Tag Archives: politics

by | 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...

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

Related articles

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 , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 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.

English: Barack Obama Speaks to College Democrats

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.

Saul_Alinsky

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.

By the Author of the Jack Brandon thriller series.               http://www.factsandfictions.com
Related articles

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

2 Comments

Filed under Alinsky, Capitalism, class warfare, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, foreign policy, global warming, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, political solutions, Politics, Progressives, Terrorism, totalitarianism

Tagged as , ,

by | February 5, 2013 · 8:06 am

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 33

Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky (Photo credit: Fresh Conservative) Former community organizer in Chicago.

Washington Monument and Flag

Washington Monument and Flag (Photo credit: Mr. T in DC)

THE ISSUE IS NEVER THE ISSUE

I am not now and never have been a conspiracy theorist. But, neither have I been reticent about going where observation, experience, and study lead me.  The issue is never the issue sounds like the mantra of a mystical guru crouched over a small flame in a mountain top cave. It is not. It is the political guidance of a revolutionary American political theorist who died in 1972. His name is Saul Alinsky, whose writing seems to have had a profound influence on President Obama, former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and the entire Progressive movement.

Alinsky believed the only issue is the striving for power. Power to destroy the existing political system and to create another, more equitable society from the ashes. Issues like tax policy, deficit reduction, gun control, expanding government, medical and foreign policy, military strategy, terrorism, job creation, and immigration don’t matter.  They are only useful as opportunistic means to attack everything that is an obstacle to seizing power. Seizing  power through revolution  is the only end. All means to achieve this end must be used. Ethics, morality, or laws are not considerations. Those Democrats and liberals, who are too squeamish to do what it takes to seize power, will be dumped in the dust bin of history when the Progressives tire of them.  There is nothing wrong with flip flopping. Use whatever side of any issue to further your progress toward seizing power. Change your mind any time, if being on the other side is more useful. (Read  Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, and David Horowitz‘s, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution. Those two sources will clarify the president’s actions since he was first elected.)

Alinsky has taken the writings of other better known radical revolutionaries such as, Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao se Tung, and Castro and molded them into a clear modern guide-book for revolutionaries.  To judge this administration by its progress on economic and political issues confronting the nation is a meaningless measure. But, if the end game is the destruction or transformation of our society, then the administration is being more successful. For the transformation of America to become fact, all opposition must be obliterated. The Republican Party is in the way and must be destroyed.

Other obstacles to the transformation of America are the  Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of powers, our two-party system with two centuries of traditions and rules, the judicial system, the U.S. military with its record of protecting America from foreign and domestic enemies, and an armed civilian population. It is historically relevant that none of Alinsky’s heroes, whether Fascist, Socialist, or Communist rose to power when there was an armed civilian population present. Those same heroes are responsible for killing hundreds of millions of citizens to transform their societies. This could happen in America if we fail to understand what is happening. It is harder to keep freedom than to win it.

My next blog will cover the war between the haves and the have-nots which is the war to transform or destroy the existing American political structure.

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

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Alinsky, Capitalism, centralization, class warfare, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, foreign policy, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, Politics, Progressives, totalitarianism

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | January 28, 2013 · 8:40 am

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 32

Management of Complexity

Management of Complexity (Photo credit: michael.heiss)

THE REAL BI-PARTISAN ISSUE

Nearly every day I hear someone saying, “I can’t believe what I just heard the administration is doing.” If there ever was a bi-partisan statement, this is it. Democrats or Republicans, it makes no difference when it comes to dumbness.

English: Seal of the United States Department ...

English: Seal of the United States Department of Homeland Security. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since the first days of  centralized authority, government dumbness has been with us. In the last 150 years, the level of government centralization has steadily grown to levels that jeopardize the continued development of our civilization. The roots of centralization have been nurtured by an explosion of progress in the transmission and processing of information. Good thing? Maybe yes. But many good things have dangerous side effects.

