cross posted in www.delawarepolitics.net

Saul Alinsky’s book. “Rules For Radicals,” was first named “Rules For Revolution,” and has caused untold controversy since Alinsky published the book in 1971. I realize that one diary will not be enough to communicate the content of destruction this book holds for our Republic.
When I first bought the book, I vowed to read it cover to cover before donning my pencil to write even one word. Alinsky opens in the book’s prologue by writing, “The revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, “Burn the system down!”
Alinsky’s tactics were based not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but instead on the neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the, “dialectic process” rather than bloody revolution. Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.
At this point, I would like to define, “dialectic process:” Reasoning in which question-answer approach (dialectic) is used to examine the correctness, legitimacy, or validity of an assumption, idea, opinion.
Alinsky writes on page 10, “A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into a new social order, or the “dictatorship” of the proletariat and finally the last stage, the political paradise of communism.”
A letter from Saul Alinsky’s son David States: “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we his approach 100th birthday.”
Obama taught workshops on Alinsky’s theories and methods for years and in 1985, he started working as a community organizer for and Alinskyite group called, “Developing Community Projects.” While building coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama was criticized for not attending church and decided to become an instant Christian. He then helped fund the Alinsky Academy. Obama was a paid director of the Woods Fund, which is a non-profit organization used to provide start-up funding and operating capital for Midwest Academy, which teaches the Alinsky tactics of community organization. Obama sat on the Woods Fund Board with William Ayers, the founder of the, “Weather Underground,” a domestic terrorist organization.
Hillary Rodham as a student at Wellesly in 1969, interviewed Saul Alinsky and wrote her thesis on Alinsky’s theories and methods. She concludes her thesis by writing, “Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such he has been feared, just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths, “democracy.”
Alinsky offered Hillary a job upon graduation from Wellesley but she decided to attend Yale Law School where she met her husband Bill Clinton.
“Rules For Radicals,” page 113, “From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams, eats, breaths, sleeps only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no issues.”
Page 59, “But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making a deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, compromise for 30 percent, you’re 30 percent ahead.”
In closing, I would urge every conservative or constitution minded person to know you enemy. Buy and read this book. Your adversaries have memorized it and are using the principles within its covers to destroy our great republic. Make no mistake, the Progressive Liberals or Radicals’ goal is to tear down the republic and shred the Constitution. The problem is, they have nothing to replace it with; they are only bent on destruction.

A Nation can only be disgraced by the failure of its citizenry to take action in the face of tyranny
Donald Raleigh Ayotte August 2010

O’Donnell’s new Book, “Troublemaker,” is an eye opening expose of both the Delaware GOP political process and Christine O’Donnell’s traditional close-knit family values and is written in an honest and heartfelt manner that reflects her family values and how these values gave her tenacity and steadfastness, enabling her to win the 2010 senatorial primary against a seemingly unbeatable Delaware political icon.

O’Donnell relates her early family life, while reflecting on the Christian family values that led her to becoming a pro-life advocate as well as a strong advocate of Constitutional and Grass Root values. Her life as a young professional in communications and media which eventually led to her entry into politics are all explained from an eloquently charming point of view. She describes her time working in Washington DC and other experiences that led her to be an advocate for the pro-life cause and eventually Delaware’s three-time senatorial candidate.

The reader can easily follow along as Christine chronicles her initiation into Delaware politics in the 2006 U.S. Senatorial Race, until her astonishing victory against Mike Castle in the 2010 senatorial primary. She reveals details of the, “dirty tricks” perpetrated by both the Castle campaign and the Delaware GOP led by Chairman, Tom Ross. Christine is led by an intense desire to change a system in Delaware that caters to those favored few at the top of the pile, while disregarding the rank and file republicans, except when they need something.

Christine describes her lack of support by Tom Ross and the Delaware GOP after winning the 2010 primary with details that would astound the republican voter. She talks about her betrayal by Karl Rove and Bill Maher during campaign and reveals the intricacies of running for a U.S. senate position. She easily relates the tremendous emotional stress that the entire inner circle of her campaign dealt with as she was attacked by both her own party and the democrats. O’Donnell writes on page 172:

“The exciting thing about the 2008 campaign was that we were out in front of an exciting new movement. People who had never taken part in the political process were standing up and joining us, but the party elite acted like they would have much preferred it if these folks remained on the sidelines.
the state GOP didn’t lift a finger to help our campaign–kind of odd, don’t you think? I mean, here I’d been dutifully nominated by party delegates at our state convention, I had no primary challenger and there was an infrastructure in place that would have been an enormous help in getting our message out across the state, but it felt to us in the trenches as if our state officials were sitting this one out.”

