Organizing, A Euphemism For Revolution


Things Are Not Always What They Seem

Most Americans have never heard of Saul Alinsky, but it will be a long time before we overcome his influence on America. His confrontational tactics and politics of the 60’s are the inspiration for our president’s symbolic, undiplomatic, and predictable cliches

“get mad”, “get in their faces”, “punish your enemies”, “they bring a knife, we bring a gun”.

His quotes will forever be enshrined next to those of his hero, Abraham Lincoln whom he desperately wants to emulate.

In a recent speech, Obama compared the Civil War President’s criticism and opposition, to his own rejection by a once adoring public,

“Lincoln, they used to talk about him almost as bad as they talk about me.”

Lincoln lacked the theatrical skills to vary his speech patterns while reading speeches. Obama can vary from being a Harvard drama student with a peculiar idiolect delivery utilizing an Irish lilt with dramatic pauses or employing the nonsensical syntax above, language more appropriate for an Acorn or a union meeting. None the less, when we compare the personal thoughts of Obama to those of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, we begin to appreciate the superficial nature of the similarities that Obama is desperately trying to promote.

The Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

We have compared Obama to Lincoln. Two great orators who both read their most significant speeches: Lincoln wrote his and we can be fairly certain Obama at least wrote those quotes on his own. Lincoln wrote his speech by using great wit and an empathy for the struggle Americans were suffering through. Obama’s quotes are straight from the Alinsky school of tactics and have become the norm for the dysfunctional government of the Chicago Machine and the Socialist revolution in America.

Alinsky died when Obama was a boy, but his school of thought lives on through the generations of community organizers and union thugs. Obama received his Alinsky training through the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation of Chicago and by working for an affiliate of Gamliel Foundation whose goal was “a more just and democratic society,” a precept of the Alinsky method.

In the Alinsky method, “organization” is a code word or euphemism for “revolution;” a revolution, whose purpose and ultimate objective is the acquisition of power by supposed oppressed demographics and the simultaneous radical transformation of the country.

Lincoln was desperately trying to preserve the country at a time when there were battles being fought that would claim more American lives in a few days than the entire Vietnam War. A fact that trivializes Obama’s efforts to compare his political struggles to that of Lincoln. Essentially, the comparison is the antithetical comparison of the pampered Alinskyite revolutionary to that of a self-taught backwoodsman who held this country together during its most critical moments.

The Alinsky revolutionary of the Hillary Clinton type is not the typical long haired, bearded, drugged out revolutionary of the 60’s. No Alinsky scolded those revolutionaries for their anti-social appearances; he maintained true revolutionaries don’t flaunt their radicalism, they infiltrate the system from within, they are clean cut and well dressed. Alinsky substituted the word revolution with the more benign sounding “organizing”.

Organizing is a systemic acquisition of power through traditional means and working towards a radical transformation of economic and social structure. An organizer promotes discontent, confusion, questions regarding traditional morality, and chaos to bring about the social upheaval prescribed by Marx and Lenin.

After a collapse of the governmental and social systems, that according to Alinsky are not worthy of salvage, a new system can be established that will be more in line with the writings of Marx and Engels. It is the charismatic organizers like Obama and Clinton who facilitate these societal changes, they understand the necessary direction and methods required to bring about societal changes.

Alinsky wanted his revolutionaries or organizers to wear suits, to infiltrate or penetrate existing institutions in a patient and persistent manner. His original organizers (Hillary) and their disciples (Obama) were to gain influence and power within churches, unions, and political parties and to introduce changes from their particular positions towards a common goal.

Alinsky was a genius at consolidating power and influence. He was close friends with Chicago crime boss Frank Nitti, Capone’s second in command; he had close alliances with Catholic clerics like Bishop Bernard Shell; thus Alinsky courted influence well in the corrupt quagmire of the Chicago Machine and also among the wealthy like Marshal Field III, Sears Roebuck heiress Adele Rosenwald Levy and Gardiner Howland Shaw, an assistant secretary of state for FDR.

Although Alinsky started his organizing in the 30’s and continued until his death in 1972, his greatest singular recruitment was a high school student Hillary Rodham Clinton. They met through a radical church group. Clinton later wrote an analysis of the Alinsky method for her senior thesis at Wellesley College, a college that maintained a Marxist faculty.

Alinsky tried to hire Clinton as a community organizer after her graduation, but she elected to go to Yale Law School. They remained friends until Alinsky’s death.

