CONTENTS
ALINSKY RULES TO TRANSFORM AMERICA
OBAMA’S PLAN TO TRANSFORM AMERICA
The current debate raging in Washington DC over immigration, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and border security is a reaction to Democrat actions to transform America through immigration policy changes legislated in the 1965 Immigration Act. Before 1965, the Marxist informed Democrat plan to transform America started in earnest during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt with the New Deal effort to alleviate the problems of The Great Depression and establishment of the Social Security Administration. Beginning in the early 1960’s, the Democrat Party supported progressive efforts to gain complete control of public education which would emphasize socialism and atheism over capitalism and Judeo-Christianity transforming public attitudes about capitalism, socialism, traditional Judeo-Christian values, and the traditional family. The plan to transform America continued with the 1965 Immigration Act which, contrary to Democrat assurances, altered the religious, racial, and ethnic composition of the United States by changing immigration policy. Under this immigration plan, people sharing our Judeo-Christian culture and heritage compose a significant minority of legal immigrants rather than ensuring that the composition of new immigrant populations was similar to the existing population composition. The new 1965 Immigration Act policy changed the religious and cultural make-up of our nation and transform America. The latest phase of transformation began five days before the 2008 election when candidate Obama said, We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
ALINSKY RULES TO TRANSFORM AMERICA
It is important to understand the approach to community organizing outlined in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a manual for political war according to Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model by David Horowitz.* Insight, into the true nature of the Alinsky trained community organizer, appears on the dedication page of Rules for Radicals where Alinsky wrote, Lest we forget, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom “ Lucifer. The name and nature of the kingdom, hell, Lucifer won was conveniently left out. However, Lucifer’s tactics in the temptation of Adam and Eve and other Biblical passages provide an outline for many of the strategies and tactics Alinsky and his disciples, including Barack Obama, teach during their community organizing workshops.
Alinsky trained community organizers understand that Marxist thought underpins their eventual goal; and the difference between communism and socialism is the means of achieving the utopian societal goal. As part of their deceptive tactics, radicals have used a variety of philosophical names throughout their history to camouflage their true identity and purposes. With their changing names, Alinsky radicals create the illusion that their opposition is composed of uninformed buffoons, Deplorables, with irrelevant ideas and opinions about who radicals are and the actual philosophical position of radicals on the issues of the day. For example, members of the US Communist Party were labor activists and members of the Democrat party in the early twentieth century, formed the Progressive Party to oppose President Truman in the 1948 election, rejoined the Democrat Party in the early 1970’s after the fall of the Soviet Union ending the Cold War, and are currently the majority group in the Progressive Caucus of the Democrat Party although many deny or diminish the Marxist, communist, and socialist influence of their progressive political ideology.
Alinsky taught that a radical is not a reformer of the system; but its would-be destroyer. In the case of the United States of America, the system is our political, economic system of Constitutional capitalism based on private property and individual rights supported by our Judeo-Christian heritage and culture. All radical’s efforts are aimed at subverting their society, in a word, change. They plan to transform America. The purpose of change is to take power from the Haves and give it to the Have-nots in the name of the people. Alinsky radicals do not compare America’s Constitutional capitalistic society to other societies but to the utopian system of social justice and freedom they think they are building. Compared to their vision, even America is hell. Consequently, America will never be equal, or liberal, or democratic enough to satisfy radical fantasies so radicals are willing to destroy the values, structures, and institutions that sustain our society. Alinsky, post-Soviet communist, neo-Marxist radicals always know that they will succeed in creation of their utopian system where the radicals of the old Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, Venezuela, and etc. failed at the cost of untold millions of lives. The unfortunate historical reality of radical revolution is that power always goes to a new group of Haves, the radical revolutionary vanguard, the new political elites; and the Have-nots are still Have-nots. Have-nots never get their promised utopian heaven on earth under radicals and their plan to transform America.
It is also important to understand that for conservatives, war is a political metaphor; but for radical Alinsky community organizers, war is a political reality. Since the objective is to destroy the enemy, the tactics of Alinsky style political war are brutal and relentless. For Alinsky, the end always justifies the means which have no ethical, moral, or legal limits. Consequently, it is okay to lie, deceive, and even commit murder. The only consideration is whether or not the means effectively advance the cause. Throughout history, the evil wrought by revolutionary radicals of this ilk are always justified as the means of achieving the greater good for all mankind, the social salvation of all humanity. Individual salvation is always secondary to mass salvation since it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice individuals for the greater good. This idea is consistent with Marxist philosophy where individual good is always subservient to the collective good. In such a war, unlike Alinsky community organizers, conservatives are at a severe disadvantage because most conservatives are constrained by ethical, moral, and legal considerations.
