Comment: Click on story link below for comprehensive (and sad) squeals and squeaks from our pitiful progeny,
Black Lives Matter and Mizzou protesters responded to the murder of scores of people in Paris at the hands of Islamic extremists by complaining about losing the spotlight and saying their “struggles” were being “erased.” Their struggles, remember, consist of a poop swastika of unknown provenance and unsubstantiated claims of racially-charged remarks somewhere near Missouri’s campus.
So debased has the language on American campuses become that these incidents, which many observers believe to be hoaxes, just like previous campus scandals celebrated by progressive media, are being referred to as “terrorism” and a “tragedy” by moronic 20-year-olds who have never been told, “No.”
Such a reaction is understandable, if grimly hilarious. These kids been raised by indulgent parents, instructed by professors racked with middle-class white guilt who secretly hate themselves and western culture, and promoted by a sympathetic media which bends over backwards to put them in the best light and paper over their tantrums.
This is the same media hesitant to call Paris an act of Islamic terrorism for hours, despite shouts of “Allahu akbar.” The product of their pandering to the politics of grievance and offence-taking is a generation of students who, faced with the horror of a terrorist attack killing hundreds, respond with: “But what about me?”
Campus activists and Black Lives Matter protesters shame themselves any time they are forced to go off-script. Normally, their messaging is carefully controlled. They parrot a narrative created by progressive media and reinforced via well-funded spokespeople and professional agitators. Left to their own devices, however, they fall to pieces.
Ergo, the head-scratching spectacle of hundreds of college crybullies cast adrift from the pronouncements of Salon columnists and left to complain aloud that their grievances were playing second fiddle to innocent French citizens being mowed down by jihadist maniacs.
Even Black Lives Matter’s notional leaders, often more judicious in their timing and wording, got in on the act.
Black Lives Matter and Mizzou tweets fell broadly into two categories of stupid last night:
There was, of course, a huge backlash not just from conservatives but from most decent observers. It fell on deaf ears, with many of the most preposterous tweets being hastily deleted.
— Elena Lau (@iLoveLaurynHill) November 14, 2015
— dwight shrute (@dianelyssa) November 14, 2015
Meanwhile, satirical cartoonists lampooning the protesters are being censored by Facebook for “violating community standards”…
True to form, presidential candidate Donald Trump didn’t hold back his opinion regarding the University of Missouri protests, AND..it is brilliant!
The university has been plagued with racial protests over the past few weeks, which have led to the resignation of university president Tim Wolfe. Wolfe’s resignation was followed by Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin announcing he would leave office at the end of the year due to mounting pressure.
Trump said the leaders stepping aside was a “weak” move.
“I think the two people who resigned are weak, ineffective people,” he said. “I think that when they resigned, they set something in motion that’s going to be a disaster for the next long period of time. They were weak, ineffective people.”
“Trump should have been the chancellor of that university. Believe me, there would have been no resignations,” he added.
He also said the demands from the student-protest group, Concerned Student 1950, were “crazy.” These demands include that the university increase its percentage of black faculty and staff by 10 percent and a mandatory “comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum.”
“By the way, did you look at their demands?” Trump said. “Their demands are like crazy. The things that they are asking for, many of those things are like crazy. So it’s just disgraceful.”
Trump’s never been quiet about the political correctness running rampant in the country and he’s not going to let this protest slide by.
We can’t let these kinds of protests undermine the institutions and foundations that this country was founded on.
A series of coordinated terror attacks in the heart of Paris have left at least 60 dead and paralysed the French capital with fear.
At least 11 were killed in a restaurant shootout and another 15 at the Bataclan concert hall where terrorists are said to be holding 100 people hostage.
There were also two suicide bomb attacks outside the Stade de France sports stadium where the French football team was playing a friendly match against Germany.
Terrorists launched a total of six coordinated attacks at high profile sites including the Louvre art gallery, the Pompidou Centre and Les Halles shopping centre tonight – all of which have been threatened by extremist groups in recent months.
French President Francoise Hollande declared a national state of emergency following what he called ‘unprecedented terror attacks’ and shut all of its borders with immediate effect.
Scroll down for video
French fire brigade members help an injured individual near the Bataclan concert hall following fatal shootings in Paris, France
At least 11 people were killed in the restaurant, close to where the Charlie Hebdo shootings occurred in January, and another 15 killed in the theatre.
