Tuesday, Mark took some calls from Libs and labeled them as “Enemas of The State”.
And to prove his point, Mark played clips from Michelle Obama’s DNC speech where she quoted from Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals, with the phrase, “The world as it is†and “The world as it should be…” Yes, Michelle Obama is a radical, Enema of The State!
.jpg)
It is ironic that even after weeks of creating a carefully crafted speech designed to not offend or arouse suspicion with blue dog democrats and to make the Obama’s seem like normal people “like you and me”, that Michelle was able to insert Communist Propaganda into her speech. There are questions that arise from these “the world as it is and the world as it should be” passages.
1. Is Michelle Obama an active Alinsky follower and did she alone put the term “the world as it should be” in her speech lying about Barack’s use of these phrases?
2. Did she use the term because she had heard it used by Barack numerous times over the years and actually thought Barack coined the phrases?
3. If everyone including Barack, Michelle, the speech writers and handlers were in on the Alinsky passage being placed in the speech, did they think no one would figure out where the lines came from?
The phrases “the world as it is” and “the world as it should be” are strange phrases for “Normal” people to be using. It hints at, in very vague terms, a new world conforming to what Barack and Michelle think it should be without going into any detail. But informed Conservatives know what these secret-coded phrases really mean. It is as if the only ones who know what they mean are the Leftist Democrat leadership and informed Conservatives. The rest of the population (clueless democrats who otherwise don’t really desire socialism, uninformed Republicans, and apathetic independents) which form the majority of the American population, have no idea what Michelle’s phrases really mean.
Are the Libs simply teasing us with these Alinsky phrases? Are they showing us how clever they are to be so bold as to insert Communist Propaganda posing as wishful idealism into a major speech by the spouse of a Presidential nominee? Or were they being stupid? Did they slip up and put some of their everyday, behind the scenes Alinky-speak into the speech without the professional handlers realizing what it meant?
If anyone up to this point was unsure about what these people have in store for the United States, this speech should serve as confirmation that our government is actively being overthrown from the inside by committed Communists following the Alinsky book. Alinsky dedicated his book to Satan, whom he called the first radical. Alinsky admired Satan and Obama admires Alinksy. Does Obama therefore admire Satan?
Saul Alinsky was a sadistic malcontent, very well versed in collectivist philosophies and he greatly influenced Obama and Clinton as well as many sixty types where the pop ideology of the anti-Vietnam war, anti-American drug induced mental case radicals was always repackaged communism camouflaged as egalitarianism. Throughout the world these Alinsky screwballs and their hypnotized protégé decried the evils of capitalism and free markets and their heroes were both Marx and Lenin or Mao styled communists. When the country was industrialized such as ours, we had the social justice of Alinsky, Charlie Manson, Abbie Hoffman, or Bill Ayers, if it was agrarian they had Castro’s Revolutionists, Guzman’s “Shinning Path†or Pol Pots “Khmer Rougeâ€Â. The results were often the same in terms of mortality and morbidity.
Alinsky is just another flavor of the same politics but he understood that in a democratized, constitutionally resistant republic, such as ours, he could not just ram his radical agendas down our throats, using brute force, in one instantaneous moment. He very well comprehended that in our society such dramatic change will not occur by revolution but by conversion. Add to that his understanding of staying on target and you have the stealth, incremental approach adopted by both Barack and Hillary where we are supposed to give up our liberty by free choice, in degrees, so that we eventually forever lose that choice. He believed in moral relativism and is one step ahead of the old time communists because in order to achieve egalitarian wealth distribution you have to have wealth, and therefore still need capitalism, which he despises, to create it. Therefore the wealth creators are either partnered with the State or are regulated and taxed by the State; either way control by an oxymoron benevolent utopian State is the objective. It is, of course, just simple plain vanilla fascism which has already been well played out in Europe and now, as well, in post Mao China.
Alinsky followers have two things in common. They are (1) malcontents, who go out of their way, to view themselves and/or others as (2) victims. While I look at corporations and large successful proprietorships as wealth creators, to a virtually unlimited extent, they decry that these entities steal finite wealth from those that they oppress and keep poor. Of course, in America, where the standard of living, for the poorest, is often greater than that of the richest, in other countries, the Alinsky model lacks credibility. Ultimately all devotes of Alinsky realize that they are wrong in the face of the clear evidence that Adam Smith and capitalism are a lot closer to raising the level of human prosperity than Marx and his many revolutionists, who for decades, in every corner of the world, have created far more misery than they ever resolved.
Listen carefully to Alinsky acolytes. When you hear that we have to come together as a nation, think of us as a tribe, think of Christian ethics asking us to be compassionate, think that if you have something and someone else does not you should feel guilty and ashamed because it is not fair and then go another step and understand that the State has become God on earth and you are no longed asked to give by choice, but required and demanded to give up by force and that you should feel good about the theft of your labor, time and property. This is the course they take and how they rationalize and legitimize their tyranny. Suddenly moral relevancy has become relevant and the right way is only their way.
The reason that the hard left, die-hard Marxist fundamentalists can never be reformed and made to admit that they are wrong is because they are incurable chronic malcontents who are more interested in dishing out pain and suffering, for those that they jealously envy and despise, than they are in compassionately helping anyone. In their world government is always the solution because it is good and free will is always the problem because it is based upon greed and selfishness. In the process of pursing their radical social agendas, if the majority lose their liberty and freedom, so that they can bring down the wealthy, the successful, the entrepreneurs, the capitalists, the aspiring dreamers and tomorrow’s hopefuls and risk takers then it is all worth it. And they can get away with this only if you can be made to believe that you are a victim, that someone is taking advantage of you and that they can remedy this perception if you only give them a chance; and in this regard, so far, they haven’t done too bad of a job.