I’m ashamed to admit it, but I haven’t been to a Tea Party yet.  I’m about to get my patriotic feet wet, though.  Next Monday, November 9th, I’m going over to Birmingham to meet the Tea Party Express at Kelly Ingram Park.  American patriots of all political stripes, I’m told, will be there to rally around the Constitution and give a loud shout out to the folks trampling upon its hallowed contents up there in Washington.

I’m determined to speak my thoughts and get the inside story on just how scared down to their woollies the Democrats ought to be right now.  After the rally in Birmingham, I’ve been invited to board the Tea Party Express bus and ride back to Atlanta with them.  On the drive, I’ll be interviewing the insiders and plan to write it all up in continuing columns and blog posts.   I’ll also be sending pictures to American Thinker.

Getting the inside scoop on the movement that is causing an earthquake in liberal bastions all over this great Land is a rare privilege and I promise not to let it go to waste.  You’ll find out everything I learn, either here on my website or in my syndicated columns.

The Country is in grave peril, from both within and without, and now is the time for all Americans to fight for a return to the limited government and free enterprise which have made this the greatest civilization in the history of humankind.  I don’t want to have to tell my grandchildren that when my Country needed me, I went shopping.  I don’t want to have to tell them that when America was falling to her knees, I watched TV, played tennis and did lunch with my girlfriends.

That’s why I’m joining the Tea Party Express, both as an observer and as a participant.

President Obama’s socialist locomotive is taking us straight off a cliff and it’s going to take every man and woman with brains and vigor to stop it in its tracks before it takes us all into the abyss of failed civilizations.  Time to get crackin’.

Hope some of you will come see me in Birmingham or Atlanta on November 9th.  We can compare notes.

Writing as a Catholic, who fully understands that the right to life of every conceived child is the very underpinning of all other rights, I am heartened by the announcement today by the US Council of Catholic Bishops.  This weekend, the Bishops have called for every single mass in every single American parish to be alerted to their stalwart opposition to Nancy Pelosi’s healthcare reform bill.

The bill, of course, contains national coverage for abortion.  As most fully understand, leftists have always considered complete, unfettered access to abortion to be a part of “health care.” The same is true today and it is very doubtful that this far-left Congress, controlled in its entirety by liberal Democrats, will be able to pass national healthcare reform without the votes of these strident abortion proponents.

Interestingly enough, the Soviet Union was the first to legalize abortion. By the end of its existence, in the USSR upwards of 70% of all pregnancies ended in abortion.  This proved to be a demographic nightmare, producing increasingly small generations of young workers, and played perhaps the largest part in the demise of the USSR.  Yet, other countries jumped on the idiot’s bandwagon with the Soviets and by the mid-1970s abortion was not only legal, but being encouraged on various “humanitarian” grounds around the world.

Even if one completely ignores the very real fact that every single walking-around human being is an ex-embryo and an ex-fetus, who would not be here either if his mother had not carried him to term after his conception — even if one completely ignores the fact that abortion has become a genocide far larger in scope than the Nazis and even the communists perpetrated — even ignoring all that, abortion so disturbs the natural demographic patterns of a society that none can survive too long after it is introduced.  Unless a society maintains a birth rate of 2.1 per childbearing female, then that society will certainly die from pure attrition.  Many of America’s problems in this current time can be directly traced to our callous murder of 50 million of our own offspring since 1973.  Creatures who devour their own children should not expect a rosy future.  That’s just plain old common sense.

Of course, there are hosts of other reasons to oppose the national healthcare insanity.  I, for one, am happy to see this staunch opposition from our own Bishops.  Better late than never.  Now, if they would do us the favor of excommunicating Pelosi, Kerry and Biden, I could sleep a bit better too.

Here is the info on the Bishops actions in opposition to national healthcare:

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34735

The thirteenth rule of radical tactics: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Saul Alinsky, the Father of Community Organizing

Rules for Radicals; p. 128

There’s a whole lot of polarizing going on in Obama’s America.  Unity is out, apparently.  Polarization is still in.  And Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are the new Bush.