The Establishment has found the crack in the door they’ve been hoping for. Now media will help puke their spin to the point of nausea for viewers & listeners.
There was a long and planned process of destroying old right Constitutional conservatism which has unfortunately succeeded. Here’s what happened:
Forty or fifty years ago or more, those who have become leaders in today’s Republican party drifted away from Trotskyism and began to identify themselves as democratic socialists. Still later, under the guise of neo-conservatives, Irving Kristol and William F. Buckley, who emasculated true old right conservatism, slithered into the Republican party as “moderates.” They stole the name of “conservative” and seized intellectual control of the true conservatives, as well as the entire Republican party. I strongly suggest the purchase of John McManus’s well documented and referenced book,William F. Buckley, Pied Piper for the Establishment. Buckley was CFR, CIA agent, Skull and Bonesman from Yale, as well as an invited guest to Bilderberger conferences. [Link]
We must not ignore Leon Trotsky. Trotsky, unlike Stalin and Lenin, favored the slow and patient imposition of Marxist socialism without murders and gulags, yet he had no problem murdering three million Russians. Trotsky wished for the people to “choose” Marxism, rather than having it forced upon them. Irving Kristol, father of Bilderberger, Bill Kristol, stated, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.”
Dominionists/Reconstructionists desire a Christian theocracy to head the country, a return to old testament laws, (punishment for sin, i.e. stoning in the street for homosexuals, adulterers, etc.) and they believe Christ will not return until they have theocratized the world. Here is a more thorough definition.
National Review’s Kevin Williamson is out promoting his soon-to-be released book entitled, “The Case Against Trump.” A recent news release from a public relations firm pushing Willamson and the book suggests that the book’s “thesis” will present both a condemnation Trump and the plurality of Republican voters who support Trump.
The release reads in part:
“THESIS… [Trump] has connected with an under-appreciated strain of right-wing populists, ranging from anti-NAFTA activists to outright white nationalists, by focusing his fire on a single issue—immigration, especially illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America. In this Encounter Broadside book, National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson takes a hard look at the Trump phenomenon, and the failures of the national Republican leadership—and defects in our national character—that gave it life.”
The release suggests that Trump is not a conservative, in part, because “he has a long history of taking views opposed to those of mainstream conservatives and Republicans” such as being “against free trade”. Interestingly, the release does not mention that polls show that among the American electorate, Republican voters are the group most skeptical of free trade— with a nearly five-to-one margin of Republican voters believing that free trade deals slash wages rather than raise them. Indeed, only a minuscule 11% of GOP voters, according to Pew, agree with Williamson’s apparent view that so-called free trade deals will be good for wages— placing his free-trade support far outside the mainstream view of GOP voters, millions of whom have suffered economic devastation as a result of the closure of manufacturing plants across the nation. As the President of the Steelworkers Union recently wrote:
“Unemployed, desperate and despairing, these once-middle-class workers are killing themselves at unconscionable rates with guns, heroin and alcohol-induced cirrhosis… Bread winners couldn’t pay their bills and couldn’t foresee a future when they could. That is because jobs in manufacturing and construction – jobs that had provided middle-class incomes for workers without college degrees for decades – disappeared.”
Williamson’s new book seems to confirm the reporting of Washington Examiner’s Byron York, who recently suggested that an upcoming GOP debate may have a ‘National Review Problem‘. In last week’s column, York noted that the National Review’s participation in the Republican debate may prove problematic given the publication’s anti-Trump bent. York chronicled some of the various instances in which the magazine’s writers— beyond simply Williamson— have decried the GOP frontrunner as, “a witless ape,” “a virus,” and “a low-rent carnival barker.”
While one of the National Review’s flagship writers has authored a book tearing down Mr. Trump, no one at the publication has written a book entitled “The Case Against Rubio,” whose signature policy issue is opposed by at least 92% of GOP voters.
Indeed, National Review’s senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru wrote a recent column which suggests that National Review may have a second bias that could color its participation in the GOP debate—namely, a soft-spot for donor-class favorite
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
— implied that Rubio’s troublesome record on immigration is behind him.
