Obama's Alinksy Paid Public Homage to Lucifer

CFN Note: Below are two stories about the real connections between the radical Saul Alinksy and Barack Obama. Above is a scan of the cover of Alinky's Rules for Radicals and scan of the inside page in which Alinksy pays homage to the devil. He writes:

Two related news reports follow. The first from FoxForum and the second from WorldNetDaily. In the second we read, "Among the primary goals of Alinsky was radical socialism and redistribution of wealth."


The Devil Is In the Details: Another Obama Connection You Ought to Know About

FOX FORUM: Could Lucifer play a role in this presidential election? It may sound crazy, but one of the candidates in this race has publicly praised, even emulated, a writer-activist who himself paid tribute to Lucifer.  That’s right, Lucifer, also known as the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub—you get the idea.

Do you think that admiring a Lucifer-admirer would make a difference to some voters?

If you’ve never heard of this true fact—and most Americans obviously haven’t—well, that might help to explain why John McCain is behind in the polls.

OK, you might be asking, where is this Lucifer stuff coming from? It comes from a man named Saul Alinsky, who devoted his life to left-wing agitation in Chicago.  He also wrote two seminal books, “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals,” still regarded as key how-to manuals for left-wing activists.

But Alinsky was more than just a leftist; he was a genuine out-there crazy, someone who loved to shock and stun, just for the helluvit. And so in the first edition of “Rules for Radicals,” published in 1971, he offered this astounding dedication: “Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgement of the very first radical, from all our legends, mythology, and history … the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

This dedication is no secret.  David Freddoso wrote about it in his book, The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate;  and the inimitable Ann Coulter noted it, too, just last month.

And the connection between Alinsky and Barack Obama—and Alinsky and the left in general—is real enough.   As John Fund, author of a newly revised book, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, observes, Alinsky, who died in 1972, was a sort of godfather to all the activist groups that emerged in the 60s and 70s, the most famous (or, if you prefer, notorious) of which today is ACORN.

Fund notes that young Hillary Rodham was such a fan of Alinsky that she traveled to Chicago, four times, to interview him for an adulatory school thesis she was writing.  And Obama is an on-the-record fan too: Fund quotes The Washington Post’s Peter Slevin, writing in 2007, “Obama embraced many of Alinsky’s tactics and recently said his years as an organizer gave him the best education of his life.”  Slevin further noted that Obama’s and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “common connection to Alinsky is one of the striking aspects of their biographies.”

OK, so the Alinsky-Obama connection is real. But the full truth about Alinsky, and whom he admired, is so wacky, or so horrible, that even the media have been reluctant to get into the story.   And so it has received relatively little play.  Oh sure, if John McCain had expressed admiration for a Lucifer admirer, that would have been news, but as we all know, there’s a media double standard on such things.  That media bias is lamentable, of course, but for a Republican, it’s part of the strategic landscape—one more roadblock to factor into any GOP victory strategy.

Speaking of McCain, he would seem to have the greatest interest in taking Obama down a peg—or, according to the latest calculation from RealClearPolitics, about seven points in the polls.   So why hasn’t he highlighted the Alinsky-Lucifer connection? Why hasn’t the McCain-Palin ticket raised this issue, knowing full well that if the candidates say it, reporters have to cover it?  Good questions.   Did I mention that the Republican nominee is down seven points?

In debate and argumentation, there’s a concept called the “rule of three”—that is, if you can come up with three examples to support your argument, you’ve got a pretty good argument.   And so, for example, if one were to make the argument that Obama has strange radical associations, one could bring up Bill Ayers.  And check, the McCain campaign has done that.  And of course, there’s Reverend Wright, who McCain has stayed away from.  So no check there.   And no check, of course, for Alinsky-Lucifer.  So McCain is left with the “rule of one,” which isn’t much of a rule.  If McCain won’t bring up Wright, I guess it’s no surprise that he’s not bringing up Alinsky-Lucifer, assuming his campaign even knows about it.

The point of the “rule of three” is to make a sustained argument, to paint a comprehensive picture, to build an overall narrative—so that nobody can say that any one “hit” is just a cheap shot.  That’s what happened to McCain with Ayers; the Obamans, and their allies in the media, said that it was just a “one off,” the sort of incidental association that happens in the course of a public career.   And McCain had no good comeback, no additional opposition-research arrows to pull from his quiver.