One would need to be a complete ninny outfitted with blinders and earplugs not to know this by now.

One blaring truth rears its ugly head to any open-minded person who takes a hard look at Barack Obama’s personal and political history.  His history is shot clear through with polarizing effects, both intentional and unintentional.

One might almost say that Barack Obama was a born polarizer.

Obama’s Polarization Roots

When Barack Obama burst upon the national political stage with his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he was selling himself as an ideal-Republic American.  Yes, as is typical of all of Obama’s speeches, this one was heavy on the “I.”  Nevertheless, the speech heard ‘round the world at that convention was one just about any American anywhere could like.

The most memorable lines and the ones that drew the heaviest applause:

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.

There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

Unfortunately for the Country, these were indeed just words.

As researchers came to learn during the campaign, Barack Obama was raised on the mother’s milk of socialism, not the bedrock American values claimed by the Axelrod-spun, fairytale narrative.

Both Barack’s mother and his father were fellow travelers of the Marxist band and made no bones about this during their lives.  Stanley Ann Dunham was spouting the “gospel of envy” by the time she was in her mid-teens.  Barack Obama Sr. saw his own political career in Kenya die out, not only due to his alcoholism, but also due to his hard-core communist fealties, which were too stringent for the softer-core socialists in command of the fledgling post-colonial country of his birth.  Young Barack’s grandfather, who was his primary caregiver from age 10, made sure the youngster spent vast amounts of his free time with stalwart avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis.

At their very core, all Marxist theories rest upon polarization, which is the direct result of envy and greed for power.  “They have what we want,” is the rallying cry of all socialist/communist/fascist systems.  All Marxist creeds are as naturally polarizing as a mob of looters.

Fancy, high-flying words don’t change a thing.

When Barack Obama made his way to Chicago, he was already a natural polarizer, seeing the world through us-vs.-them lenses.  His associations with ACORN (Project Vote) and Jeremiah Wright fit perfectly with the worldview his parents, grandfather and mentor purposefully taught him.

His study of Alinsky power tactics during those years merely reinforced that polarizing worldview and gave it stronger legs.

The church chosen by Barack Obama in Chicago was run by Jeremiah Wright, another active and vociferous polarizer.  Wright based his own theology on the writings of James H. Cone, a man who boastfully declares that blacks - not Jews — are the chosen people of God, that they’re due special preference because of their history of oppression and that the only way a white person can join them is to shed their “white skins” and become black in their souls.  Both Cone and Wright preach black supremacy and black separatism and have bought hook, line and sinker the socialist, “They have what we want,” rallying cry.  Barack Obama chose this theology of his own free will as a full-fledged, well-educated adult.

As a young politician in Chicago, Obama was known for sowing division and polarity among his own constituents, first with his underhanded treatment of Alice Palmer, then with his ill-fated challenge of Bobby Rush for the U.S. Congress.

Why would anyone believe that Barack Obama had a single unifying bone in his body?  Such a belief defies common sense.

The Master Polarizer as President

President Barack Obama sailed into the presidency itself on the wings of eight years of solid, left-wing manipulated polarizing of all things Bush.  So, why did Americans believe Obama would be anything but a polarizing president?  David Mendell, writing in his book, From Promise to Power, puts his finger right on the pulse of Obama’s ease with bamboozling all comers.

It’s the smooth-flowing, used-car-salesman rhetoric, honey.

Writing of Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign, Mendell noted (p. 248):

“As he had so often before, Obama sold his message to both liberals and centrists, as well as to some who tilted toward the right.  His message, after all, was both liberal and conservative.  His policy positions were decidedly to the left, but he offered them in such a passive, two-pronged way that it made him sound almost conservative.”

After becoming president, Obama’s first target of Alinsky polarization tactics was Rush Limbaugh.  The targeting began very early with Obama’s words to Republican lawmakers over the hastily passed, non-bipartisan Stimulus package.  When Republican lawmakers attempted to take the new President at his conciliatory campaign rhetoric and provide actual input, the President’s petulant reply:  “I won.”  To which he added the polarizing bait:  “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and expect to get anything done.”