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals emphasize that power and building a vast power base, an Alinsky army or a civilian national security’ force, is the only rule. Accumulating power is the first priority in implementing radical change to transform America. These Alinsky statements and workshop titles; we are not virtuous by not wanting power, we are really cowards for not wanting power, because power is good and powerlessness is evil, self-interest is the only principle around which to organize people, understanding power, power analysis, the path to power, elements of a power organization, and relationships built on self-interest, demonstrate the importance of power accumulation to achieve change through community organizing. To Alinsky radicals, the accumulation of power is always the issue.
Deception is an Alinsky radical tactic in their sociological and political war designed to gain power over political enemies and subsequently eliminate them and destroy the system they control. Since power is always the issue, the actual issue or cause which concerns the people supporting a cause is not the issue that concerns community organizers because without power to transform America, change is unattainable. The community organizer deceptively infiltrates the leadership of a cause, embraces the cause, and uses the people’s self-interest to create an army of people supporting the cause to gain power to accomplish the community organizer’s goal of destroying the overall system, to transform America.
As a consequence, Alinsky community organizer’s deceptive subversion of causes is another means to the end, accumulation of political power. Group, issue, or cause names, goals, and objectives are irrelevant because the only issue is gaining political power to destroy the enemy and the system. Community organizers, individually or in groups, often work simultaneously with disparate causes with a variety of names to accumulate power by uniting these groups to weaken and eventually destroy the system. Alinsky successfully created coalitions of communists, anarchist, socialists, new leftists, liberals, social justice activists, progressives, black radicals, and Democrats. Since each issue or cause has associated enemies that their cause needs to overcome and destroy, another powerful tool of deception used by Alinsky radicals to destroy enemies is to stigmatize opponents with terms like racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic etc., whether the terms apply or not. Radical community organizers have successfully united disparate groups with a campaign to stigmatize President Trump and the Republican Party with an ist, ic, and phobic epitaph associated with their particular cause. The “self-interest” of each cause unites the group around the epitaph representing their cause giving the group its own power while the common enemies, the President and the GOP, multiplies the power of the combined groups into throngs of protesters, the Alinsky army or civilian national security’ force. The plan is a wave election that sweeps the Democrat Party into control of the state governments and the US Congress in 2018 and the Presidency in 2020 resuming the delayed Democrat plan to fundamentally transform America.
Conservatives look at these disparate groups and ask what do they actually want? What is their unified goal or objective? The Alinsky community organizers answer under their breath, We want the political power of all these groups to be unified to destroy you and the system. The issue or cause is not the issue; accumulating political power is the only real by issue to the Alinsky community organizer. The “organizers” are working with all the current self-interest groups, the “Women’s” and “Me Too” marchers, the “Stop Gun Violence” marchers, the “Teachers” marchers, the “Black Lives Matter” marchers, and the “silence conservative speakers” marchers, and the etc. marchers. Many of these marches are infiltrated Antifa and Anonymous rioters. These different large “cause” demonstrations fulfill two radical purposes, they gather the Alinsky “armies” of the various “causes” and build energy; and they unite the different groups into a combined political power base which the “organizers” combine to defeat their political opponents.
Finally, perhaps the most powerful Alinsky rule for radicals is to infiltrate the institutions* that support the system, eliminate internal opposition leadership and replace it with supportive leaders, and transform the institution to promote transformation or destruction of our overall system of Constitutional capitalism, private property, individual freedom, and our Judeo-Christian heritage as a critical influence on our society. Marxist philosophers have embraced this plan almost from the beginning. Infiltration of institutions has been quite successful in the United States. Communist participation in the early labor movement, FDR’s legislative attempt to change the US Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary in order to fill the courts with progressive judges, progressive domination of public education from preschool to Ph.D. curricula and educators, dilution of Biblical moral principles in many Christian denominations, the entire United States government bureaucracy, and the Democrat Party. The progressive versus conservative contest for control of the US Supreme Court, the entire lower Federal Court system, and state court systems is evidence of the critical battle over the balance of our courts. Progressive Justices at every level of our court system often use progressive ideas rather than the text of laws, judicial precedent, or constitutions to render decisions that alter or stop the actions of Republican Administrations, capitalistic initiatives, and Judeo-Christian influences on society and transform America. In many cases, progressive bureaucrats in the upper and middle levels of several Executive Branch Departments such as State, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Interior, Internal Revenue Service, Justice, and the National Security Agency have acted to delay or in some situations possibly subvert the policies and activities of conservative groups and conservative Republican Presidential Administrations and Governors. This progressive infiltration of our institutions has drastically altered the nature and character of our nation. This is part of the Democrat plan to transform America.