So the Obama-Alinsky-Lucifer connection is left to float around in the vast soup of the Internet—plenty of mentions, here and there, but no real impact.

But had McCain really gone after Ayers AND Wright AND Alinsky-Lucifer, all at once, he would have had a strong argument that Obama was, and is, well out of the mainstream.  And then all the information about Tony Rezko, Emil Jones, and the scandal-ridden Daley machine, would be all the more compelling to reporters and voters, because, as they would have to admit, a “pattern has emerged.”

And, for that matter, let’s talk about the great state of Illinois, where three governors in the last 40 years—Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, and George Ryan—ended up not only convicted, but imprisoned.   And a fourth, incumbent Rod Blagojevich, may also end up in the clink.   That’s quite a streak of corruption. And what does Obama have to say about any of that?  And what did he know, and when did he know it?

If the McCain campaign had been on its game, its opposition researchers would have gone through every single day of Obama’s life since he first set foot in Chicago in 1987.  Everyone he met, everything he did.  And then, having amassed all that information, the McCainiacs would have made the rest of us know about it—in a sustained, organized, and unrelenting volley.

That’s how you win a presidential campaign, even amidst hard times for your party.

From: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/jpinkerton_1023/


****

WorldNetDaily
Michelle's speech inspired by radical socialist?
DNC address includes quotes from Alinsky treatise

Posted: August 26, 2008

 

Michelle Obama has delivered some rousing statements at the Democratic National Convention, where delegates are expected later this week to nominate her husband, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, to be president.

But a blogger is pointing out that the statements appear to have been drawn from "Rules for Radicals," a book by dedicated socialist Saul Alinsky.

"What to make of Michelle Obama's use [of] the terms, 'The world as it is' and 'The world as it should be?'" wrote the Gateway Pundit today. "Try Chapter 2 of Saul Alinksy's book, 'Rules for Radicals.'"

"In last night's speech, Michelle Obama said something that [piqued] my curiosity," the blogger noted. "She said, 'Barack stood up that day,' talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, 'and 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, 'All of us 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 blogger wrote.

Chapter 2 of Alinsky's book says: "The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be."

Taking up pursuit of the slogans, another blogger, at Riehlworldview, noted she probably got the phrases from her husband, since he was hired by Jerry Kellman at one point early in his career. Kellman was an Alinsky protégé, the blogger said.

"After college Obama moved to Chicago to be part of the Jerry Kellman organization as a community organizer. … Among the primary goals of Alinsky was radical socialism and redistribution of wealth. Alinsky taught his proteges to 'HIDE' their true goals by any means necessary. Lying was fine. The objective of Alinsky and Kellman was to turn people against the white establishment," the blogger said.

Talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh said the issue is that Americans with a vested interested in their nation remaining the kind of country it was as founded – "with the rule of law and individual freedom and liberty, pursuit of happiness, all of these things, capitalism, free markets" – know those rights are "under assault by an entire political party and a class, a political class of leftists who are everywhere, including in the Drive-By Media."

"They seek power to deny others liberty. They may think they're doing it all for the common good, but they pose a great threat to me for the future of this country as we know it and as you would like for it to remain for your kids and your grandkids, and their kids and grandkids," Limbaugh said.

"So we have a candidate who no sane political party would dare nominate a guy like this. I'm not talking about anything other than he has no experience, he's got no achievements, but his associations with genuine America-hating radicals occasionally cause him to say things that lead me to believe he's bought into a lot of what he's heard. I think he's bought into it, and I think he repeats it. I think he is the formation of an indoctrination that has occurred to him his whole life, and now he seeks the presidency," Limbaugh said.

"These associations and these ideas, the lack of specificity from this guy. All we have is what we know, and what we know is not flattering. So I think it's imperative that all of these things be spoken so as you can be informed, and people understand that this is not about image, it's not about hope, it's not about change, it's not about all these meaningless, vapid nothings. Presidential elections matter greatly, and this one does, too. If we end up with the wrong group of people running this country from the top down, it's going to take years to straighten it out and fix it," he said.

On the Gateway Pundit's comment page, one contributor said, "Is this really a surprise? We know the Obamas are radicals, it makes sense they would quote from radicals."

From: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=73533

 

 

Catholic Family News
MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302
905-871-6292

CFN is published once a month (12 times per year)
Subscription: $28.00 a year.
Request sample copy

  Home  •  Audio Cassettes & CDs  New DVD OfferCFNSubscribe on line