Nominated for Best New Political Blog of 2009

Weblogawards.Org

Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Who is Saul Alinsky?

MSNBC’s Chris Mathews calls him “one of our heroes from the past”; Barack Obama taught his theories in college; Hillary Clinton even wrote her college thesis about him. So who is Saul Alinsky and why should we be suspect of anyone that doesn’t grimace at the mention of his name?

Saul Alinsky was born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, and while he never had clear associations to any political party but instead, as Alinsky biographer David Horowitz puts it, became an avatar of the post-modern left. Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration familiar to anyone that lived through the 1960s.

His tactics have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. Alinsky, in essence, created a blueprint for revolution under the banner of "social change" that is the main underpinning for modern Progressives. His motto was, “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results” which is little more than a rewording of the Marxist doctrine that the ends justify the means.

Alinsky studied criminology as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, during which time he became friendly with Al Capone and his mobsters. Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, offers a glimpse into Alinsky’s personality: “Charming and self-absorbed, Alinsky would entertain friends with stories -- some true, many embellished -- from his mob days for decades afterward. He was profane, outspoken, and narcissistic, always the center of attention despite his tweedy, academic look and thick, horn-rimmed glasses.

According to Lizza: "Alinsky was deeply influenced by the great social science insight of his times, one developed by his professors at Chicago: that the pathologies of the urban poor were not hereditary but environmental. This idea, that people could change their lives by changing their surroundings, led him to take an obscure social science phrase—‘the community organization’--and turn it into, in the words of Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, ‘something controversial, important, even romantic.’ His starting point was a near-fascination with John L. Lewis, the great labor leader and founder of the CIO. What if, Alinsky wondered, the same hardheaded tactics used by unions could be applied to the relationship between citizens and public officials?"

After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop his concept of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he gained notoriety as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom) which only lends credence to the notion that the ultimate goal of Progressives is the globalization of politics and the unification of the world under a single, socialist style government.

In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a cleaner, less threatening word for “revolution”. Not just any revolution but a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is a systematic cultivation of power by a supposedly oppressed segment of the population and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. Isn’t it curious that Barack Obama chose the phrase that we were “five days away from fundamentally changing the United States” just before the 2008 election?

The goal, according to Alinsky, is to create enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted; a revolution whose foot soldiers view America’s Capitalist system as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than the current system’s complete collapse which would be followed by an entirely new system built upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. Can you think of any “charismatic radical organizers that profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed”? Naw….Obama just said he’s not an ideologue so that must be strictly coincidence….right?

We are concerned,” Alinsky elaborated, “with how to create mass organizations (like ACORN?) to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world … This means revolution.”

Alinsky did not mean the sweeping upheaval as was witnessed in 1917 Russia but instead, viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin who viewed the demoralization and eventual collapse of the West as best accomplished through a “Trojan Horse” tactic; rotting the mighty oak of Capitalism with a disease from within.

Alinsky stressed that organizers and their followers needed to take care when they first unveil their particular crusade for “change,” not to alienate the middle class with any type of defiant demeanor or menacing appearances that suggested radicalism or a disrespect for middle class mores and traditions. Alinsky added, “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism; They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.” While his ultimate goal was nothing less than the “radicalization of the middle class,” Alinsky stressed the importance of “learning to talk the language of those with whom one is trying to converse.”

Alinsky taught that the organizer’s first task was to make people feel that they were wise enough to diagnose their own problems, find their own solutions, and determine their own destinies.

Alinsky explained, the organizer must employ such techniques as the artful use of “loaded questions designed to elicit particular responses and to steer the organization’s decision-making process in the direction which the organizer prefers. “Is this manipulation?” asked Alinsky. “Certainly!”; but to Alinsky, it was manipulation toward a desirable end: “If the common man had a chance to feel that he could direct his own efforts … that to a certain extent there was a destiny that he could do something about, that there was a dream that he could keep fighting for, then life would be wonderful living.

Alinsky viewed the role of the organizer as supremely important; a master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization. “The organizer,” Alinsky wrote, “is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God. Perhaps that explains the unbelievable statement Obama made during a campaign stop when he said that people would have an epiphany; that a light will descend upon on them and tell them that they must vote for Barack Obama.

I could go on for a week and still not be through with Alinsky but there is enough here to spell out who he was, what he believed in and the incredible parallels to the actions and words of Barack Obama. There are reams of information out there on Alinsky not to mention his books and writings that can complete the picture far better than I can. One thing I will add is that you must always remember that this man; this unapologetic radical, is the man that Barack Obama emulates; Hillary Clinton studied and Chris Mathews worships. If you do forget this, you forget not at your own peril, but at the peril of our nation.

Paul

Friday, January 8, 2010

Obama: Immunity for Interpol

On December 16 2009, President Obama issued an executive order amending the International Organizations Immunities Act. When I first heard of this, the commentator erroneously stated that the President had issued an order granting immunity to Interpol as they conduct operations within the United States. In fact, Interpol was already recognized as an International Organization in an executive order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1983 and as such, were already entitled to the immunities enumerated in the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 except for the sections of that act that were detailed in Reagan’s executive order (Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6).

In 1995, President Bill Clinton also issued an executive order amending the act as it pertained to Interpol by deleting section 2 (d). That section related to import taxes and duties on personal items brought into the country by agents of a recognized international organization. The order that Barack Obama signed was for the most part, tax related provisions that would actually require Interpol agents to pay taxes on certain monies earned within the United States. There is one little disturbing part of his order that is most definitely not tax related; Section 2 (c).