“Will the issue [i.e. immigration] doom him in the presidential primaries? I don’t think so… Rubio explains his record in a way that might mollify many of the soft opponents of the bill. He says that while he was making a good-faith effort, he underestimated the public’s distrust of Washington’s ability to solve the problem in one giant bill and now understands that trust in enforcement has to be earned well before any path to legalization or citizenship.”
Yet, as Breitbart News has reported, and as
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
recently stated, Rubio has not changed any of his policy positions on immigration.
The assertion that Rubio’s immigration bill— which would have issued 33 million new green cards in the span of a single decade— was part of a “good-faith effort” to resolve the nation’s immigration crisis, represents a marked shift for the publication, which once published an article that accused the young senator of “lying” in order to “fool voters” into passing “the Left’s objective” on immigration.
Ponnuru declares that Rubio’s position on immigration won’t be “a deal breaker” for Republican voters, writing: “Rubio doesn’t need Ann Coulter’s vote to win the nomination.”
Ponnuru leaves out the reporting of National Review’s own Reihan Salam, who observed that “only 7 percent of Republicans favor… an increase” in immigration, as Rubio does. In other words, it’s not just Ann Coulter, Rubio would be spurning— but more than 9 in 10 GOP voters.
Even liberal outlets like MSNBC have come to understand just how much of a “deal breaker” this issue is for GOP voters— contrary to Ponnuru’s assertion. As Rachel Maddow’s producer Steve Benen observes:
“If I were a Republican presidential candidate, and I were at all worried about Rubio, I’d probably repeat one talking point every minute of every day: ‘Marco Rubio partnered with liberal Democrats to write Obama’s ‘amnesty’ bill.’ For the GOP base, the bipartisan immigration reform package is truly despised – it’s right up there with ‘Obamacare’ – and yet one of the party’s leading presidential candidates is one of the bill’s authors.
Ponnuru, however, is not alone at National Review in his favorable coverage of the young Senator.
Former opinion editor, Patrick Brennan wrote several positive pieces about Marco Rubio before he eventually left National Review to take on an official position on Rubio’s campaign.
In a piece entitled, “Rubio’s New Immigration Plan Sounds Pretty Good,” Brennan dismissed CBS’ Bob Schieffer legitimate question about whether a President Rubio would sign the Gang of Eight legislation into law. Brennan describes this as “an odd question” and notes that “the ideas [Rubio] offered Schieffer sound worthy” and “soun[d] pretty good”. Brennan does not mention, as other reports did, that Rubio dodged the question entirely, telling Schieffer, “that’s a hypothetical.” Brennan instead writes about Rubio’s declaration that we need a visa tracking system. Brennan does not mention the fact that Rubio voted down an amendment that would add a visa tracking system to Obama’s immigration bill.
Similarly, after Rubio’s first debate performance, National Review’s Jim Geraghty wrote: “Marco Rubio was really, really good tonight. Shining.”
The National Review has rapturously intoned over even the most banal and, at times, nonsensical responses from Rubio. In the first debate, Rubio was lobbed a softball question, to which his stumbling answer included these four lines, “God has blessed our country. This country has been extraordinarily blessed. And we have honored that blessing. And that’s why God has continued to bless us.” However, the National Review praised Rubio’s response to the softball question writing, “Marco Rubio got the best reviews, and deserved them. Even when Megyn Kelly threw him a baffling question— essentially asking him to say something about God and veterans simultaneously— he pulled it off, saying that God had blessed us with our veterans.”
National Review’s Charlie Cooke has similarly been trilling over Marco Rubio. During the second GOP debate, Cooke tweeted:
“Oh look, a solid policy answer. More Rubio please.”
“Rubio gets the biggest applause of the night.”
“Trump is no match for Rubio, who actually… knows things.”
As a non-citizen immigrant who cannot yet vote in U.S elections, Cooke’s Rubio-boosting raises the moral question of whether it’s ethical for a foreign national to come to the United States and prop up a presidential candidate whose signature agenda item, according to his own publication, “does not serve the economic interests of the United States.” Interestingly, the National Review has been critical of Jorge Ramos, a foreign national who— after arriving in the United States— has advocated for open borders.
While National Review‘s editor Rich Lowry recently acknowledged Rubio’s troublesome record on immigration, Lowry leaves the door open for Rubio to run even as he continues to push Obama’s immigration agenda. Lowry does not inform his readers that in recent months, Rubio has indicated support for giving green cards—and thus citizenship and welfare— to illegal aliens, expanding refugee resettlement, massively increasing the number of H-1B visa issuances, and declaring that his “ideal” plan is to leave Obama’s unconstitutional 2012 executive amnesty in place while pushing for legislative amnesty.
