Posted on 07/22/2010 4:17:36 PM PDT by pissant
This interview is part of an ongoing 2010 series of conversations with former Congressman and conservative icon Duncan Lee Hunter. The intent is to keep this rock ribbed conservative’s ideas in the public square which will hopefully influence the direction of the Republican Party, as well as inspire the American people to embrace his Reaganesque views on American life and politics. With any luck, Hunter will seek the presidency again in 2012, but for now he is concentrating on helping the GOP wrestle control of the Congress from the radical Pelosi brigades.
AJM: As you know, the Obama Administration is now fully involved in suing the State of Arizona over there new immigration law; we talked about that a little bit the last time, and….
DH: Yeah, I think the best question to ask the Federal Government, the first question they should ask Obama’s lawyers in court is “what part of your own law don’t you like?” Because one of the most important parts, the first part of the Arizona law, is a provision that says Arizona law enforcement officers shall not HINDER officers of the Federal Government in their attempts to enforce immigration law.
So do I take it that the Federal Government WANTS states to hinder them in the enforcement of their own law??
AJM: You better believe it.
DH: So that’s the first question for them – what part of your own law don’t you like?
AJM: And what you just said, being sarcastic…
DH: I’m not being sarcastic.
AJM: Yeah, Ok, I mean that question being a semi-flippant response to their stupid lawsuit, thinking this is outrageous. But listen to this. The reason I brought it up again is because some reporter asked the Justice Department: ‘you’re going after Arizona, but there are dozens of cities across the country, many of them large cities, that have REFUSED to cooperate with Feds, they’re called Sanctuary Cities’. San Francisco, Seattle, there’s a whole bunch of them.
DH: And a lot of them have what I would call ‘semi-sanctuary city’ policies. San Diego had a written policy by one of their mayors at on time, which directed the police department of the City of San Diego not to turn illegal aliens over to the immigration officials.
AJM: Exactly. But here’s what the response was. It was in yesterday’s papers. The response from the Justice Department spokesmoron – I’ll read it to you. He said, “there is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state that passes it’s own immigration policy that actively interferes with the law”.
So what Obama is saying is that Arizona is actively interfering with federal law by supporting it and these sanctuary cities are AOK with him to IGNORE the law!! So there is something viciously wrong with this. If you could get Mr. Holder in a room, what would you tell him? Because someone has got to wring this guy’s neck.
DH: The first question I would ask Mr. Holder is what part of his Federal Law doesn’t he like. And the answer to that for Mr. Holder, is if he doesn’t like the Federal Law – for example the laws that mandate we maintain a border and that we require people to produce certain documents when they come through – then he needs to try to get it changed! But that states have a right to presume that when the Federal Government passes a law and Congress votes on it and the President signs it, that they really mean it!
So we should ask Mr. Holder which of his Federal Laws he wants to have revoked. And then I’d tell him the path that he should then take is to revoke those laws. He needs to ask the President and the Senate and the House to pass a bill that says we now have open borders. That’s what he wants. That’s what Obama wants.
The idea that he gets to render his own federal laws null and void by failing to enforce it, and trying to prevent the states from enforcing it, is illogical nonsense, to say the least.
AJM: To say the least is right. I think it’s impeachable. I’m outraged by this.
DH: Well it is outrageous. Obviously Jim, they are going to have an argument. This is all politics, as you know. The administration, unfortunately, is playing the race card. That’s what they are doing. That’s what they do best. It’s almost irrelevant to them, the political drivers who are driving this challenge to Arizona, it’s almost irrelevant to them what the words are. You are angry at their logic because it isn’t logic that they are offering.
The rationale is irrelevant. What they want to do is have the ‘label’ that they, the democrats, are against the Arizona law. If you ask a lot of the people who are ‘angry’ at the Arizona law; what the Arizona law is – they can’t tell you. They can just tell you that somebody said it was bad. You ask them who it was that said that, and they’ll tell you it was President Obama who said it was bad! But if you ask them what is it about the law that’s so wrong, they can’t tell you what it is.
AJM: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the case can be made that the US Congress – obviously it would have to be in Republican hands – can go after Mr. Holder and Obama for allowing sanctuary cities to exist, and not enforcing laws that Congress mandated.