Obama, the general, threw down the rhetorical gauntlet and ever since, his troops have followed suit, attempting to polarize Rush Limbaugh (and every one of Rush’s listeners) in the same way Democrats effectively polarized President Bush.

President Obama followed up on his polarizing tactic against Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents Dinner, laughing uproariously as Wanda Sykes plied her death-wish humor at Rush’s kidneys and ludicrously suggested that Rush was the 20^th hijacker on 9/11.

According to the Huffington Post, “The White House’s communications staff announced this week (referring to Oct 5-9) that it was charting out a new, more aggressive strategy, defined largely by a pledge to push back hard against news stories that are either inaccurate or unflattering.”  Anita Dunn appeared the following Sunday on CNN to fire the first salvo of this stated policy.

Since then, our Alinskyite in Chief has taken the unprecedented extra step of using the people’s government to perform a rhetorical hit job on an independent media outlet, Fox News.  Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, whose favorite philosopher is Mao, the Chinese-Communist butcher, audaciously targeted Fox News on national television.  She slandered the channel’s coverage of the presidential campaign, declared it a “wing of the Republican Party,” and openly admitted the reason it was dissed by the President last month was its tenacious insistence on reporting stories unflattering to Obama.

This open polarizing of independent news and opinion broadcasters is not by accident, but by design and rests solidly at the feet of the President.  Dunn made it big in the news again this week for her declarations that Obama had controlled the media during the campaign.  But this control of the media thing only works if one controls all the media.

The Goals of Alinskyite Polarization:  Killing the Opposition

Saul Alinsky declared that the only way to effect any substantial change in the prevailing order of power (Haves vs. Have-nots) was to first polarize the whole societal/political atmosphere.

Alinsky described his community organizer as someone who must become a “well-integrated political schizoid.”

“The organizer must become schizoid, politically, in order to slip into becoming a true believer.  Before men can act 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.  He knows there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree.” (Rules for Radicals; p. 78)

When Senate candidate Obama gave that speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and declared, “even as we speak, there are those preparing to divide us,” he was talking out both sides of his mouth.

Being a consummate divider is the community organizer’s very job description.  His task is to “rub raw the sores of discontent” until ordinary people become so agitated with the status quo that they are willing to do whatever is necessary to change it.  When Alinsky was taunted with the accusation that organizers were nothing but “professional agitators,” he gleefully agreed, declaring that the organizer’s job was to “fan the flames of discontent.”  Only hopelessness and overwhelming fear of the future, he contended, would pave the way for revolution:

Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. - Rules for Radicals, p. xix

That’s precisely where we were in the lead-up to the presidential election.  Americans were indeed “rubbed raw” from the left’s ceaseless caterwauling against Bush, the “religious right,” “ideological” policy making, “Bush’s war,” etc.  And it has been clear from the beginning of the Obama presidency that he and his supporters believed enacting far-reaching leftist policies would be little more than child’s-play.  After all the President also had overwhelming majorities in Congress to do his bidding.

But things have not gone as easily or as uncritically as hoped.  Resistance has formed and it has been widespread and quite resilient against the President’s charms.  Rather than re-examine his policy proposals or question himself, President Obama simply goes to the fallback position of every true-blue Alinskyite.  He “picks a target, freezes it, personalizes it and polarizes it.”

In the President’s mind, the only reason good Americans disagree with him and his far-reaching, anti-American policies are those media folks who report on his scheming, i.e., Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.  The other news and opinion outlets have given the Alinskyite a complete pass.

Alinsky taught that the purpose of polarization was not only to “rub raw the sores of discontent,” but also to force the target into committing the “crimes” of which he stood preemptively accused.  Alinsky gave examples of how he had polarized and tormented an opponent so forcefully and tenaciously that the target eventually broke and succumbed to things like breaking into his offices to get information and hurling invective that made him look guilty to onlookers.  The whole idea of polarization is to push the target into becoming the villain he was targeted to be.