While National Review has published the occasional glancing criticism of Rubio, it generally appears in a broader context of a great openness to a Rubio candidacy. It is notable that the publication would so aggressively write off Trump while remaining open to a Rubio Presidency, given that Rubio would be in a better position than anyone to— in words once used by Rich Lowry— “pu[t] a stake through [the] heart” of National Review‘s immigration platform.
Indeed, the seemingly publication-wide soft-spot for Rubio’s candidacy is a dramatic turnabout for a magazine, which once featured as its cover story a picture of Rubio with the headline “Rubio’s Folly”. In the cover story, National Review laid out the repeated false statements Rubio made to National Review and every other conservative outlet on behalf of Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.
The magazine’s then-Washington editor explained that Rubio was the “linchpin for [the Gang of Eight’s] success” because he was “beloved by most conservatives”. Rubio used the trust conservatives had placed in him to “assuage” and “sooth[e] conservatives’ anxiety” and opposition to Obama’s immigration agenda.
“Unless [Rubio’s] an idiot, which I do not think to be the case, he’s trying to fool voters, not persuade them,” read an article in the National Review. It continued: “First, [Rubio repeats] a familiar talking point: the bill doesn’t provide amnesty. For crisssake, of course it’s amnesty! Stop lying!”
Rich Lowry even declared “The next time I hear a Republican strategist or a Republican politician say that there are jobs that Americans won’t do, that person should be shot, he should be hanged, he should be wrapped in a carpet and thrown in the Potomac River.”
Yet this is precisely what Rubio’s aides said when explaining why Rubio was committed to admitting even more foreign labor into the country. When the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza asked why Rubio’s plan would give away unfilled jobs to imported foreign labor rather than helping get unemployed Americans back to work, a Rubio aide said, “One of the problems you have with this, ‘Oh there’s American workers who are unemployed.’ There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly because–.” At which point another Rubio aide jumped in asserting, “But the same is true for the high-skilled worker.” To which, the first Rubio aide replied, “Yes, and the same is true across every sector, in government, in everything.”
What makes National Review’s praise for even Rubio’s most anodyne political clichés interesting is that – assuming Pat Buchanan is correct in his assertion that immigration is “the issue of the 21st century”— National Review is boosting a candidate who stands diametrically opposed to their editorial position on this defining national question.
National Review even published a cover story in 1997 called “Electing a New People,” warning that the ongoing green card gusher would turn America increasingly blue. Rubio’s immigration plan called for tripling the number of green cards, a position he has never backed down from.
In fact, only a few months ago, Rubio introduced a bill that would essentially lift the university green card caps and triple the number of guest workers admitted on H-1B visas to replace American workers at lower cost.
And just a few months ago, Rubio announced his support for importing even more Muslim refugees into the country, on top of the existing clip of about 280,000 annual temporary and permanent Muslim migrants let into the U.S. According to Pew, only 11% of U.S. Muslims identify as Republicans or lean-Republican. Half, according to a recent poll, would trade the U.S. constitution for Sharia.
In an attempt to elucidate the reason for the publication’s shift, Breitbart News reached out to National Review’s Charlie Cooke and asked if he could think of any reason why Republican voters should trust Rubio given his record on immigration.
“Given Rubio’s multitudinous misrepresentations about the contents of his Gang of Eight bill; given his support for a new immigration bill which would substantially increase immigration; and given the pro-amnesty billionaires who are funding his campaign— can you think of a single compelling reason why voters should believe that, if elected, Rubio would not seek to enact the entirety of the Gang of Eight immigration agenda[?]”
Cooke refused to answer: “This is an odd question to ask me. Like all the other candidates, Rubio has made his position on this issue clear. One either believes him or one doesn’t,” Cooke said in an email.
So eager was Cooke to promote Rubio that Cooke jettisoned his own publication’s reporting on the economic harms of mass immigration.
Breitbart News asked Cooke about recent studies showing all net job gains going to foreign workers. Cooke responded by citing a Washington Post fact check and insisted, “the picture you have painted in your question is an extreme one. The claim that all jobs have gone to foreign workers rests upon clever phrasing and simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.”