Executive Order 13524 of December 16, 2009

Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a Public International Organization Entitled to Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words ‘‘except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act’’ and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

Barack Obama

In the original act, section 2(c) grants international organizations immunity from search and or confiscation of property and assets as well as declaring the archives of such an organization as inviolable. This immunity was specifically denied to Interpol in the original order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1983 and that denial was not altered by Bill Clinton’s executive order of 1995.

“The International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288)

Section 2 (c)-
Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”


Why would Interpol, an international police department, require immunity from search of their properties and assets? Why would they have a need to maintain secrecy of their records from the government of a member nation and why was that important enough to invoke a Presidential Executive Order to reverse the denial of that immunity? Something just isn’t right.

Interpol was founded in Austria in 1923 as the International Criminal Police (ICP). After the annexation of Austria by Germany in 1938, Interpol fell under Nazi control and the headquarters were moved to Berlin. During that period, the Presidents of the ICP included Otto Steinhäusl who was an SS General, chair of the Wannsee Conference and the chief executor of the “Final Solution to the Jewish question”, Arthur Nebe, a general in the SS and Einsatzgruppen leader under whose command at least 46,000 people were killed, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner, a general in the SS, the highest ranking SS officer executed after the Nuremberg Trial.

After the end of World War II in 1945, the organization was revived as the International Criminal Police Organization by European Allies of World War II officials from Belgium, France, Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. Its new headquarters were established in Saint-Cloud, a town on the outskirts of Paris. They remained there until 1989, when they were moved to their present location, Lyon. ICPO officially adopted the name “Interpol” in 1956.

In order to maintain as politically neutral a role as possible, Interpol's constitution forbids its involvement in crimes that do not overlap several member countries, or in any political, military, religious, or racial crimes. Its work focuses primarily on public safety, terrorism, organized crime, crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, Piracy, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime and corruption.

Hmmm? I still see no reason why they would need the immunities detailed in Obama’s Executive Order; particularly immunities regarding archived information. After all, didn’t a “crotch bomber” just walk on to an international flight bound for the United States because our own intelligence and law enforcement agencies refused to share information?

The fact is that regardless of what Interpol’s constitution says, there can be no verification that they are adhering to their own constitution or that they are not impinging upon the Constitutional rights of our own citizens without the ability to subpoena and examine archived files and information if the need should arise. If one of the activities of interest to Interpol is terrorism, wouldn’t their involvement necessarily revolve around a member nation’s definition of a terrorist? We already know our own head of Homeland Security has some very curious criteria for identifying potential domestic terrorists. In fact, Janet Napolitano may have a hard time using the name “terrorist” in conjunction with Muslim extremists but curiously, she has no problem throwing that title around at American citizens, identifying whole groups (profiling) of Americans that she feels may have the potential to engage in acts of domestic terror. You know…those really suspicious tea party people, people with shaved heads and former members of the military that are not exactly pleased with the direction this nation is taking.

We also know that certain records can be catastrophic to a Presidency. Nixon’s fall centered more on eighteen minutes of missing audio tapes than it did on a third rate burglary. The steps Nixon took to categorize the people that he considered unfriendly to his administration led directly to laws prohibiting the compilation of a Presidential enemies list and resulted in requirement to archive and maintain all White House correspondence in perpetuity. No, the wrong kind of records can be very bad for a President unless you can get someone else to keep them for you….someone that cannot be forced to produce those records; maybe even an international police force that routinely keeps, well, records about people. How convenient!

Now that Hillary Clinton agreed that the US would partner with the United Nations on their small arms initiative, those records (records the United States government is prohibited from keeping) as well as the immunity of Interpol, could be very useful if the UN decided it was time collect privately owned weapons in the United States…you know…just to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. After all, Interpol (ICP) records were very useful to the Nazi’s during World War II for exactly that purpose and millions of lawfully owned weapons were confiscated using those records each time the German Army occupied a new territory.

To continue, each member country maintains a National Central Bureau (NCB) staffed by national law enforcement officers. The NCB is the designated contact point for the Interpol General Secretariat, regional bureau and other member countries requiring assistance with overseas investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives. This is especially important in countries with many law-enforcement agencies. This central bureau is a unique point of contact for foreign entities, which may not understand the complexity of the law-enforcement system of the country they attempt to contact. For instance, the NCB for the United States of America is housed at the United States Department of Justice. The NCB then ensures the proper transmission of information to the correct agency.

Well what do you know about that! The Interpol National Central Bureau for the United States is housed in the same building as the Department of Justice. Why, Interpol is neighbors with Eric Holder. Now that is convenient too. But maybe I’m reading too much into this. After all, a reputable organization like Interpol has an entire independent command structure that doesn’t answer to our President. At least I don’t think so?

As it turns out, the current Secretary General of Interpol is Ronald Kenneth Noble. Ronald Noble is an American that was the Undersecretary for Enforcement of the United States Department of the Treasury under Bill Clinton. Wow! What a coincidence! I’ll bet our current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, saw him all the time back then; in fact, this must be like one of those high school reunions for them. What fun!

The President of Interpol is Khoo Boon Hui. Hui is from Singapore but believe it or not, he attended the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard right here in the good old USA. A lot of very liberal, very political people attended that school and you would not believe the connections you can make just by being an alumni and that is really, really, really convenient.

Paul