Many Leftists complain of Hillary’s self-description as a moderate; yet, she is merely following an Alinsky directive to do or say what ever is required to hold and increase power. Obama offered a perfect example during his recent non-campaigning campaign in Cannon Falls, Minnesota; he appeals to a sense of surreal patriotism, that is almost bizarre in context with previous remarks,

“There is no shortage of ideas to put people to work right now. What is needed is action on the part of Congress, a willingness to put the partisan games aside and say we’re going to do what’s right for the country, not what we think is going to score some political points for the next election; there is nothing that we’re facing that we can’t solve with some spirit of ‘America first’.”

Obama neglects to mention that the partisan games can now be put aside, mainly because he no longer controls both the congressional houses and that the image of doing what is right for the country means going along with his failed agenda; especially, since his poicies have only failed because of bad luck and happenstance; thus they need to be repeated with vigor, before it is too late to prevent the next recession.

Logic can exist on the flimsiest of foundations if the public is naive and gullible enough to accept the premise.

Hillary began her political career with a prestigious and dubious appointment to the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigation team just out of law school in 1974, on the recommendations of Peter and Marian Wright Edelman, benefactors of Clinton since 1969. Ms Edelman is an Alinsky devotee; she served on the board of Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation.

Obama was trained by Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation and spent four years teaching the Alinsky method in workshops. Obama served four years as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project, another Alinsky group. He later worked with ACORN and its affiliate Project Vote, both from the Alinsky school.

While trying to gain influence among the Black churches of Chicago, Obama was criticized for not attending church; he immediately joined the Black Liberation Church.

Both Obama and Clinton predicate their political policies as revolutionary followers of Alinsky; turmoil, social upheaval, economic chaos are all techniques of the Alinsky method. They are advancing toward Socialist Revolution as fast as the system will allow; however, their pace has caused the public to lose faith in their abilities to lead the country, before the revolution could reach a point of no return. Sadly, the public was under the mistaken belief that their efforts were directed toward building a traditional America: nothing could be further than the truth.

The public is demanding repeal of all things Obama. The Alinsky plan has nearly run its course. The public is more aware of the nefarious nature of the Alinskyites and their techniques; they will find it far more difficult to mount another campaign of this magnitude in the future.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’m not so sure-the is 17 September 2011-The Day of Rage, were the Alinskys attempt to attack Wallstreet.
I also feel that the current racist mob attacks against whites in major cities, recurring for the same reason. Obama is not done, sure his polls are low-but hatred has increased, and we see the chaos coming. It depends what our police is going to do about it!

The wage slaves of the 19th and 20th centuries had to fight the man to obtain livable wages, safe working conditions and freedom from jack-booted, armed strikebreakers wreaking havoc at the wishes of the corporate overlords from Haymarket to Matewan. And those were the white wage slaves, who didn’t have the added burden of Jim Crow. There would not have been a middle class without their efforts. Alinsky was a natural outgrowth of the extreme wing of labor leaders. His legacy lies fallow in the past except in the imagination of those who consider our current president anything but a corporate shill.

If only the Alinsky method had run its course. On the contrary, I would posit current events are right on track. Evidence includes Obama’s consistent, in-your-face actions and behaviors, such as his current vacation in elitist haven Martha’s Vineyard. Using the common denominator as a method of analysis, the administration’s antics can best be explained as a desire to foment anger among the American people. Further, domestic events appear to integrate into a larger pattern of dysfunction orchestrated by what can best be described as global chess masters. If this is true, any and all questionable activities must be evaluated from a three-dimensional perspective. Further, observers will witness a rhythmic increase of dysfunction among geopolitical systems, both foreign and domestic.

Skookum, a very good post (what we expect from you!).

I must, however, agree with “artofmine” in commewnt #4 when he says, “If only the Alinsky method had run its course. On the contrary, I would posit current events are right on track. Evidence includes Obama’s consistent, in-your-face actions and behaviors, such as his current vacation in elitist haven Martha’s Vineyard.”

I invite readers to follow this link:

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Saul Alinsky, and Their Influence on Obama [Reader Post]

for information on Alinsky and his influence on Obama.

Message to the chess masters – Matthew 8:36.