OBAMA’S PLAN TO TRANSFORM AMERICA
Although President Obama never fully disclosed the details of his plan to transform America, some insight can be gleaned from his formative youthful years and his own words most of which are also available in written, audio, and video form. Former President Obama has a radical, Marxist background. Both his father and mother had radical backgrounds and educations. His mentor in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, was a 60’s communist radical from Chicago where Saul Alinsky worked as a founding community organizer. When he went to college, he followed his Marxist roots regarding his college associates and course work. In Barack Obama’s DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, he talks of his time at Occidental College in California. Here’s a quote:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. At night we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. We were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.”
This statement provides vital insight into the mind and ideology that informed the Presidency of Barack Obama.
Frantz Fanon was a psychiatrist, philosopher, and radical revolutionary in the fields of post-colonial studies, critical theory (a synonym for Marxist theory used by the Frankfurt School to mask their roots and enable the primarily Jewish faculty to migrate from Frankfurt Germany to Columbia University immediately prior to the rise of Adolf Hitler), and Marxism. As an intellectual, Fanon was a political, Pan-Africanist, and Marxist humanist concerned with the psychopathology of colonization, and the human, social, and cultural consequences of decolonization. Neocolonialism, a tenant of the anti-capitalist rhetoric of Marxism, is the use of economic, political, cultural, or other pressures to control or influence other countries, especially former dependencies. Eurocentrism, focusing on European culture or history to the exclusion of a wider view of the world; implicitly regarding European culture as preeminent, is the philosophical term for white privilege which is inherently evil to the Marxist world view. This view ignores the reality of the fact that European culture, our Judeo-Christian heritage and capitalism has the demonstrated potential to increase the wellbeing of the world beyond the demonstrated capacity of Marxist philosophy and socialism. Patriarchy is a system of society in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line or a society or community organized on patriarchal lines. To Marxists and progressives, patriarchy also represents the traditional Judeo-Christian family consisting of one husband, one wife, and their biological or genetic and adopted children. Of course, the greatest anathema of the traditional family to progressive, Marxist thinkers is the idea that the patriarchal family is headed by a male. To President Obama, diminishing the significance of these “problems” is central to his plan to transform America.
Finally, it is critical to understand the significance of a concept statement that Barack Obama considered critical to enshrine in his autobiography, We were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. The bourgeois society is a phrase straight out of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Such societies are full of stifling constraints. According to Barack Obama, a bourgeois society is a Judeo-Christian, capitalistic, Eurocentric, neocolonial, patriarchal society. A bourgeois society is the society that made the United States of America the greatest, most prosperous and benevolent nation in the history of the world. It was the bourgeois society of the United States of America that saved the world from the scourge of German Imperialism, Japanese Imperialism, fascism, and the totalitarian communism of the Soviet Union. It is the bourgeois society of the United States of America that compelled then President Barack Obama to tour the world stating his regret by apologizing for everything that the United States of America stands for regarding world peace and the potential we represent for a better world. It is due to the”bourgeois society”of the United States that Barack Obama feels that it is necessary to transform America.
With this summary, the Democrat transformation of America that preceded him and the ideology that informed the Presidency of Barack Obama, some insights into his statements and policy decisions are possible. The 1965 change in immigration policy which altered the religious, racial, and ethnic composition of the United States and the progressive domination of our system of public education enabled Obama’s 2006 speech statement,
Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation “ at least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
Although he purportedly intended to say,
Given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation….
By his statement, Whatever we once were, regardless of the place in either statement of the word just, President Obama acknowledged that in the United States, we once were just a Christian nation since he stated that Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation. Changes in immigration policy, Supreme Court Decisions, and public education have served to transform America. Many conservatives contend that President Obama always planned to link the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), immigration, and wealth redistribution, an important tenant of Marxism and socialist philosophy, on an American and global scale. President Obama said,
If someone is here illegally, they won’t be covered under this plan (Obamacare). That is a commitment I’m making. Even though I don’t believe we can ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. If anything, this debate (whether illegal immigrants would be covered under Obamacare) underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform (giving Illegal immigrants citizenship) and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all (giving former illegal immigrants who could become citizens with comprehensive immigration reform voting rights and coverage under Obamacare, as Obama envisioned).