DH: Well certainly. For example, if you go back to the environmental question (see part 1 of interview), the way that US military bases got shut down when they are trying to train troops for combat in a time of war, and environmental interests shut them down, basically, is by suing the federal government, and trying to enforce their version of federal environmental law. So people have a right, people have standing in Federal Court, to sue the Federal Government for failing to enforce federal law. Liberals do it all the time!
So the point is that the Obama Administration doesn’t mind the federal agencies going through the motions; that is maintaining the Border Patrol, claiming that they are maintaining the border, and going through the motions of all that. They just don’t want it to be effective. And they don’t want it to be effective because they view the radical element of the ‘open borders’ crowd as their political ally.
AJM: Yeah, it fits right in with the rest of their radical allies.
DH: Which tells us that the Administration itself is a tribe of radicals. My point is we’ve gone over that. The answer is to have a Republican Congress. When we had a Republican congress we passed the Secure Fence Act that I wrote that provided for 854 miles of double fence across the smuggling corridors of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. We’ve now got about 700 miles of non-double fence out of that. We have stopped what I would call a lot of drug trucks. Incidentally in the city of San Diego, crime fell be FBI statistics by more than 53% after we constructed the first long segment of double fence.
But we also had an Administration in George Bush that who was persuaded by the land owners in southern Texas NOT to build the double border fence in South Texas, which was desperately needed, especially in this drug corridor attending Laredo and Nuevo Laredo.
AJM: Exactly where you called out for the Fence to be built.
DH: Yeah. We had specific designated areas, precise areas. And precise descriptions and precise time limitations on the construction of that fence. And the Bush Administration did not want to build that border fence. So conservative Republicans won what I would call about a third of a loaf out of that piece of legislation. Nonetheless, we did pass the Secure Fence Act and we did build hundreds of miles of barriers and fences. But we did that only because we had a majority in the House.
AJM: Absolutely. But the sanctuary city issue, it’s not just the cities themselves who aren’t enforcing the laws, the Feds aren’t going into these places and making raids and helping out either. And I think that’s a place where Congress can…
DH: The Federal Government has a problem too. The Obama Administration, for example, if by divine intervention, decided to take on the states and the political subdivisions – which is what the cities and counties are – for flaunting the federal immigration law, they themselves would be open to a large counterattack. Because the Federal Government is NOT securing the border!
Of course, the last people to complain about an open border are going to be the leftwingers that man these city halls in these respective sanctuary cities. But my point is the Federal Government hasn’t been doing its job either!
We could have lawsuits about not enforcing the border or not doing a good job of enforcing it. But those lawsuits would likely dissolve under a torrent of testimony about the new hires for the Border Patrol, the fences that had been constructed, surveillance capability, etc. At least a superficial argument could be made by the Obama Administration that they’ve done SOMETHING.
So what the Obama Administration wants to do is they want to do enough to satisfy responsible Americans that they are not a radical open border crowd, and at the same time they want to turn to their allies in these radical groups who are for open borders and amnesty and wink at them, to assure them that EFFECTIVE border enforcement will not occur.
AJM: Yep, and they are marching right down that road. The Amnesty plan has come back alive. So not only are they just putting on a show in not securing the border, but they are also planning for the new amnesty which we talked about a couple weeks ago.
DH: Yeah. You know, one of the legends about the city of Los Angeles is that back in the 1930s there were casino operations in Los Angeles, which were undertaken in complicity with the LA Police. And these casinos would operate until there was an outcry from the LA Times or other media centers. So the casino operators would send their regular patrons home, then go out and give handfuls of chips to taxi drivers and vagrants, and iunvite them into the Casinos. Then allow the city police to stage a raid, with lots of popping flashbulbs and beat writers.
AJM: (laughing)
DH: And to some degree that is what the Obama is doing with the border and immigration. They want to do enough publicly to give at least the impression that they want to maintain our borders. But the casino operators – that is the open border crowd – who Obama thinks are going to be the activists and voters of the future for the Democrat Party, they are assuring them that they are not going to do anything that is really going to stop the flow of illegal aliens.
AJM: They are handing out handfuls of chips.
