Obama: The Manchurian candidate? This is brief, so please read and pass it on:
Forget, for the moment, Obama’s radical associations (Ayers, Wright, Rezco, etc.), which would disqualify him to work for the CIA or FBI. Forget his thin resume and total lack of foreign policy experience. Forget that his voting record was ranked as most liberal in the Senate.
Could Obama be the “Manchurian candidate” — hiding his true agenda from the American people? Indeed, he is a longtime disciple of far-leftist Saul Alinsky, whose mission was to teach radicals to disguise their true ideology.
How does Obama’s campaign mirror Alinsky’s teachings? Please spend three minutes to find out:
The Democratic nominee’s slogan of “change” is also that of Alinsky, circa 1946: Obama’s campaign is straight out of Alinsky’s playbook.
Alinsky was dedicated to revolutionary change that he was convinced, “must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system, that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.” (Sound familiar?)
Obama was trained by Chicago’s Industrial Areas Foundation, founded in 1940 by the radical Alinsky. In the 80s, Obama spent years as director of the Developing Communities Project, which operated using Alinsky’s strategies, and was involved with two other Alinsky-oriented entities, ACORN and Project Vote.
On Obama’s website can be found a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom with “Power Analysis” and “Relationships Built on Self Interest” on the blackboard — key terms utilized in the Alinsky method.
The far-left Alinsky had no time for liberals; he wanted nothing less than transformational radicalism. “The hope and future of America lies with its radicals.” He continued: “This is the job for today’s radical — to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight. To say, ’let us change it together!’” Capitalism was always considered the enemy.
Obama calls his years as an Alinsky-esque community organizer in Chicago, “the best education I ever had.” But as radicalism expert Richard Lawrence Poe noted, “Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing.”
Alinsky’s writings even explain what often seems like Obama’s oversized ego. In New Hampshire in January, the senator told an audience that “a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany… and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama.”
It was a bizarre spectacle, but consider that Alinsky believed that “anyone who is working against the haves is always facing heavy odds. If he or she does not have that complete self-confidence (or call it ego) that he can win, then the battle is lost.”
According to Alinsky, “Ego must be so all-pervading that the personality of the organizer is contagious, that it converts the people from despair to defiance, creating a mass ego.”
Alinsky also readily admitted that he didn’t trust the people themselves. “Seeking some meaning in life,” the middle class, according to Alinsky, “turn to an extreme chauvinism and become defenders of the ’American’ faith.”
This is evocative of Obama’s remark during the primaries that small-town Americans are “bitter” and “cling to guns or religion.”
Obama is also following Alinsky’s instructions to the hard left for attaining power in America. In the last chapter of “Rules for Radicals,” titled “The Way Ahead,” is found this declaration: “Activists and radicals, on and off our college campuses — people who are committed to change — have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized, and corrupt.”
Alinsky cautioned his comrades that an effective radical activist disguise his true agenda, “to radicalize parts of the middle class.”
Obama’s rhetorical window-dressing is easily recognizable as Alinskyesque camouflage. New annual spending of more than $340 billion, as estimated by the National Taxpayers Union, is merely a wish to “recast” the safety net woven by FDR and LBJ, as Obama describes it in his writings. The free market is disparaged as a “winner-take-all” economy. Big tax increases masquerade as “restoring fairness to the economy.”
Barack Obama’s “Change We Can Believe In” is simply socialism — carefully disguised because Americans have never believed in Marxist economics. Saul Alinsky understood this, and his ghost is alive and well — and threatening to haunt the White House. Indeed, is Barack Obama the Manchurian candidate?