The reader will easily understand what drives Christine to fight against the odds and run for a position that can obviously change the political landscape in Delaware and make such a difference at the national level. I won’t quote anything from the 2010 primary and general election. You will have to read the book for yourself.

O’Donnell’s honesty and candor is obvious as she relates to her constituents, learning of the enormous difficulties people face every day in a failing economy. She interacts with her many supporters and constituents on a daily basis about the issues that face Delawarean’s in all walks of life.

O’Donnell is a grass roots candidate that comes from a middle class family that worked hard for everything they had. She understands the working class and advocates for the rights of all her constituents, over the interests of the bureaucracy. The appendices of “Troublemaker,” include both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

This book is a “must read,” for all who want something more from American politics, both at the national level and the local level, and have hope that the political situation can change. It is now on sale at all major book stores.

The reason for the headline, “Troublemaker” Christine’s Uncompleted Journey,” is that I believe that O’Donnell has had an enormous impact on the conservative movement, both nationally and locally and I believe that her journey is not over. This will become apparent to the reader as they become engrossed in this, “page turner.”
I will end this review by calling on Christine not to end her quest for elected office. I believe that once elected, her voice must and will be heard.

Are Americans too timid to boycott products from Mainland China? I think not! Americans are reeling from economic disaster and the Chinese are scolding us like middle-school children.

America is the largest market for Chinese Products. In short, we are their biggest marks. People have told me that if Americans stopped buying Chinese products that Wal-Mart would come to a grinding halt. That’s not true, but they would have to reassess how they do business and perhaps, just perhaps, if Americans would stick to their guns on this issue, America might gain back some self-respect and also some world-respect.

C’mon America, freedom always comes at a price. It’s not free. Our forefathers paid the price for our right to have life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the least we can do is boycott products. It’s our turn to step up to the plate and take a swing.

The only language the Chinese will understand is a good kick to the rear-end, mainly right where the wallet lies.
When I went to Wal-mart yesterday, I went to buy some clothing products and when they were labeled, “made in China” I put them back on the shelve and bought some that were made here in the USA and other countries. IT’S A START. I WON’T BUY FROM THEM ANY LONGER!!

Over two hundred people poured into the Millsboro Delaware Fire Hall, Thursday night to hear a presentation given by the “9-12 Delaware Patriots.” The presentation of the affects of United Nations Agenda 21, also known as, “Sustainable Development” for a “One World Government,” that George Herbert Walker Bush called the, “New World Order.”

President Obama signed his 86th Executive Order (13575) on June 9, that established the White House Rural Council that seems to be in line with the United Nations radical agenda 21, and it is designed to begin taking control of almost all aspects of the lives of 16 percent of the American People. In 1992, President Bush signed the Agreement for the Administrative Implementation of Agenda 21 and another 178 nations also signed.

The objectives of Agenda 21 would be to abolish private property ownership and bring all nations under international economic regulation and law. The new international law would supersede our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Nations would lose their sovereignty and there would be global ownership of natural resources. The goal would be to reduce the human population of the planet by 80 to 85 percent. The educational systems would concentrate on becoming unified with a “dumbing down,” of the global population.

There would be a complete global redistribution of wealth, with the emphasis on “no private ownership of property.” There would a replacement of Judeo-Christian values, with pantheism. Parental rights would be diminished and children would be trained by the state. All citizens would be disarmed and the United Nations would control the Military.

This sounds like a bleak future. If accomplished, this global plan would make slaves of everyone who wasn’t in the controlling elite. This Agenda 21, is all about power and control.

the controlling agents of this, “New World Order” would still have all the rights and privileges that the wealthy icons have today, while the ordinary citizen would have nothing, not even the right to voice grievances. Having already been disarmed, the people could not fight the tyranny they found themselves in.

A recent article in “American Thinker Magazine” by Scott Strzelczyk and Richard Rothschild, details some of the specifics:

“Most Americans are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nation’s program known as Agenda 21. The United Nation’s Department of economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 as a sustainability agenda which is arguably an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism brushed with anti-American, anti-capitalist overtones.
A detailed history on sustainable development, definitions, and critical actions can be found here. Section III of the Agenda 21 Plan addresses local community sustainable development. The Preamble and Chapter 28 discuss how Agenda 21 should be implemented at a local level. The United Nations purposely recommends avoiding the term Agenda 21 and suggest a cleverly named alternative, “smart growth.”

Part of Agenda 21 that must be implemented at the local level is, ICLEI, International Council For Local Environmental Initiatives, also known as “Local Governments for Sustainability.”