DH: Exactly right. They are having it both ways right now. That’s one thing a Republican Congress, a conservative Republican congress, will take away from them. They would no longer be able to have it both ways.
AJM: That’s a great analogy to the corruption of the 1930s there.
DH: Not much has changed.
AJM: (laughs) OK, let me get one more question in. This is one I’d like to deal with at some length sometime in the future when we have plenty of time. And that is, I’m interested in who are some of your favorite characters out of American history are. Whether they are politicians, or generals or any other type of iconic figures that you’ve looked up to, or you consider heroes of American history, recent or otherwise.
DH: Yeah. Well I think Ronald Reagan had some of the quintessential heroic American qualities. You know at one time during the Reagan Administration, I was frustrated because of some terse communication that I had received from somebody in the bureaucracy, in the White House. I said to my staff (laughs), that “there is only one guy in the Reagan Administration who is HUMBLE. And that’s the President!” He’s the only one! Reagan had that great quality of humility and understanding that leadership is service. I like that.
I liked Teddy Roosevelt’s understanding that you need to make your products in America and that you need to maintain a strong US industrial base in this dangerous world. I also like his ethic regarding conservation. He was a great hunter and he was also a great conservationist. He understood that it is the hunters and sportsmen in this country that are most interested in protecting the heritage in the outdoors. So I liked that about Teddy.
I thought Barry Goldwater. He was the…
AJM: Conscience of a conservative…
DH: Yeah, he was, really, the person who gave the signal that – not that the British are coming – but that socialism was coming. On the eve of the move towards a new wave of big government which surged with the Democrats in the 1960s – the ‘great society’ – which was to some degree stalled by the Reagan Administration, then allowed to build back into full storm force with this latest Democrat administration, Goldwater was the man who laid out the base philosophy of freedom versus government control. He heralded, and really gave the warning to the United States that we were on the verge of this threshold of the move towards socialism, moving towards the left and away from freedom and constitutional constraints. So I thought highly of Barry Goldwater – you know I helped Barry Goldwater in my early days when I was in high school.
Militarily, I thought Jim Mattis was a great Marine General in recent times. I think Petraeus has been an excellent General. And Ray Odierno, winning the Iraq conflict.
AJM: He’s still over in Iraq, isn’t he?
DH: Yeah. He’s still there. We fought that war for a long time. We won it in 2008. But that was a long stretch from 03 to 08. So we’ve developed a lot of ‘old hands’ in the military. Those are some people who come to mind.
Incidentally, George Patton: George Patton’s secretary who was with him in World War II, Helen Tracy, and transcribed his memoirs, worked for me. And I came through her stories to really appreciate Patton. It’s interesting too, I once asked Helen if she had seen the movie “Patton”, and if it was an accurate portrayal. And she said “yes”. And that was interesting because most people who had lived with great personages, then had seen them portrayed on the screen, find lots of differences. But she said George C. Scott gave a great, accurate portrayal of Patton.
But hold on a second, I’ve got a live one on the phone, it could be my son calling from Iraq.
AJM: OK. Go ahead, we’ll catch up later.