Yet, National Review has published multiple news articles and opinion pieces documenting the finding that all job gains among the working-age between 2000 and 2014 were netted by immigrant labor. [See: here, here, here, here, here, and here]. Cooke is essentially contradicting his publication’s own reporting.
In fact, as Breitbart News has previously reported, the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that between the beginning of the recession in December of 2007 and March of 2015, all net employment gains— among workers aged 16 years old and over— went to foreign workers. In December 2007, the number of foreign workers was 22,810,000. In March of 2015, the number of foreign workers was 24,937,000, which means foreign workers gained 2.1 million new jobs. In the same time frame, the number of native-born workers decreased from 123,524,000 in December 2007 to 122,698,000 million in March 2015—or a decline of 826,000 among native workers. During this time period, the total native population, aged 16 years and older, increased by more than 11 million, even though the number of native workers fell.
Cooke has promoted Rubio even despite his own acknowledgement— in an interview at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas, Nevada— that Rubio’s position on immigration has not changed. When Breitbart News noted in the interview that Rubio still supports every little bit of the “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill, Cooke agreed: “Right.”
“But let’s put policy aside for a moment, he’s clearly thought through his positions. He can speak on them fluently. He can engage a room. He is a self-deprecating man, which is always useful in politics…There’s something likable about Marco Rubio—that can be used to his advantage. I have my own issues with him on immigration. His foreign policy is probably slightly too hawkish and I don’t like his tax plan as much as others. Maybe the question for Republicans eventually is which is the candidate that can win and deliver 60 to 70 percent of what we want rather than a Hillary Clinton administration that may replace Justice Scalia with another Ruth Bader Ginsburg? So, I’m up on Rubio overall though I have my disagreements. I’m certainly pleased that he is a face of the Republican Party.”
In effect, what Cooke is saying is that while Rubio has similar policies to a Jeb, Cooke feels like Rubio will be better able to sell amnesty and globalist trade pacts and get them enacted.
This sentiment was recently echoed by New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait who wrote, “Marco Rubio has carved out a valuable niche in the Republican field as the candidate who will carry out the agenda of the party’s donor base, but who has the identity and communication skills to sell that agenda more effectively.”
As one hill aide told Breitbart News: “Conservatives stopped George Bush’s amnesty bill, they stopped Barack Obama’s amnesty bill, and they could stop Hillary Clinton’s amnesty bill, but there is no scenario in which President Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill isn’t signed into law.”
It is interesting that while the publication seems delighted to heap accolades upon Rubio— a candidate who has demonstrated a willingness to repeatedly make materially false factual representations to them without any seeming compunction—the publication has been extremely critical of Donald Trump, as Byron York observed. In fact, the National Review has even gone after Trump’s blue-collar supporters who have no social power and whose kids are likely to face an uphill climb getting into universities, getting jobs, and achieving stable incomes and retirements if Rubio’s immigration policy were put into effect.
As Cooke admitted in a recent column, he finds the thought of a Trump presidency more disturbing than the disenfranchisement of millions of conservative Americans whose votes will be further drowned out by an influx of migrants who favor big government policies.
“Do you know what’s worse than the possibility that demographic change will shift the American psyche over time?” Cooke writes. “Hillary Clinton in office in 2017; Joe Biden in office in 2017; Donald Trump in office in 2017.”
Greek journalist Yannis Koutsomitis tweets that the country’s Ministry of Public Order and Citizen Protection has confirmed that the terrorist found with a Syrian passport on his person was, “registered as refugee on Leros island in October.”
Koutsomitis also drew attention to a quote by Greece migration Minister Yiannis Mouzalas, who on September 9th said, “It would be “foolish to believe that there are no jihadists among the refugees that cross into Europe.”
A Syrian passport was discovered on the body of one of the suicide bombers who staged the attack outside the Stade de France during the France v Germany soccer game.
If confirmed, the report will be a devastating blow to Angela Merkel and other European leaders who have opened the borders to hundreds of thousands of migrants despite ISIS’ vow to exploit the crisis to infiltrate jihadists into the west.
Earlier today, Merkel responded to the massacre by calling for people to express “tolerance” towards the migrants.
