approach gives anyone using it incredible flexibility. They can change sides at any time it appears advantageous. The first step in creating a new world is to destroy the current order.

English: Barack Obama delivering his electoral victory speech on Election Night ´08, in Grant Park, Chicago. (Wikipedia)

Now for some complexity. All issues are not the same and cannot be treated the same by the Progressives. For our purposes, I will put issues into three categories: The first category is issues that have been with us for several decades. Under this category live issues such as immigration, states rights, taxation, gun control, energy development, abortion, and solvency of our social programs. The second category are those that have been created recently. Here, I put climate control, sequestration, cabinet appointments, the role and size of the federal government, right to work issues, and government spending. Granted, some of these issues could fit under one of the two other categories. The third category contains those issues that appear to be spontaneous such as Benghazi, Syria, Muslim radicalism, international debt problems, unemployment, and job creation.

The flexibility Alinsky believers have somewhat depends on what category the issue is in. Take immigration as an issue. Obama cannot come out against immigration and he doesn’t have to put forward an effective bi-partisan solution. In fact he will not. Published plans, budgets, position papers are not part of Alinsky tactics as they limit changing sides or conditions abruptly. Instead, the immigration issue will be used to damage the Republican Party, the only party that stands in the way of the establishment of a Progressive dictatorship. This president does not want the Democrats and Republicans to come together to pass bipartisan immigration legislation. Instead, he will present obstacles and deal killers.

Since this is a blog and not a book, I’ll deal in this piece with only a few of the many possible issues. Energy policy is a perfect issue. Does any sane person believe America can be energy self-sufficient without the primary use of fossil fuels for several more decades? Yes. A constant search for alternative power sources is good as long as we are focused on creating an energy program in America that creates thousands of jobs and energy self-sufficiency. Windmills, algae, corn, solar panels just are not economically viable nor credible. How can any president not welcome the Canadian pipeline? It is a no-brainer unless your real objective is to create chaos, high unemployment, angry union workers, and blow off a good neighbor. Only Alinksy followers can applaud Obama’s lethargic non-action. Don’t fall for the Progressives blaming the increasing cost of gasoline on Big Oil. They aren’t boy scouts but the price goes up when the Federal Reserve, which is a private company, prints obscene billions of dollars each month that weaken the dollar. Arabs sell oil for dollars. The weaker the dollar, the more dollars it takes to buy a barrel of oil. Keep in mind few transformations ever occur in a country with an sound economy, near full employment, and a promising future.

One last issue, Benghazi. Could the president have anticipated this crisis? No. But his staff and Cabinet should have. This issue just popped up. The president didn’t know what to do. So he did nothing. Well, he did create confusion. To have this shameful crisis be centered around who created what “talking points” is a mark of Beltway mentally. Fix the blame. Not the problem. Not even Alinsky or Axelrod would have recommended he not call the Pentagon for action or fail to convene his National Security Council, or travel the next day to Las Vegas to attend a fundraiser, or throw Susan Rice under the bus, or the bumbling concealment of information. In keeping with Obama-type transparency he has even kept the names and whereabouts of the Benghazi survivors secret, in spite of requests from Congress. On the Benghazi issue, the president damaged himself as well as the nation. Using every issue as a means to attack your opposition often diminishes all of us. Just ask the surviving family members what they think about the issue is never the issue as a principle for presidential leadership.

By the author of the Jack Brandon thriller series. www.factsandfictions.com

Is there an Obama-Alinsky comparison to be made and will it push us over the fiscal cliff? (itmakessenseblog.com)
Eight Decades of Insights 34 (factsandfictions.com)
Eight Decades of Insights 35 (factsandfictions.com)

3 Comments

Filed under Alexrod, Alinsky, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, foreign policy, General, global warming, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, political solutions, Progressives

Tagged as Barack Obama, Benghazi, climate, Federal Reserve, gas prices, Obama, oil, politics, Republicans, Saul Alinsky, Susan Rice, Syria

by Barry Kelly | February 18, 2013 · 7:30 am

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 35

OBAMA’S WAR

From what I have seen over the last four years, President Obama’s war is not Afghanistan, terrorism, or the radical Muslim world. It is the war for political dominance, couched in the language of class warfare.

Barack Obama speaks to College Democrats. (Wikipedia)

First, let’s look at some of the terminology that’s present in nearly all his speeches, teleprompted or off the cuff. Saul Alinsky tells his followers to avoid alarming the people by using terms that have substantial negative baggage. For example, “social justice” means a socialist or communist society. “Progressive” means socialist or communists. Liberals and Democrats are not Progressives. Liberals and Democrats are in the mainstream of American traditional politics. Everyone has a right to a “fair shot,” which in Progressive terminology means that the only nation in the world which offers individual improvement through hard work, education, good choices, and commercial courage must be transformed into a socialist or communist society. Oh, and “fair share” is another term the president often uses in his speeches. Fair share means tax the people who already fund the nation with higher taxes because everyone is entitled to share of the wealth even if they do not work. (Those who cannot work do have a claim we should honor.) “Transformation” means the destruction of the existing society and the creation of a socialist or communist society.

Where have these people been? I’ve lived in Moscow and been, for extended periods, in other communist and socialist countries. There is no comparison between the USA and those elitist crafted and managed governments. In Moscow, the mecca of egalitarian governments, blacks enrolled in Patrice Lumumba University in 1973 often came to the Marine House bar at the American Embassy to escape racism. The world these forerunners of Progressive transformations built in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and Eastern Europe were very ugly worlds where millions of people were murdered in the name of building a better, fairer society. If the terms fair shot, fair share, social justice, transformation, and expanding government resonante with you, think again. These Obama Progressives are practicing the same policies Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Marx, Mao se Tung, and the National Socialist Party in Germany used. Those were not nice societies. All were run by the Progressive elite. One person, one vote, one time. Isn’t it time we recognize the freedom we now have and those in progressive societies gave up in the name of social justice? It is the same ideology, the same issues, the same elite rule, and the same beguiling rhetoric. Forget the enticing words streaming from the teleprompters. Follow the actions and the money. You do not want the Progressive Dream fulfilled. It is a nightmare, not a dream.

A war of the have nots against the haves: This is Obama’s war. Remember, the issue is never the issue. All these terms disguise the manipulation of all issues such as tax policy, immigration, development of energy resources, global warming, the debt, job creation, gun control, “you didn’t build that,” contraceptives and religion, defense spending, the role of the Constitution, right to work, and changing the electoral college. While the Republican and even some of the Democratic leadership may believe these issues are the battleground, they are not. These issues are — according to Alinskites — only relevant if they are used to gain total political power by destroying the opposition, whether the opposition is a political party or an individual, a religion, or an idea such as a free market or capitalism.

If the Conservatives focus on fighting these issues, they will lose. So far the Republican leadership is losing the battle. They are not even on the right battlefield. Nor do they have the right ideas to fight the Alinsky doctrine. Trust me, if the followers of Alinsky win, you won’t like the world they’ll bring to you. As indicators, watch for Progressives telling us the Constitution is dead and needs to be rewritten for modern America, the growth and increasing centralization of the federal government, an increase in the power of the presidency and the changing of the two term limit for Presidents.