They will be directing policies that cause: Stack-em and Pack-em housing, traffic congestion, light rail, inaccessible open space, managed control over our lives, management of water, prohibition resource management, fire hazards and private property restrictions
.
If this sounds like Big Brother, it is. We would not longer enjoy the rights that we have become accustomed to. We would not control hardly any aspects of our lives and many would die of futile resistance.

Within Delaware’s Republican Party lies an ideologically deeply split party. The GOP statewide office elections, at the State Convention in April did nothing to quell the open dislike between the Republican Tea Party Conservatives and the Republican Moderates or RINOS.
As some of you know, I ran for the state Chairman’s position against opponent John Sigler, a former NRA Chairman and Kent County lawyer. The wealthy Blueblood Castle Republicans stacked the deck from the beginning. About halfway through the campaign, I terminated my candidacy for the chairman’s position and filed with the State GOP, for the position of Vice chairman. Just before the election, the moderates that control New Castle County and hold the bulk of the delegates, pressured Greg Lavelle, the State House Minority Leader to “cockblock,” my candidacy by running against me for the Vice Chairman’s Position. Delaware has 345 delegates at its convention and I only received 63 votes but made a loud statement. My treatment at the convention, by the Moderate GOP faction angered the conservatives of Sussex County who have just recently gained another State Representative Seat and Senate seat due to the population shift from north to south. (we have the pristine beaches that the moderates covet)
In Conservative Sussex County, we had elections and replaced Moderate Chairman, Ron Sams with former Conservative US Congressional Candidate, Glen Urquhart. Most of the Elective District Chairpersons (Precinct Captains) are Conservative also. We have united and consolidated our power in Sussex County and also gained more delegates at the convention with about 100 delegates for just one county.
This caused a much deeper underlying split that oozes like and open wound, within Delaware’s GOP. If the RINOS want to play ball, they will have to sit at the table like gentlemen and stop their backroom deals because the conservative movement in Delaware is only accelerating.
Everybody is preaching unity, while plotting the downfall of their adversaries with opposing ideologies. In short, it’s a mess that won’t heal no matter how much salve is applied to the wound. Although the conservative movement is a much stronger force to be reckoned with, neither the moderates or the conservatives have enough power by themselves to elect statewide candidates. These candidates include: Governor, Lt. Governor, Insurance Commissioner, Auditor US Congressman and US Senate.
Whether or not some meeting of minds takes place before the election cycle begins, is anybody’s guess but right now its a huge mess that keeps festering.

The last three monthly meetings at Sussex County’s GOP have ended in chaos, with Delaware’s GOP Chairman, Tom Ross being censured at November’s meeting.  The last meeting on January 10th was so chaotic that when County Chairman Ron Sams made a motion to adjourn without any business being conducted that a loud cry of NO shattered the room.  Sams shut off the lights to the room without adjourning the meeting, angering the entire committee.

Ron Sams decided to leave town under the auspices of taking a vacation and Vice Chairman Brian Shupe has refrained from attending, claim of being occupied with family matters.  Tom Ross has been invited to speak to the Sussex County Committee on February 16th, amid cries for his resignation.  “To invite Tom Ross to the Sussex County Gop Meeting at this time, is not only unwise but incendiary,” one committeeman who didn’t want to be identified said.

Sussex County Committeeman Donald Ayotte filed to contest Ross’ claim for his seat at the Delaware Republican Convention on April 30th, at the Convention Center at Dover Downs.  Only the Delaware Committee will be voting for their Chairman.  “If I’m elected, I think that the entire republican body in Delaware should vote for their chairman,” said Ayotte.  One important factor in the mix, is that Delaware is a small state and has only three counties.  While Sussex County is by far the largest geographically, the Northern County of New Castle is the largest in population and is heavily democratic.

Currently there are about 365 committee members in Delaware and it is thought that the big money people that were backing Mike Castle for the US Senate Seat loaded the vote towards the candidate that would cater to their needs.  At the 2010 State Republican Convention the Delaware committee Chose Michele Rollins to run for the US Congress and Mike Castle to run for the US Senate.  Christine O’Donnell primaried Mike Castle and won.  Glen Urquhart primaried Michele Rollins and won.  Both Rollins and Urquhart are fiscal and social conservatives.  Claims have been made that the Delaware State Chairman failed to support either of them properly and there has been turmoil ever since.

The question remains, should 365 people decide who is running for these elected positions, or should the primary winners, selected by the rank and file republicans take precedence.  Delaware state law says the primary will decide who is the candidate.