Numerous experts have warned that rolling out the red carpet to migrants from the Middle East would substantitally heighten the risk of terrorists being able to cross into Europe, although such concerns were dismissed by many at the time as fearmongering.
by Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer FOR COACHISRIGHT.COM
Rubbing Resentments Raw is a main theme of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s analysis of the Alinsky model of community organizing and political activism to gain power by conflict over the establishment. Her senior dissertation on “There is Only the Fight” not only reveals the continuing, enormous effect of Saul Alinsky on Hillary Rodham today, but also shows the immersion in his philosophy that directs her drive to become America’s first woman president. She says of her role model: “Saul Alinsky is more than a man who has created a particular approach to community organizing; he is the articulate proponent of what many consider to be a dangerous social/political philosophy.”
The irony seen here-as her lengthy senior academic dissertation develops-is that Chicago, home of both professor and student, is every bit as bad and perhaps far worse than it ever was when they envisioned a social justice paradigm to rescue its underprivileged residents from poverty. Rubbing raw resentments is now the meme used by academics and their gullible students to effect what they feel will be beneficial change. But are their empty words a false symbol of lack of beneficial action?
Hillary Rodham’s student paper cites the Alinsky dream of a bridge from nationalistic chauvinism to a horizon of a New World Order for mankind. We now begin to see how she has steeped herself in this Chicago, political organizer’s fanciful theme of having “this feeling for and with the people.” Of course, the hypocritical Clinton will occupy a station of importance far above that of “the people,” given that she considers herself better than those she was born to lead.
Is changing America into just another New World Order satellite nation what we really want?
Alinksy’s theory that power, rather than good will, is the engine that drives societal change, is a subtle attack on Christianity’s beneficence. “Be prepared for Conflict; Conflict is the route to power,” says Alinsky. So let’s couple the idealistic musings of both Mrs. Clinton and her mentor with what we are seeing in real time and we have to wonder if what they evince is just more academic double talk. If we consider this week’s events at the University of Missouri along with the Ferguson effect, we need to ask ourselves just what is being accomplished.
“Social conflict is both healthful and necessary to precipitate and direct a community’s conflict pattern,” says Alinsky. Wanting to serve as an “abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community,” now becomes chaos for the sake of chaos with no positive result anywhere in sight. Other aims HRC cites include “fanning latent hostilities and being a channel to pour out frustration” so Alinsky can “agitate to the point of CONFLICT.” Just what is being accomplished by the constant turmoil the Obama years have brought? Will Mrs. Clinton give us more of the same?
What societal change is coming as a result of those inflamed classroom discussions? How is constant conflict helping America solve its many pressing economic problems? Can we truthfully say we are better off now after the Alinsky/Obama/Clinton push to “fundamentally change” our American way of life? “Alinsky’s anti-fascism, built around anti-authoritarian, anti-racial superiority, anti-oppression (are) his ideological justification for his move into organizing.”
While all of this conflict and turmoil are going on with the right hand, what is Mrs. Clinton planning with her left? Commenters on conservative threads keep pointing out the nature of governance-by-distraction that has gotten Obama the shroud of confusion he needed to implement all kinds of new laws, regulations and Executive Orders that affect us in varied and dangerous ways. Is Mrs. Clinton taking what she learned as Alinsky’s ardent admirer to start her own march through our way of life?
Hillary says “a radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in existing laws and methods of government in Marxian terms. . .(to) drastically alter the causes of societal conditions.” Yes, these are Saul Alinsky’s words that she is quoting. But are these same words forever imprinted on her own philosophy? Did not entire segments of voters look to Obama as the young idealistic change artist who would solve our country’s social strife? Does strife solve strife?
Our country is more racially divided, more violently corrupted, more drug addicted, more at risk from our foreign enemies, more in debt than ever before in our history. Is this what following Saul Alinsky has brought, not just to Chicago, but to America? Chicago’s murder rate is at all-time highs among its minority populations and no liberal politician seems able or willing to fix this city’s problem.
Alinsky saw Chicago as his home and indeed, he has made his Chicago school of community activism the driving force for his acolytes, Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. “No individual or organization can negotiate without power to compel negotiations,” he says. We must face the fact now that Hillary’s academic studies fundamentally have imbued her with the notion of social conflict and power mobilization for America’s future. How much of this woman do we see on her debate stage? It is the dark shadow of Saul Alinsky that follows her everywhere.