Alinsky summed up his polarization tactic with these tidbits, which should act as warnings to targets of Alinskyite polarization:

• The real action is in the enemy’s reaction.
• The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.

To those who would decry his tactics as unwholesome and at bedrock, untruthful, Alinsky offered this rebuttal:

“Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as, ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband’?  This becomes political idiocy.” (Rules for Radicals; p. 134)

Even though Alinsky dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to the one he referred to as the “very first radical known to man,” none other than Lucifer, Alinsky was also quite adroit at claiming he was following injunctions by Jesus Christ, too.

“The classic statement on polarization comes from Christ:  ‘He that is not with me is against me.’ (Luke 11:23)  He allowed no middle ground to the moneychangers in the Temple.  One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (Rules for Radicals; p. 134)

Putting himself on the same level as Christ was an Alinsky favorite and it certainly reminds me of our own Alinskyite in Chief.

President Obama has sown division among religious people too.  Among Jews, he has polarized stalwart supporters of Israel and in his foreign policy moves against the tiny State, has relied on backing of anti-Israeli Jewish groups, such as J-Street.  President Obama has also attempted to polarize the Pope and stirred division among Catholics by speaking at Notre Dame.  In religion, as well as politics, President Obama adopts the all-with-me or against-me rhetoric, but unlike God, is willing to use any dirty trick in the book to get his way.

Seems like the actions of a true radical in the Luciferian mold to me.

The bottom line on polarization is that it’s an ugly, deceitful power tactic being used unabashedly by President Barack Obama to further his own designs for America.  But targeting the most popular, successful radio and television personalities in America today would seem a bit beyond the pale, even for an Alinskyite in Chief.

President Obama should, perhaps, have heeded Alinsky’s warnings on picking perfect targets:

“It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target.  There is a constant squirming and moving and strategy…on the part of the designated target.  The forces for change must keep this in mind and pin that target down securely.  If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible.”

With nearly 15 million listeners every week and plenty of financial power, Rush Limbaugh has proven that he is not a plush target.  Remember the left’s Congressional-letter fiasco.  As the most highly viewed Cable news network, Fox would seem also un-amenable to easy polarizing.  Eventually, other news individuals and organizations will most likely enter this president-picked fight on the side of their beleaguered Fox comrades, not to mention the millions of Fox’s angered viewers.

Backlash is forming faster than a thunder cloud on a hot summer day.  It’s going to be a fine fight and I’m bidding for the popcorn concession.

The 9.12 Project Network has called for a special day of prayer and fasting next Monday, September 28.  If God is with us, who can stand against us?  No one.  No power, nor principality.  No thing in heaven or on earth.  No force is greater than God and in this One Nation under God, when the going gets tough the tough get praying.

This time last year, we Georgians were steeped in a drought so long-lasting and severe that we were facing radical water shut-offs and rationinng.  We were negotiating drinking-water rights with states to our south and to our north.  The Governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue, took a lot of ridicule outside the state and even threats of lawsuits, but he went ahead and convened a day of prayer and held a huge inter-denominational prayer service on the steps of our Capitol.  The drought broke in the spring.  This summer brought greenery, lake swells and river measurements to levels not seen in many years.  In Atlanta, two days ago measured the most rainfall on any day since 1953.  Prayer works.  God listens to the pleas of His people.

Pray, America, pray.  Fast, America, fast.  Let’s show what we’re made of and in the spirit of our own patriot ancestors, let’s remember our own peculiar value:  Liberty over luxury any day!!

Go to the 9.12 Project website for details on the proclaimed day of fasting and prayer for the Republic, September 28.  Don’t let a patriot go a day without fervent knee-time in this hour of national need.

Here we are in the 21st century and the most glaring thing about it so far is that ordinary common sense has been utterly flipped upon its head and simple human dictums have lost all meaning.  Nowhere has this idiotic confusion become more rampant than in the usage of 2 little words, employed now as a battering ram to force socialist changes to our great American system of government.  Those 2 words:  COMMON GOOD.