In my opinion, President Obama viewed Obamacare as a means of wealth redistribution which he would expand to global proportions as revealed by the linkage between illegal immigrants and Obamacare that he made in the above statement. The subsidies provided to low income Obamacare participants constitutes a substantial level of wealth redistribution, another way to transform Amercia.
One of the early advisers of the Obama Administration was Van Jones, a pre-Black Lives Matter, Marxist activist advocating against the adverse consequence of Eurocentrism and patriarchy on the black and all minority communities in the United States. Jones is also a wealth redistribution advocate. In an interview where wealth redistribution was discussed, Jones noted President Obama’s plan to bring about redistributive change, by stating, That sounds radical “ redistribution of wealth. But listen to our own president talking about the Constitution. Jones referenced the following statement by President Obama equating opinions of Supreme Court Justices with the Constitution which does not address wealth redistribution:
The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth. The tragedies of the civil rights movement was “ because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.
Clearly, President Obama understood that his plan to transform America through wealth redistribution could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, conservatives were disappointed when the Supreme Court upheld many of the redistributive aspects of Obamacare even when the text of the Act did not support Obama Administration applications of the law.
The Paris Climate Accord and Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) were part of President Obama’s plan to transform America into a leader in global wealth redistribution. However, President Trump withdrew from both the Paris Climate Accord and the Trans Pacific Partnership because they are both methods of global wealth redistribution. A June 2017, National Public Radio article summarizing the provisions of the Paris Climate Accord stated, “To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year” which the Accord identified as a floor,’ not a ceiling. The article did not state how much of the $100 billion a year the United States would pay, but our share was probably planned to be similar to our share of the annual United Nations budget considering the Obama Administration’s skill at international negotiations. The article also states that
limiting the rise in temperature to 2 degrees (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial revolution global temperatures by the end of the twenty first century) has been discussed as a global goal for several years now. That amount of warming will still have a substantial impact, scientists say, but will be less devastating than allowing temperatures to rise unchecked.
Under the Accord, that statement indicates that industrialized nations would pay at least $100 billion each year to under developed nations to achieve an indeterminate reduction in climate devastation; and the 2050 global temperature goal is a target the world hasn’t yet figured out how to meet. In addition, the article indicates that the Accord is totally voluntary, lacks verbal precision, and is filled with ambiguous phrases related to national commitments to the Accord such as,
Nations aren’t expected; voluntary pledge; not an immediate pledge; each target should reflect progress; this target date isn’t actually precise: the deal describes it as mid-century;’ greenhouse gases emitted would be balanced by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere carbon dioxide (balance) would be accomplished by growing forests, which absorb carbon dioxide (but the Accord fails to guarantee sufficient land to add the needed forests); many sections of the deal, of course, don’t nail down any numbers at all; nations around the world should strengthen their cooperation;’ all parties ‘should’ cooperate to enhance the capacity of developing country parties; and at least 55 nations ” between them accounting for at least 55 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions ” are needed to formally approve the pact.
The globe’s worst polluters including China and India do not have to begin reducing their greenhouse gas emissions for a decade or more under the Accord.
Similarly, according to a May 2017, New York Times (NYT) article on-line, the Paris Climate Accord was intended to be non-binding with no penalties for falling short of declared targets. This article stated the United States would contribute $3 billion in aid to poorer countries by 2020. A related November 2014 NYT article indicated that in addition to the $3 billion from the United States at least 10 other industrialized countries pledged a total of $3 billion prior to final drafting of the Accord. The pledged $6 billion was considered a means to mobilize industrialized nations to begin their annual $100 billion contribution to help poor nations deal with climate change. None of these articles discussed the way the United States would finance our share of this massive global wealth redistribution scheme. Consequently, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Accord.
In a related discussion of climate change regulation of greenhouse gasses in January 2008, Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:
Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost on to consumers.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, President Obama’s cap and trade plan, was rejected by the US Senate defeating President Obama’s plan. The plan failed due to the impact of the anticipated increases in the cost of electricity, other carbon based energy sources, jobs, and the economy as a whole. In August 2015, over the objection of Congress, President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the 1,560 page, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation titled the Clean Power Plan which essentially established a carbon cap and trade plan similar to the one defeated by Congress in 2009. Obama’s 2008 prediction that electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under his cap and trade plan was quite accurate. According to one source, the 2012, market-clearing price of natural gas was $16 per megawatt; and by 2015, the price ranged from $167 in the Mid-Atlantic region to $357 in parts of Ohio, an 8.5 to 22.3 fold cost increase in only three years. The impact of these cost increases was most severe in industrialized states, states heavily dependent of coal fired electric plants, coal mining regions, states with high relative concentrations of middle and lower class manufacturing workers, and lower population states, Trump country. During his first year in office, President Trump, with input from the head of the EPA, used his Executive Order authority to eliminate the adverse economic consequences of former President Obama’s Executive Ordered cap and trade Clean Power Plan without sacrificing air or water quality.