It is usually true, the closer a leader or manager is to a situation or problem, the more they know about the facts and can fix the problem or recommend a wise course of action. A hallmark of an effective leader and manager is their ability to put a premium on the advice from ‘people on the ground.’ As governments have moved more toward centralization, managers have been moved further and further from people on the ground. There are myriad management levels between the point of contact with the situation or problem and the top-level decision maker. Government managers, in my favorite example, of the Department of Homeland Security, are several light years beyond their span of control. While I don’t think the recent and current heads of Homeland Security are exemplary managers or leaders, no human can do more than pretend they can manage something as large and diverse as Homeland Security or the Intelligence Community or a number of other government agencies and departments.

You see, the  catalyst of expanding centralization is the speed of information transmission and processing. Managers believe because they can communicate they can understand and manage. This is a dangerous illusion. How well did Presidents Johnson and Nixon, Secretary of Defense McNamara, and later National Security Advisor Kissinger personally manage the Vietnam War? Not well. I was there and read many of their directives. Some verged on comic relief.

A few organs of government like the Defense Department and NASA have been able to somewhat mitigate the downside of centralization because at all levels, except the very top, managers come from men and women on their way up the management ladder. They and their staffs can receive and understand the flow of information. They understand the culture. In a sense they have all been there, done that. I believe the only remedy to the downsides of centralization is to ensure organizations are made up nearly entirely of men and women who have had a deep immersion in various mission levels of their organization and to decentralize those departments and agencies that have an impossible scope of attention and management for anyone. Letting the states manage their own affairs according to the Constitution will check rampant centralization. This is truly a bi-partisan issue.

By the author of the Jack Brandon Thriller Series.

http://www.factsandfictions.com

2 Comments

Filed under centralization, complexity, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, General, information technology, Intelligence & Politics, management theory, political solutions, Politics

Tagged as

by | December 12, 2012 · 5:19 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 30

Cliffs of Moher 6

FISCAL

CLIFF

Are you  tired of the term, ‘GOING OVER THE FISCAL CLIFF’? I am. I wish all the politicians in Washington would join a pack of lemmings and go over the nearest cliff. Then we could start over and get a real agreement. One that is good for the nation, not just good for radicals.

Why is it so hard to reach an agreement? The problem is simple and fundamental. Our two parties have very different objectives. Let’s start with the Progressives of the Obama party. Can you believe that a president who hasn’t had a Congressionally approved budget in all of his first term is interested in budgets, deficits, and future financing for entitlement programs or defense of the nation? His last “budget” was rejected unanimously by members of both parties in the Senate. Using my yardstick of what a president should do, this man is a total failure. But if you use a different measuring system, one crafted over the years by foreign and domestic Progressives, he has an outstanding record. He said he would transform America and he has and he still is. In another four years, America will be a very different place. What my generation and previous generations strived and fought for will be gone. Collectivism, not individualism, will be the banner. There maybe freedom but it will be a very different freedom.

From the president’s perspective, what does he say he wants before he can agree on action to avoid the cliff issues? He wants to raise taxes on the rich (people making more than $250,000 per year.) He wants the power to raise the debt limit whenever he thinks an increase is required. He does not want any cuts or changes to entitlement programs. He wants more money to spend on stimulus packages. He wants real revenue now and maybe, spending  cuts sometime in the future. That is the package the Republicans think they are trying to negotiate. They are trying to find agreement on a fiscal and deficit problem. That is not the real battle. No matter how much they comprise or capitulate there is no fiscally sound path in these negotiations. Not now. Not later.

This cliff thing is another phase in the transforming of America. Keep your eye on the power game. Achieving a one-party system is part of the transformation process. The two-party system is an obstacle to the collectivist goals of the Progressives. The major goal is to marginalize the Republican Party. The president has proven his ability to out-message his opponents. His mandate, truly won, is for a far superior numbers game in getting out the vote and in defining his opponents in populist terms by endlessly repeating simplistic slogans. Accuracy and truth were not front and center. Instead it was the use of 21st century mass appeal campaigning, appealing to the fears and desires of targeted interest groups, not presenting plans or programs for  the good of the nation. The election did not provide a mandate on ideas or national requirements. Neither the president nor the speaker should talk about mandates.

Rhetoric about going over the cliff is only the fog generated to conceal the real objectives of the ruling Progressives.

http://www.factsandfictions.com                                         By the author of the Jack Brandon Thriller Series.

3 Comments

Filed under Alinsky, centralization, class warfare, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, fiscal cliff, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, political solutions, Politics, Progressives

Tagged as , , ,