Obama, McCain: Worldviews Apart on America and Her Enemies

Obama's Anti-American Roots:
When Many of Obama's Associates and Advisers Are Anti-American and Anti-Israel, What Will Obama's Policy Be?

---

Great Britains's Melanie Phillips can't quite believe "Is America really going to do this?". She begins by comparing John McCain and Barack Obama.

"...the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and – perhaps most crucially of all – the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies."

Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.




Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.

McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other. For Obama, however, the real source of evil in the world is America. The evil represented by Iran and the Islamic jihadists is apparently all America’s fault. ‘A lot of evil’s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil,’ he said. Last May, he dismissed Iran as a tiny place which posed no threat to the US -- before reversing himself the very next day when he said Iran was a great threat which had to be defeated. He has also said that Hezbollah and Hamas have ‘legitimate grievances’. Really? And what might they be? Their grievances are a) the existence of Israel b) its support by America c) the absence of salafist Islam in the world. Does Obama think these ‘grievances’ are legitimate?

Phillips, with an outsider's eye, correctly sees the stark differences between John McCain, whom the press and Obama campaign have portrayed as "erratic", and Barack Obama, a candidate whose main qualification, according to the media, is his ability to "appear presidential".




If Obama is elected, then America will get to see if Joe Biden's "guarantee" of an international crisis is correct. None of this matters to many Obama supporters.

But the fact of the matter is: much of the world depends upon the United States for its security. The world, and especially many parts of Europe, will be able to see what the vision of an eviscerated US military looks like.

And Obama has promised just such an evisceration.

From Video: Barack Obama's Three-point Surrender Plan [March 23, 2008]:

Barack Obama's 3-point USA Surrender Plan:

1-Will end the war in Iraq immediately
2-Will end missile defense systems
3-Will not develop new nuclear weapons and achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals





Phillips' main concern is terrorism--which will not disappear if Obama is elected, despite the hopes of his supporters.

There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can’t sleep at night.

Some will sleep just fine. That would be those whose world view is one where no rogue nations exist; where 9-11 was somehow caused by America; and, where any international crisis can be forgotten by switching the channel to something more entertaining or pleasant.

by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file

Barack Obama and Saul Alinsky: The Godfather of Community Organizers

Saul Alinsky: "Eternal War Must Never End"
Barack Obama And The Alinsky Method: Leftist NewAge Beliefs
The Crack Emcee
The Macho Response




“A light will shine through that window, 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 Barack.”
-- Barack Obama

---

Saul Alinsky: The Chicago Godfather of Community Organizers


"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...."

-- David Moberg, on "Obama's Community Roots", in The Nation Magazine.

"THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model."

-- Hillary Clinton, in her BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969, from Front Page Magazine.

“Is this manipulation?” asked Alinsky. “Certainly.”

Alinsky stressed the need for organizers to convince their followers that the chasm between the enemy and the members of the People’s Organization was vast and unbridgeable. “Before men can act,” he said, “an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil.” Alinsky advised this course of action even though he well understood that the organizer “knows that when the time comes for negotiations it is really only a 10 percent difference.” But in Alinsky’s brand of social warfare, the ends (in this case, the transfer of power) justify virtually whatever means are required (in this case, lying).

Winning was all that mattered in Alinsky’s strategic calculus: “The morality of a means depends on whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.” “The man of action … thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action,” Alinsky added. “He asks only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.” For Alinsky, all morality was relative: “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

Given that the enemy was to be portrayed as the very personification of evil, against whom any and all methods were fair game, Alinsky taught that an effective organizer should never give the appearance of being fully satisfied as a result of having resolved any particular conflict via compromise. Any compromise with the “devil” is, after all, by definition morally tainted and thus inadequate. Consequently, while the organizer may acknowledge that he is pleased by the compromise as a small step in the right direction, he must make it absolutely clear that there is still a long way to go, and that many grievances still remain unaddressed. The ultimate goal, said Alinsky, is not to arrive at compromise or peaceful coexistence, but rather to “crush the opposition,” bit by bit. “A People’s Organization is dedicated to eternal war,” said Alinsky. “… A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.… When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything…. In our war against the social menaces of mankind there can be no compromise. It is life or death.”

Alinsky warned the organizer to be ever on guard against the possibility that the enemy might unexpectedly offer him “a constructive alternative” aimed at resolving the conflict. Said Alinsky, “You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying, ‘You’re right -- we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.’” Such capitulation by the enemy would have the effect of diffusing the righteous indignation of the People’s Organization, whose very identity is inextricably woven into the fight for long-denied justice; i.e., whose struggle and identity are synonymous. If the perceived oppressor surrenders or extends a hand of friendship in an effort to end the conflict, the crusade of the People’s Organization is jeopardized. This cannot be permitted. Eternal war, by definition, must never end.

-- John Perazzo, on how the American people are being lied to and manipulated in the name of evil, for Front Page Magazine.

"Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.

Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord."


Continue reading: "Eternal War Must Never End" - Barack Obama and the Alinsky Method: Leftist New Age Beliefs

by The Crack Emcee
images: The Macho Response
Source: "Eternal War Must Never End" - Barack Obama and the Alinsky Method: Leftist New Age Beliefs