(More to come. Stay tuned)
In case you missed these:
Duncan Hunter Interview 07-16-10, Part 1: Uncle Fester, Mitt Romney, and taming the EPA Monster
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2555621/posts
Duncan Hunter Takes on Obama’s Planned Executive Order Amnesty and Elena Kagan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2544451/posts
Duncan Hunter 6/22/10 Interview PART 2: Joe Barton vs. The Hypocrits & Arizona vs. Obama
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2541291/posts
Duncan Hunter 6/22/10 Part 1: Iraq Reality vs. The Wash. Post & Gen. McChrystal Vs. Obama
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2540963/posts
Duncan Hunter interview 6/9/10: CA Elections, ‘Virtual Appearances’, Chicom Dangers, and more!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2536020/posts
Duncan Hunter talks War: The Korean flareup, Vietnam, and Leftwing Disgraces - Interview 5/26/10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2522373/posts
Tradin’ with Reagan and Gaggin’ on Kagan: Duncan Hunter Interview May 17, 2010, Part II
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2517498/posts
On Knuckleheaded Apologies, Russia & Iran, and Border Politics: Duncan Hunter 5/17/10, Part I
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2516378/posts
A very, very Brief Conversation with Duncan Hunter: 5/17/10 - Chuck DeVore endorsement!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2515430/posts
Duncan Hunter FR Exclusive: On Gunny Pop, Chuck DeVore, Car Bombers, Anchor Babies and more!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2509921/posts
Duncan Hunter on GOP & Tea Party Politics, Rick Perry and Ilegal Aliens
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2504213/posts
Duncan Hunter (of course) Supports Arizona’s crackdown on Illegal Aliens
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2501797/posts
Duncan Hunter 4/8/10: Obama’s Nuke Puke, Stimulating Russia Jobs, and that Evil Oil
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2490025/posts
Duncan Hunter Talks 4/1/10: Shooting Donkeys, Phony v. Real Protests, & McCain’s ‘border security’!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2485034/posts
Duncan Hunter Takes Obama, Biden and Grahamnesty to the Woodshed & More!(Interview 3/19/10)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2475394/posts
Duncan Hunter Interview 3-5-2010: On Obama the Apostrate, The Reagan Doctrine, and Aging Hippies
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2465638/posts
Duncan Hunter Interview 2/24/2010 – McCain v Hayworth, O’Reilly v 2A, w/cameo from Gunny Pop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2458713/posts
Duncan Hunter Slams the Obama Adminstration over push for Gays in the Military
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2444696/posts
Duncan Hunter Slams Obama’s SOTU! 1-28-2010 Interview
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2439864/posts
Duncan Hunter Interview – 1/21/2010: Mass. Miracle, Obama, Cheney, Jobs, McCain-Feingold & More!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2435091/posts
Duncan Hunter Interview 1-8-2010: GOP Primary Politics, JD Hayworth, Panty Bomber and FOOTBALL
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2425011/posts
Duncan Hunter Interview - Dec. 18, 2009: On Christmas Blessings, the Gay Agenda, and Don Rumsfeld
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2412548/posts
Duncan Hunter Interview - Dec 8, 2009: On Huckabee, the EPA, GOP Amnesty Hacks, and Harry Reid!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2404824/posts
Duncan Hunter Interview 12-01-2009: Obama’s Weak Speech, SEALS, ClimateGate, and Shrinking Uncle Sam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2398503/posts
Duncan Hunter Interview 11-17-09: Terrorist Trials in NY, Amnesty, Sarah Palin and More!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2391044/posts
Duncan Hunter Interview 11-10-09: Gunny Pop, Afghanistan, Terrorism & Political Correctness!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2384405/posts
Duncan Hunter – Nov. 4, 2009: On the 2009 Elections, Global Warming Alarmists, and Ronald Reagan!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2378862/posts
Duncan Hunter – October 27, 2009: On ObamaCare, RomneyCare and Americans!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2372627/posts
Duncan Hunter 10/9/09 Interview. Bomb Iran, confront China, and work to defeat Socialism!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2360735/posts
DH PING
So we should ask Mr. Holder which of his Federal Laws he wants to have revoked. And then I’d tell him the path that he should then take is to revoke those laws. He needs to ask the President and the Senate and the House to pass a bill that says we now have open borders. That’s what he wants. That’s what Obama wants.
The idea that he gets to render his own federal laws null and void by failing to enforce it, and trying to prevent the states from enforcing it, is illogical nonsense, to say the least.
The ideology behind the Obama / Holder political position on Arizona needs to be understood.This ideology explains the entire function of the Obama Junta government on virtually all it issues:
Obamas is no communist. YOU NEED TO GET THIS RIGHT, OUR SURVIVAL AS A NATION DEPENDS ON IT!
Obama is a NATIONALIST
( black power /ethnic minority nation dedicated to seizing power on behalf of the racial and ethnic minorities of America based on the idea that America's greatness is fatally flawed because it owes its success to the colonial exploitation of black /ethnic minorities , and historic justice is required as a remedy, pretty much the same as Adolf Hitler's ideology for the German people prior to WWII which dictated historic justice for Germany. This has been candied up and sold to the American people, who have bought it, lock, stock and barrel, and the MSM hides it's dirty underside..)
OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST:
The economic aspect of racial historic justice requires a redistribution of wealth through subverting the present government system from within and using taxation, double dealings with Unions and industry, black mailing of traditional allies like Britain and Israel, and the abuse of other executive powers to redistribute wealth to racial and ethnic minorities rather than provide government services to ALL of the people). Obama plans to do this internationally, and he therefore abjures diplomacy with Britain ( colonial power) and others who were so called exploiters of the "black man."
Obama is a Nationalist Socialist, THATS RIGHT, A FASCIST.
His method of fascism is born of the Chicago thug school. HE IS NOT A COMMUNIST.This is important to know, for Obama cannot be defeated if we think he is a mere communist. His idea of black elitists who are racially and biologically superior to the white man in every way, a hatred of America ,goes much deeper than that of a mere communist.This is revealed by his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obamas conduct in office on racial and ethnic issues such as the New Black Panther party prosecution, and his refusal to secure our Southern Border, and his conflict with Arizonas illegal alien enforcement.GET IT RIGHT, OBAMA IS MUCH WORSE THAN A COMMUNIST!
I find it disconcerting that people do not examine what Obama's politics are,because that means we cannot defeat him because we cannot define him. THINK ON IT!. Obama is a fascist, a thug, a man who has no love for America and seeks to willfully destroy her if she does not do his bidding to become his twisted Utopia. He is not a Communist.Get it right. Our survival as a nation depends on it.
******************************************
May 12, 2009 Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
“They fear that the development and building of People’s (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.” - Saul Alinsky responding to his critics, Reveille for Radicals; p. 199
When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe. It wasn’t hard then to see in Alinsky’s programs at home, elements of the people’s revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same “in your face” tactics being employed by Hitler’s Brownshirts.
What Alinsky’s critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of people’s organizations, which all had two elements in common: (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.
While most modern Americans remember well Hitler’s Holocaust and the Cold War waged by a solid U.S.S.R., many of these same Americans have swallowed some false history regarding the movements that spawned such widespread, horrendous results. In what may be regarded as the most triumphant propaganda victory of our time, fascism has been scrubbed of all its Marxist roots, while communism has been scrubbed of its millions of callous murders.
This post-WWII propaganda coup undeniably set the stage for the early Alinsky critics’ most feared eventuality, that the massive organizations could be shrewdly adopted by a fascist demagogue, someone who could “seize leadership and control” and turn them into a “Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”
But perhaps the most cunning propaganda feat in history has been undertaken for the past 8 years. As Jonah Goldberg expertly expounds in his book, Liberal Fascism, American left-wing ideologues have managed to dissociate themselves from all the horrors of fascism with a “brilliant rhetorical maneuver.” They’ve done it by “claiming that their opponents are the fascists.”
Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously. Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this diabolical tactic to deceive the people. From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:
“...in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’ And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”
In what may eventually prove to be a devious rhetorical feat of monstrous proportions, while the left has been indulging and fostering the “Bush Is Hitler” meme, they may have just put a genuine ideological fascist heir in the White House.
There is inherent danger in making scurrilous comparisons (as were perpetrated unceasingly against George W. Bush), but there seem to be some very worrisome signs in the rise of Barack Obama that we Americans would be foolish to ignore.
Obama, the Closer
As I put forth last year in “Obama, the Closer”, Barack Obama, did not start his movement; Alinsky did.
Nor did Obama amass the organizations that propelled him. As detailed by Heidi J. Swarts, in her book, Organizing Urban America, the movement begun by Saul Alinsky in the 1930s has morphed into thousands of secular and faith-based leftist political organizations. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has perhaps the highest public profile, is most reputed for radicalism, and is the organization with which Barack Obama was first aligned. But ACORN is the mere tip of a veritable iceberg of Alinsky-styled community organizations that sweep across the entire United States and make up the backbone of faith-based progressive movements as well.
These euphemistically called “community” organizations have next to nothing to do with improving the communities and everything to do with politics, primarily strong-arming government money to advance their political aims. Prior to Reagan’s election, these groups worked independently for the most part, each seeking to effect local change towards leftist ends.
