JOHN VENNARI - "WHAT OBAMA LEARNED FROM ALINSKY"

I'm grateful to a friend for passing along Vennari's important article.  (HT: bs)  I haven't read Saul D. Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," but see the need to do so.  If Alinsky advocated a radical relativism and amorality in furthering political goals as stated below, we have all the more reason to fear the current occupant of the White House since he is regarded as Alinsky's disciple.  Vennari writes:

Obama was a student of the ruthless tactics of Saul Alinsky, the left-wing agitator whose landmark Rules for Radicals was dedicated to the devil.[9] Mike Kruglik, Obama’s Chicago instructor in Alinsky methods, said Obama was the best student of Alinsky tactics he ever had.[10]

David Alinsky, Saul Alinsky’s son, applauded Obama’s successful implementation of Alinsky methods. Immediately after Obama’s acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, David Alinsky wrote a letter to the Boston Globe in full praise of Obama as one who learned well his father’s methods.[11]

Even Obama zealot Chris Matthews, in a December 2010 broadcast of “Hardball”, referred to Obama as “the guy who comes from Saul Alinsky”.[12]

As is stated in his Rules for Radicals, Alinsky’s foundational principles are:

1) There is no such thing as dogma, all truth is relative: “For the organizer, everything is relative and changing,” said Alinsky. The organizer “does not have any fixed truth.” This places the organizer in a superior position, Alinsky insisted, because he is “free from the shackles of dogma.”[13]

2) There is no such thing as a fixed rule of ethics. For Alinksy, the end justifies the means, and all ethics are elastic according to the situation you are in or the strategy you need to employ. Alinsky taught, “Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times.”[14] If you need to lie, you lie. If you need to make promises you know you won’t keep, you do it anyway.

3) Corruption in the leader is a kind of virtue: “To say that a corrupt means corrupts the ends is to believe in the Immaculate Conception of ends and principle”, Alinksy blasphemously asserted. “The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process. He who fears corruption, fears life.” Alinsky castigates the leader who places his personal conscience and personal salvation above the needs of the people, claiming that such a leader “does not care enough for the people to be corrupted for them”.[15]

This is the school in which Barack Obama was formed: no dogma; no objective truth; no fixed standards of ethics; the end justifies the means; and corruption in the leader is raised to the level of virtue.

How can anyone believe anything Obama says? There is no fixed standard of ethics preventing him from lying to achieve whatever aims he deems fit.

As a student of Alinksy (as is Hillary Clinton), [16] Obama will think nothing of stamping out those who stand in the way of his Party’s agenda. In his 1946 Reveille for Radicals: Alinsky wrote that if the radicals become stronger than the opposition, they must “crush the opposition”.[17]

Congressman Chris Smith and Tulsa’s Bishop Slattery appear aware of Obama’s aim to “crush the opposition”. As noted, Smith warned that Obama’s pro-abortion directives are designed so that “religious hospitals will be squeezed out.” Bishop Slattery observed the new mandate may end up “closing down every Catholic school, hospital and the other public ministries of the Church, which is perhaps their underlying intention.”

It is futile appealing the Constitution to Obama, since he publicly expresses support for its effective revision.

In a 2001 radio interview, Obama argued that the Warren Court, which started a long line of activist decisions in a number of areas, did not go far enough:

1) it failed to bring about “redistributive change” and a “redistribution of wealth”;

2) it failed to, in Obama’s words, “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution”[18]

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama had this to say:

“Ultimately, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution – that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of the ever-changing world.”[19]

Obama belongs to the clique of doctrinal liberals whose basic tenet is, “the only law of the land should be what we say it is at the moment,” which is a formula for State Absolutism. . . .

Read the whole thing.  These facts should raise the fear factor of every freedom-loving America.