Socialist progressives accuse conservatives at every juncture of mean-spirited selfishness and assert that only income redistribution by the state can possibly serve what they mistakenly call the “common good.”  They’ve managed to elect a president whose anti-American myopic vision of the common good is about as far removed from its uniquely Judeo/Christian meaning as anything could get without becoming an out-and-out lie.

My favorite word, “poppycock,” is too kind here.  I’ll go with the new Joe Wilson lingo and just call it a vicious lie.  Believing that the genuine meaning of the common good begins and ends with the state is not only a complete misconception and pure nonsense that will cripple a nation and its economy in very short order, it is a malignancy which robs the people of their unalienable rights, all the while wearing a smiley face and pretending to be noble.

Before the dawn of the Age of Confusion — a confusion intentionally sown throughout the latter half of the 20th Century through our schools and media — the purely American definition of the common good was ubiquitous.  It reigned supreme in nearly every family and every institutional setting.  It was the foundation of both Jewish and Christian homes nationwide.  And only the most radical few would dare to even suggest otherwise. The American understanding of the common good held forth across racial and cultural boundaries.  There was nothing more American than the individual work ethic.

Americans have always, since our founding, insisted that every single individual best serves the common good through self-sufficiency.  Only in being self-sufficient could one ensure that he would never become a burden to his neighbors.  The words lazy, shiftless, no-account were three of the most feared words in the American vocabulary.  The worst thing a child could be called by his own mother was “slacker.” The last thing a child ever wanted to hear from his own father were accusations of laziness.

Say whatever you will about the WASP and Jewish cultural bearings, but these folks gave Americans one of the greatest gifts ever bestowed upon a civilization:  an understanding of the inherent value of honest work for one’s own benefit.  The protestant work ethic is its most common name.  Whatever one chooses to call it really doesn’t matter.  The underlying brilliance was always that by being self-sufficient, one also served his fellow man.  And when one failed through his own fault to provide for himself, he was rightly considered an unnecessary burden to the common good.

Charity was for those who simply could not help their own misfortune and was given person-to-person and through voluntary organizations, mainly through the churches and synagogues with great care to preserve the recipients’ dignity.  Unless the beneficiary’s personal dignity was preserved, charity would not have been considered charity at all but would have been rightly seen as an action intended to ensure dependence.  No American virtue was seen in becoming dependent upon others and those who would encourage dependence were seen as downright evil.  Making others dependent, it was widely known, was merely a way to amass power over others.  A truly disgusting goal if ever there was one.

Today, evil political charlatans pose as benevolent providers of the common good.  Robbing from the productive class to give to the indolent class, all in the name of the common good is the moral equivalent a plantation owner who claimed to really love his slaves.

Politicians selling this malarkey and getting clean away with it in this so-called age of enlightenment is pure proof positive that human nature is every bit as prone to evil, as well as gullibility, as it always has been.   The thing that liberals don’t know and which conservatives seem to have all but forgotten as they allow themselves to be beaten with the common-good club is that the very foundation of the golden rule is self-love first.  As Jesus admonished his followers to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, it is inherent in serving others that one take care of himself FIRST.  Once he has ensured that he will not be a burden to others, then he is also free to lend a helping hand to those who genuinely need it.

And the kind of help one gives must not only be well-intentioned but must genuinely serve the best interests of the recipient.  If all the help does is rob a person of his dignity and ability to help himself, then it is worse than nothing.  It is evil.  Good is only served in charity if the person is helped to become self-sufficient and then is led to become a giver himself.

These are the foundations upon which America was founded and the sooner we get back to them, the more likely we’ll be to save our drowning Republic.

C. S. Lewis said it best:  “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”

Socialist progressives yammering about the “common good” while picking the pockets of the productive class and forming a wholly dependent indolent class to keep them in power are definitely on the wrong road.  And all it takes to see that is a glance at the flailing, failing countries across the pond.  Calling socialism “progressive” is just putting lots of lipstick on a really ugly pig who loves to wallow in his own slop.  You don’t get much lower than that.