Grass roots conservatives can counter the left’s organizing by organizing themselves in the one organization in which they have, as yet, failed to take advantage of, the one that offers the best chance to increase their goal to elect better people: the Republican Party. Over half of the “voting” slots of the Party are vacant. These are called precinct committeeman slots. I explain the Strategy for uniting inside the Republican Party here:

Even the progressives have not used this Strategy to full advantage with the Democrat Party:

It’s common sense that grass roots conservatives ought to organize politically is inside a political party, as opposed to just “tea parties.” Will the grass roots conservatives figure this out? Before they lose their liberties? Time will tell.

For Liberty,
Cold Warrior

I admit to being one highly critical of Obama politics, but I do try to stay clear of the personal attacks. That said, the fact that Michelle Obama took a flight 4 hours earlier than Barack to the Vineyard, ON THE TAXPAYER DIME, can be nothing less than in your face arrogance.

Maybe it’s just me, but when they do this blatant in your face crap, I always imagine the celebratory fist bump in between some sips of Dom. Even if we were dripping in money, how about that energy crisis Mr. President!

Michael Savage made a good point on his radio show last night. He said that if there was a reporter worth his/her salt left in the MSM, they would be at the Martha Vineyard Airport recording the tail numbers of every private plane there, consequently, that would tell us pretty much all we suspected or needed to know.

Good Post Slookum. You know I’m a big fan, but I do wish you would have chosen some different pictures. I get the point, but I have seen the “football” pictures, and honestly, IMO, for whatever that is worth, I find them to be the nadir of the objectification of women, truly embarrassed for the women involved.

Patricia, I found the pictures by accident, at first I thought it was a joke, but it is for real. Personally, I’d rather see the women in real uniforms playing football. Obviously these gals are athletic and have drifted to this football from other sports. I am sure they want to make it as a legitimate sport and resent being humiliated in those uniforms, at least most of them. I think women’s football and hockey could become sports just like basketball, tennis, and golf. Dressing them like strippers isn’t the best way to do it, but maybe the sport will evolve.

The photos didn’t come out like I wanted and I forgot to include a caption explaining the reasons for the pics. It isn’t easy for me to go back into photos and edit, so I left it the way it came out.

I am not a sports fan, so I miss a lot of this stuff. I like to play or watch my kids, that’s as far as it goes.

Oh, the women are awesome in MMA fighting. Hard to believe, but they are tremendous.

i try not to be sexist and that was not the intent of the pics; for me, they had shock value, at least for me personally.

I am ready to watch women’s hockey! Frightening!

Very thought provoking Skook. You weave a great narrative and are spot on in this instance – but that is par for the course!

Obama is a Narcissist with a capital “N” and either is oblivious to how his perpetual vacations are viewed, or as was pointed out, just does it to be in the face of those Americans he considers not to be his constituents.

You know, those of us who cling to our Bibles and our guns…

Through 8/31/11 Obama (aka the corporate shill) will have taken 70 vacation days.

Through 8/31/03 George W Bush took 225 vacation days, including, in the days leading up to 9/11, the longest vacation any president had ever taken.

Obama didn’t have the cash to buy a faux ranch like Crawford.

I agree that the president should be setting an example by taking more modest vacations, but please don’t criticize Obama without criticizing Bush.

artofmine, I believe you have a big clue and the COORDINATION OF THE FOREIGN BEHAVIOR OF REVOLTS
HAS BEEN WELL PLANNED, and not by them either,

Patricia, yes and how about air pollution SAVING, they are shoving

@rockybutte: First of all, why do you say it is a “faux ranch?”

Secondly, Bush bought it with his own money and hosted foreign dignitaries there quite often. Those working vacations and what Obama does are two entirely different things.

re: #15

Former U.S. Rep. Kent R. Hance, Austin, 2005: “There are some guys that are all hat and no cattle. The President’s not that way; he’s hat and five cattle.”


The Crawford Ranch was fully equipped for full and secure communications and for bureaucratic office functions; foreign leaders routinely traveled there on official state visits. It was sometimes called The Western White House. It was business as usual whether Bush was in Washington or in Crawford. During his terms of office, Bush was viciously attacked for time spent there as well as Camp David, Maryland, as if no work at all was being done unless he were in D.C. You can look it up.

So you had best acknowlege the way Bush was treated if you want to have this discusstion.

What I also recall is that back then, we were not in an economic depression, and did not have a President and First Lady who lectured us on making do with less while ostentatiously doing whatever they pleased. Bush didn’t shut down the New York theater district to take his wife on a date.