During a July 2008 Presidential election campaign speech in Colorado Springs, CO, Candidate Obama gave a speech which contained the following embedded statement,
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
This statement was totally out of context and unrelated to the rest of the quotation from this segment of the speech; and its removal would have avoided both consternation and confusion regarding its meaning and intent. The security force statement was preceded by promises to expand AmeriCorps to provide a service vehicle to meet national goals connected to a common purpose, a call for people of all ages to serve, a call for veterans to find jobs and support for other vets and our military families, and a commitment to grow our Foreign Service and double the size of the Peace Corps. Similarly, the security force statement was followed by a promise to utilize technology to connect people to service, (and) expand USA Freedom Corps to create opportunities to volunteer. This portion of the speech ended with the statement, This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change’ from the bottom up. Again, the security force statement is totally irrelevant to the rest of the quotation since none of the organizations are designed to achieve national security objectives and their stated functions do not require a civilian national security force that is powerful strong ( and) well-funded. Of course, these organizations would have to be well-funded to accomplish their stated goals.
In my opinion, a FACTCHECK.org article by Brooks Jackson discussing this Obama civilian national security’ force quote is deceptive and resembles a discussion of the meaning of is rather than a reasoned contextual discussion the words Candidate Obama used in his civilian national security’ force statement and the surrounding text contained in the link presented above. The FACTCHECK article begins with the question, Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like civilian national security force? The article answers the question by stating, This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama’s call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service. The question and answer was prompted by a November 2008 Associated Press story by Ben Evans with the headline “Georgia Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship” that contained this embellished statement by Evans, Broun fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.’ The headline and statement is based on an interview of Georgia Representative Broun in which Broun stated, It may sound a bit crazy or off base, but the thing is, he’s (Obama’s) the one who proposed this national security force. That’s the thing Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did.
The militaristic Hitler and Soviet Union concerns raised by Representative Broun about this security force statement comes from the fact that the term security is used in the context of military activities in the first sentence; and security is a significant part of the phrase civilian national security’ force in the second sentence of the statement. The militant connotation of the two sentences considered together in the context of a proposed civilian national security force is unavoidable but ignored by Jackson’s answer to the question. In addition, Jackson’s answer fails to consider the implications and internal context of the security force statement as anything other than an amplifier of a contextually unrelated discussion of the Peace Corps, networking, and the Foreign Service. As a highly respected orator, it seems improbable that Obama’s security force statement was an inept attempt to emphasize the importance of his commitment to the Peace Corps, networking, AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, and the Foreign Service. Jackson also failed to consider the possibility that as an Alinsky trained community organizer, Obama might have deceptively hidden his stated intention for a civilian national ‘security’ force in plain sight and hearing and actually meant what he said and said what he meant, an Alinsky style army of empowered activists. Finally, the security force statement stuck out like a sore thumb, screaming to be noticed. Unfortunately, nobody, including Jackson noticed; but Representative Broun noticed.
Given questions surrounding candidate Obama’s security force statement and his work as an Alinsky style community organizer, additional questions seem relevant. During his Administration, several groups that are not adverse to mass political demonstrations that include violent masked black clad protesters often causing extensive damage to private and public property were tolerated by local governments, law enforcement, and the Obama Administration’s Justice Department. Violent protesters have also infiltrated some mass protests that were planned to be non-violent. Groups that plan and conduct violent protests and invade other public political demonstrations to riot and create havoc include, Anonymous, ANTIFA, members of Occupy Wall Street, and Black Panther voter suppression activists, among others. Some suggest that the Obama Administration was more tolerant of these groups than other administrations by its relative inaction to suppress their activities. The plan of many of these groups is to transform America.
Another question about the Obama Administration is the possibility that the Administration installed and promoted an excessive number of progressives to critical positions who could impede succeeding conservative administrations and attempt to preserve the Obama legacy. The latest questions revolve around the actions of high level executives in the IRS, Department of Justice, FBI, and the US Intelligence community. Such a plan would be consistent with strategies outlined in Rules for Radicals and candidate Obama’s 2008 promise that We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
*Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model. David Horowitz. 2009. David Horowitz Freedom Center. Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-6562.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