Now a raging battle is taking place in Delaware, especially in conservative Sussex County to remove Rom Sams as Sussex County Chairman, with Sussex County conservatives backing Donald Ayotte in the election for State Chairman on April 30th.

From what I am hearing in Sussex County, it will be extremely incendiary for Tom Ross to address the Sussex County Council Meeting on February 16th.  Most local elected officials have decided to play politics and stay out of the mess.  I sure they will take sides with the winners

I was asked the question.  What do you think is the best type of candidate to run statewide in Delaware?  Of course, I knew the answer immediately but wanted to give it some clear thought.

I will start by explaining the state’s political demographics.  Delaware consists of three counties.  New Castle County is the northern most county and by far the most heavily populated and is very liberal and includes the cities of Wilmington and Newark, which is the home of the University of Delaware, my alma mater.  The middle county is Kent, which includes the city of Dover, Delaware’s Capital,  the home of Dover Air Force Base, a Military Airlift Command.  Kent County is conservative and has generally voted conservative.  The southern county is Sussex County with no cities.  It’s capital is the Town Georgetown and except for its beautiful beaches on the Atlantic Ocean, it is a agricultural community.  Sussex County is very conservative and votes conservative.  Even the registered democrats in Sussex County are mostly conservative.

My answer to the question posed in the first paragraph is that a moderate conservative would not have a difficult time winning a statewide election in Delaware.  This type of candidate could attract most of the republican votes, a good number of Independents and more than a few soft democrats.

Glen Urquhart was the 2010 Conservative Republican candidate for the US House Seat and could have possibly won if it were not for Christine O’Donnell who was at the top of the ticket, running for the US Senate Seat.  Her Primary win, defeating RINO Mike Castle so infuriated moderate republicans within the state, including State GOP Chairman Tom Ross that most of them refused to vote for her, some of them instead voted for the Marxist Chris Coons.  This brought the Delaware Republican Ticket down, trickling to the State House and Senate Seats.

As a republican conservative, I liked O’Donnell immensely but she was unelectable for several reasons.  First the Delaware GOP failed to immediately endorse and support her and pundits like Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer abandoned her.  Secondly, the moderate conservative republicans in New Castle County were angered and would not vote for her.  Thirdly, she made so many gaffes in media interviews and talk radio shows, that she could not recover.

Our party is in shambles and we must work hard to reorganize before any respectable candidate will think of running for statewide office.  We must first get rid of Delaware GOP Chairman, Tom Ross and help everybody build the structure within their individual districts.  This will be a difficult task.

As a committeeman, I introduced a resolution to the floor of the Sussex County Committee censuring GOP Chairman Tom Ross for his behavior during the election and it passed by a 95 percent verbal vote, and it stands.

The type of person that we need to fill the state chairman’s job will require these qualities to be successful.  This person must be a hard-charger and a powerful self-starter, must possess exceptional interpersonal and communication skills and have strong leadership capabilities.  It is not required that this person “walk on water,” but it might help.

I write this post not to point out Delaware’s political problems but to become the beginning of the answer and start the reorganization process.

A nation can only be disgraced by the failure of its citizenry to take action in the face of tyranny!

Don Ayotte Nov. 2010

Wednesday night’s Sussex County GOP monthly meeting was packed with expectation, with a standing room only crowd.  News had leaked out that Committeeman Donald Ayotte would introduce a resolution to censure Delaware GOP Chairman Tom Ross.

“Mr. Chairman

I make a motion to censure State GOP Chairman, Tom Ross for making inappropriate statements and failing to immediately endorse and fully support a lawfully elected republican candidate for the US Senate,  Inappropriate statements include, “she couldn’t be elected dogcatcher,” when speaking about US Senate Candidate, Christine O’Donnell.  Tom Ross fails to represent the will of the rank and file republicans in Delaware.”

More than a few people seconded the motion, and the crowd broke out into temporary chaos.  After an hour of debate and opinion, the motion was passed by a 95 percent vote.

There were many reasons that O’Donnell lost by 16 percentage points and Tom Ross’ non-support was only one of them.  Many republicans believed that this was inappropriate behavior on the part of the chairman and I was one of them.  We wanted to have proper leadership to lead us into the 2012 election.  We felt we needed a hard-charger to take the lead and rebuild the party.  Like any CEO, when he failed to perform his Job to the satisfaction of those who elected him, his job was on the line.