@Skookum: Good post Skookum! I never watch sports, but enjoyed playing a couple of them. But after looking at your teams picture I am seriously considering on moving to your neck of the woods! When I am surfing on the TV I notice that down here the players still wear the traditional gear and clothes for the sport of football. They are obviously not as progressive as your team. This is one time that progressive may not be a dirty word.

anticsrocks and Sherman,

Of course, supporters of Bush will criticize Obama for a couple of weeks in Martha’s Vineyard and will excuse Bush for taking 77 trips to Crawford during his presidency. You’re conservatives and you liked Bush and you don’t like Obama.

A little background about Crawford: Bush didn’t buy the ranch until after he declared for the presidency. It was a political move and a smart one. He and Rove remembered that Reagan had been provided with impressive photo ops on his ranch in Santa Barbara clearing brush and behaving manly.

Bush received foreign dignitaries in Crawford and worked practically every day he was there. I just wish he had been more proactive when those CIA guys flew down to warn him of the imminent threat of Bin Laden supporters flying planes into buildings.

Yes, Bush’s political enemies and critics in the press made hay by criticizing Bush’s frequent rips to Camp David, Crawford and Kennebunkport. Remember when Obama’s critics, particularly Fox News, slammed Obama for taking a post-election, pre-inauguration vacation with his family in Hawaii? They decried the locale as too “exotic”. Guess he should have vacationed in Alaska.

That’s an interesting comparison, rockybutte.
While Bush had to clear brush and stuff, on his amazingly eco-friendly ranch,
Obama has played golf, gone for ice cream (businesses are already complaining about the loss of 80% of their customers during O’s visits) sneaked out to a very fancy restaurant with Michelle (I hope she removed the Ipod earplugs for him) and so on.
The rap on Bush was how he favored business over the envirnment.
Ever read about all he did on that ranch to green it?
Obama touts green jobs then gets in a HUGE bus, or limo, or plane from one tony resort after another.


I forgot to remind you that we’re not in a depression. We were in a recession from about December of 2007 until about June of 2009, with a low point in September of 2008.

True, there are many unemployed, and to each of them it feels like a depression.


Yes, it is admirable what Bush did in Crawford. I wish that he had come up with greener policy for the nation than “clear skies” and “healthy forests”.

I bet that the ice cream shop and hamburger joint that were inconvenienced by Obama’s visits received increased recognition and business later.


I just wish he had been more proactive when those CIA guys flew down to warn him of the imminent threat of Bin Laden supporters flying planes into buildings.

Aren’t you spinning/conflating this? What did the “actionable intelligence” actually warn about that President Bush could have acted upon?


I agree that the president should be setting an example by taking more modest vacations, but please don’t criticize Obama without criticizing Bush.

I’m not really big on attacking President Obama over this. But as a partisan response, I’d say the difference here is the current economic conditions. From a public relations/perception standpoint, it looks bad and opens him to attacks from political opponents.


You make the common mistake of thinking that every conservative was a big fan of Bush. He was not a conservative — he grew the government plenty and he did not take a hard line on entitlements, Fannie MAe and Freddie Mac. But the contrast between that flawed president and this one is simply staggering. I’m note sure you realize just how bad things have gotten. And the double standard applied by the media to Bush vs. Obama, ‘progressives’ vs. conservatives in general, is simply disgusting. That double standard accounts for a great deal of the anger that you see – they claim to be objective but the mask finally fell off completely in 2008.

Regarding the economy — it’s a depression. The number of unemployed went up and stayed up. The economy is not growing. There is no recovery. And the prospect for the future as things stand is not good.

Nationwide the real number of unemployed is at least 50% higher than the official figure; “long term unemployed” drop off the statistics.

Federal spending shot up about 30% after 2008 and we have nothing to show for it except a mountain of new debt.


The bottom line is that Bush remained on vacation and took no obvious steps to safeguard the nation from hijackers flying airplanes into buildings. Yet, only a year or so later Cheney, presumably with Bush’s approval, articulated the 1% doctrine, that is, if there was as little as a 1% chance that the USA was in danger of attack, any efforts to prevent such an attack were permissible.

But Bush did nothing.

Was the resultant 1% doctrine a tacit admission that Bush and his administration had ignored the CIA’s warnings and had failed to protect the USA?

I agree with your statement about Obama’s vacation and how it leaves him vulnerable to criticism.

As I’ve mentioned, Obama is a corporate shill, much more in bed with the banksters than with the common folk.

@rockybutte: You said:

I just wish he had been more proactive when those CIA guys flew down to warn him of the imminent threat of Bin Laden supporters flying planes into buildings.

