Fanning The Latent Hostilities
The mainstream media in the United States hasn't seemed very interested in one of the most important revelations about Hillary Clinton since Benghazi. Not even Fox News spent more than a few minutes on the subject. The subject of Hillary Clinton's obsession and admiration for left-wing radical, Saul Alinsky, is unquestionably important for Americans to understand. Saul Alinsky was a radical, left-wing community organizer and author of Rules For Radicals. Alinsky was one of Barack Obama's inspirations and his ideas about creating crises for the purpose of political gain continue to play a role in current White House policies.
"You are being rediscovered again as the Left-type politicos are finally beginning to think seriously about the hard work and mechanics of organizing."
-Hillary Clinton to Saul Alinsky, July 8, 1971
In September, mail exchanges from 1971 between Alinksy and Clinton were leaked and published on Scribd by the Washington Beacon. The exchange can be read here. Since the letters were published, over 1.6 million people have read them.
Saul Alinsky seduced many of his pupils and minions by soliciting himself as a freedom fighter, when in reality he was aiming to achieve a Marxist-style socialist utopia on American soil. As the blinding praise in Hillary Clinton's letter reveals, she was one of the seduced.
"The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act."
- Saul Alinsky, "Rules For Radicals", pages 116-117
As we put a magnifying glass over Obama's policies, we see the very things and strategies that Alinsky suggested. The border crisis has fanned latent hostilities just as successfully as the Zimmerman trial and Ferguson riots. Racial issues have been the focus of major news stories and headlines since Obama was first inaugurated in 2009. Racial tensions are at their highest point since the 1960s and the Kennedy era.
Since the disastrous implementation of Obamacare, faith in the new law has diminished. The need to insure America's uninsured has also been a heavy point in America's racial tensions. Healthcare is often touted as a racial issue, as seen in Dallas following the recent Ebola outbreak. African Americans are less likely to have medical insurance than Caucasian Americans and, according to some, more likely to be turned away in an emergency room.
Dallas County Commissioner, John Wiley Price, an African American said, "It is historical what has happened in this community. If a person who looks like me shows up without any insurance, they don't get the same treatment." Again, even during the first Ebola outbreak on American soil, race becomes a key driver and focal point for health coverage and treatment. We should also be led to believe that by turning away an African American at a Dallas emergency room, the entire community was put at risk.
Now, with the introduction of Ebola, the need for mandatory and affordable health coverage for African Americans becomes a focal point. As we look at most of the "disasters" and crises that have happened under the Obama Administration, this seems like less of a coincidence.
If Hillary Clinton wants so desperately to convince Americans that she is not like Obama, her obvious admiration for Saul Alinsky isn't helping. As racial tensions have only gotten worse under the country's first black president, it's discouraging to think what divisive gender and sex issues would arise under an equally divisive Clinton Administration.
This doesn't mean that Americans should be wary about electing a female to the Oval Office, it means they should be wary of electing Hillary Clinton. There is no reason that America's first female president has to be Hillary Clinton or anyone else who values the divisive tactics of Saul Alinsky. "Rubbing raw the resentments" in America isn't a necessary strategy. Stirring division is more costly and destructive than honestly addressing the issues that face America.
Fanning latent hostilities is risky and has the potential to cause more damage than it's worth. Look at Ferguson as an example.
As the Obama Administration authorizes the dumping of illegal immigrants in several states with the intention of undermining anti-amnesty Republicans, we should expect that their opposition to voter ID laws is a part of the same plan. A plan to reduce Republican support by allowing illegals and unauthorized voters to vote. As Republicans continue to face accusations of racism for opposing voter IDs and amnesty, dumping illegals and "new Americans" in states like Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts and Texas gives the Democrats an advantage in 2016. Or rather, it gives Hillary Clinton an advantage in 2016.
What we've seen under the Obama Administration is not only a destructive violation of the Constitution but a continued strategy of dirty, unethical and dangerous political tactics. The tactics of this administration will undermine and degrade our democracy, permanently damaging future generations, national security and healthcare for a long time to come. The presidency of Hillary Clinton would be a continuation of Obama's destructive policies and her election would make any hopes of repair unattainable. Another four or eight years of Alinsky policy will make the damage impossible to undo.