The First Amendment has been argued to death over the years since it was written in the 1700’s. People of different political ideologies have interpreted this controversial amendment according to their beliefs before there was the current Republican and Democratic Parties. So, let’s take a look at it and see exactly what it says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Christine O’Donnell, the Conservative Republican Candidate for the US Senate Seat from Delaware recently stated, while debating her opponent, Democrat Chris Coons, at Widener School of Law that the First Amendment does not establish a separation of church and state. According to Ganett Communications’ Publication, The NewsJournal of Wilmington, “The crowd at the Widener School of Law, many of them, law professors and students, gasped.” We all know just how “fair and Balanced,” Gannett Communications’ publications are.

Like everyone else, I thought that the first Amendment did exactly mean that: I mean that it established a separation between church and state. I read it several times to get a more accurate meaning of the wording and even factored in what I thought the founding fathers meant. It simply says that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I then searched the entire document and nowhere did I find the words, “separation of church and state.” All these years I thought I was so darn smart. I looked again and the founding fathers just plain said that they wouldn’t make a law telling us how we could worship or tell us that us couldn’t worship, as we desired. It is worded very plain and simple and in easy understandable language. Nowhere in this document does is say that the church and state should be separated.

I started to wonder why these law professors would gasp in horror, she was correct. Any law professor ought to be able to see it, if I a simple English and Journalism Major could. Ahhhh. Now I’ve done it, I’ve gone and insulted the entire legal community.

Well I believe that Christine O’Donnell is correct on this point.  What do you think?

When looking at the title as a question, from the eyes of a standard campaign manager, it doesn’t make sense.  To find a reasonable answer to this question, one must look into the depths of America’s boiling political cauldron.

The sudden downfall of the economy and the current administration’s inability to stop the downward spiral of job loss, first among the blue collar working class then the white collar workers has caused Americans to loose any confidence they had in this governments ability to solve problems.

The “throw out all incumbents,” attitude has been replaced with a smarter and much more sophisticated American voter. People I know have learned how to look at the voting records of all their legislators, both local and at the national level. Now the attitude that I have seen, especially in Delaware, is that it doesn’t matter what comes out of a politician’s mouth, just look up their voting record and vote accordingly.

“I don’t care what O’Donnell’s baggage is,” one Delaware resident told me, while demanding anonymity, “she is a patriot that wants to help take back our country and she will read a bill before voting on it.” Who can argue with that logic?

Another Delawarean stated quite confidently that when the left wing media intensified their attack on O’Donnell after the October 13 debate at Newark’s University of Delaware Campus, that she cut the democratic lead in half. “I hope they keep attacking her,” he told me, while giving a slight chuckle, “We’ll be ahead in the polls by the time the election gets here.”

I must admit that the two moderators, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Local News Anchor, Nancy Karibjanian’s performance was one of the most biased debates that I have viewed for quite a while. It infuriated most Delawareans and caused a backlash of support that translated in the Rasmussen polls to a tidy pickup for O’Donnell in percentage points.

O’Donnell came from behind to defeat heavily entrenched Republican Congressman, Mike Castle in a September 14 primary upset that rocked both Delaware and the nation. O’Donnell’s history of coming from behind at the last minute has Delaware Republicans, angry at the left-wing media’s attempt to destroy her in a nationally televised debate. Then there is the fact that O’Donnell has that natural star quality that has shown up in other politicians. Some Delawarean’s are starting to consider O’Donnell as the East Coast’s Sarah Palin.  “She’s not perfect, but who is, and she is a winner,” a woman who attended the University of Delaware debate said.

There is no easy answer to why O’Donnell’s sudden rise in popularity has Delaware’s Republicans, Independents and soft Democrats mesmerized. One of the top answers that I received from working class voters in Delaware was that they are simply scared that the jobs won’t come back and when the extended unemployment runs out, the foreclosure rate on homes will dramatically rise. They know that O’Donnell is a Christian conservative and even the liberals in Delaware are giving her candidacy credibility. It is a matter of record that her democratic opponent, New Castle County Executive, Chris Coons has raised property taxes in that county by 53 percent during his tenure in that position. The liberal base in Delaware is definitely concerned when the President comes to Delaware to campaign for Coons.

Of all of the intangible affects on the voter public, O’Donnell offers hope of real change and she campaigns on the issues. Americans don’t expect that change will happen immediately but they are geared up to change their country one legislator at a time. “We just want to take back our state and our country. I am not just one vote”, one man at her primary victory said, “I am one vote more.”

Whatever the combination of factors are, that has caused her to become the rising star of Delaware, O’Donnell has become a steamrolling force that is gaining speed. Excitement in Delaware is at an unstoppable mode. When she enters, people rush to get her autograph on a piece of campaign literature that contains her picture. All I can say is that the president is correct to be concerned.