And you know about this alleged event, how?

Obama started in 2008 with the blaming BUSH, and will go blaming BUSH,
HIS whole MEDIA campaign blame BUSH, and you are also trapped in that
propaganda like so many where, you know what It’s call under a subliminal message
like a spell, will capture in your brain a spot and don’t go away, unless you get some work to take it to the bottom of your memory.
some preacher have used that tactic on their followers too,
and the marketing on the MEDIA KNOW IT VERY WELL ALSO,
and used it on their selling games, anything they are well paid to sell
HOPEFULLY this next election, the people wont get caught in the scam,
and seek to bring a real worthy president who can best take the interest of the AMERICANS AS A PRIORITY, AND RESTORED THE PRIDE IN THIS GREAT NATION,
and in yourself also.


The bottom line is that Bush remained on vacation and took no obvious steps to safeguard the nation from hijackers flying airplanes into buildings. Yet, only a year or so later Cheney, presumably with Bush’s approval, articulated the 1% doctrine, that is, if there was as little as a 1% chance that the USA was in danger of attack, any efforts to prevent such an attack were permissible.

But Bush did nothing.

Was the resultant 1% doctrine a tacit admission that Bush and his administration had ignored the CIA’s warnings and had failed to protect the USA?

Precisely what “CIA warnings” are you referencing? The August 6, 2001 PDB? What else? Link me up.

You accuse Bush of failing to doing “nothing” to safeguard America just 9 months into office, with some of his political appointments still not in key positions due to the 2000 election results and partisanship on the part of Senator Levin and others; for nearly 7 months, confirmation hearings for Feith and a couple of other top advisors for Rumsfeld were held up. The incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their jobs.

You wish to blame President Bush for the events of 9/11 when most of America at the time was asleep on the metastasizing dangers of Islamic terror and international jihad? Please tell me what the actionable intelligence was that any other president- Gore in office- would have done differently during those first 9 months in office.

We might as well stretch this one back even further and claim President Clinton “did nothing” to protect America and was “out to lunch/vacation” while the machinations of the 9/11 plot was being hatched on his watch.

@Wordsmith, #28:

We might as well stretch this one back even further and claim President Clinton “did nothing” to protect America and was “out to lunch/vacation” while the machinations of the 9/11 plot was being hatched on his watch.

So long as we don’t count the August 1998 launching of 66 Tomahawk cruise missiles at known terrorist compounds and training camps–one of which bin Laden escaped from hours before it was blown to bits–I suppose we could say Clinton “did nothing”. There was also the CIA-trained 60-man Pakistani commando team that was to have taken bin Laden out in 1999. That Clinton-ordered operation fell through when Nawaz Sharif and the head of Pakistani intelligence were thrown out in a military coup.

Skookum likes to accentuate his writing with flourishes like ‘…union members were a bunch of thugs….’ but doesn’t mention that the biggest, initial acts of thuggery were perpetrated by the corporate owner and managers themselves. Although I’m sure this kind of anti-Alinsky rhetoric appeals to a certain right-wing constituency–but, please, can’t we have a little objectivity.

@Greg: You do realize that my point wasn’t to blame Clinton for doing “nothing”, right? In hindsight, could he have done more? You bet’cha (short list):

-February 1993 , 1st WTC attack.
-1996: Khobar Towers.
-August 1998: The two embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (failure to act on a warning regarding the bomb attack in Nairobi).
-October 2000: USS Cole bombing.

I don’t really subscribe wholeheartedly to this (I blame the terrorists, not Clinton), but here’s in part the right-wing Clinton-haters charge:

Terrorism under Clinton was seen as a law-enforcement issue and some would say a low-priority issue. After the WTC bombing, Clinton told Americans not to “overreact”. After telling Americans he was putting “the full resources of the Federal government” to bring the terrorists to justice, he made zero policy changes to prevent further terror attacks.

The perception of defeat and retreat in Somalia and the lack of aggressive response from metastasizing terror threats only reinforced bin Laden’s propaganda charge and rallying call that America was a “paper tiger”, ripe for attacks.

In 1996, didn’t Sudan offer up bin Laden on a silver platter to us? And Clinton refuse? (No need to defend…I’ve actually defended Clinton on this, myself).

Failures were systematic and my point was, no matter who was at the helm, I believe things would have still culminated with 9/11 or something similar.

I blame neither Bush nor Clinton.