But with Reagan’s victory, ACORN founding member Wade Rathke sent out a memo (published by Swarts; Organizing Urban America; p. 29) that would reverberate all the way to Barack Obama’s moment. ACORN had been behaving as a sort of “Lone Ranger of the Left” for too long, wrote Rathke. Ronald Reagan had formed a coalition among the middle-class that threatened to bring greater prosperity without left-wing Statists calling the shots. Rathke put out the call to the ACORN troops to stop antagonizing those who would be allies, especially unions and church organizations, once shunned by ACORN as too placid for the real fight for power. For the next 25 years, the community organization network built, proliferated and formed a solid, nation-wide base of political strength, purely according to Alinsky’s original vision, and all just waiting for the right candidate to tap into it and lead it.
When folks from all corners of America proclaimed, seemingly with one voice, Barack is the “One we’ve been waiting for,” they were speaking out of the vast Alinsky-originated network.
Neither did Barack Obama invent the political “ideology of change,” nor design its carefully crafted propaganda. While media folks talked of the tingles up their legs and the brilliant rhetoric of Barack Obama, they were heralding the speaker only, not the creator of the movement and its slogans. That would have been Saul Alinsky, the man who took fascism and cunningly made it appear to casual observers every bit as American as apple pie.
Barack Obama is merely the movement’s closer, the quintessential liberal fascist with a teleprompter.
Alinsky’s Ideology of Change: The Third Way
Goldberg fastidiously notes the comparison between Alinsky’s “in your face” rules for radicals, studied and perfected by Barack Obama, and shows them to have profoundly fascist roots:
“...there’s no disputing that vast swaths of his (Alinsky’s) writings are indistinguishable from the fascist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s...His worldview is distinctly fascistic. Life is defined by war, contests of power, the imposition of will. Moreover, Alinsky shares with the fascists and pragmatists of yore a bedrock hostility to dogma. All he believes in are the desired ends of the movement, which he regards as the source of life’s meaning...But what comes through most is his unbridled love of power. Power is a good in its own right for Alinsky. Ours ‘is a world not of angels but of angles,’ he proclaims in Rules for Radicals, ‘where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”
Saul Alinsky was the man who transformed politics in America into all-out war mode. Alinsky’s tenth rule of the ethics of means: “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” All’s fair in love and war, and politics, to Alinsky, was war.
“A People’s (community) Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social service’s ameliorative gesture. It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people. It thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.
A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war
. A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.” Saul Alinsky; Reveille for Radicals; p. 133
Alinsky includes an entire section in Rules for Radicals on “The Ideology of Change.” The watchword of the Obama campaign was “change.” Just as Hitler mobilized the masses with a calculatingly undefined demand for “change,” so did Alinsky disciple, Barack Obama.
“Everything must be different!” or “Alles muss anders sein!,” Hitler’s own campaign slogan, morphed into “Unite for Change,” and the Obama transition team’s change.gov. Even the idea of a vast “movement” was borrowed from Hitler. As Goldberg states, Hitler used the phrase, “the Movement,” more than 200 times in Mein Kampf.
The word ‘movement’ itself is instructive. Movement, unlike progress, doesn’t imply a fixed destination. Rather, it takes it as a given that any change is better.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 176) Perhaps the most intoxicating allure to the fascist demagogue and his movement for undefined change is its misleadingly conciliatory flavor. Barack Obama continually, throughout his campaign and even now, portrays himself as the Third Way between the cantankerous factions that have polarized America for the past 80 years, since liberal fascism took root as the Progressive Movement.
Obama claimed that Bush was too much the ideologue, that his policies were driven by the Christian right, involved “false choices” between all-out war on the one hand and diplomacy on the other, between the welfare state and cold-hearted, do-nothing conservatism, between absolute sovereignty and cowardly submission to the global community, between doing all and doing nothing. And if any of this gibberish were a true reflection of our political disagreements, Obama would be somewhat correct. But as any sentient person knows, this radical presentation of Obama’s is absolutely false. That gets lost, though, in the leader’s conciliatory tone.
What must not get lost, however, is the very real fact that this Third Way movement for change is as fascist as anything we have ever seen in the USA. As Alinsky described his own “Ideology of Change,” the lure is in the claim that the leader has no ideology that would confine his outlook to hard choices between what is moral or immoral, that there are no boundaries set by either religion or politics, that everything can change and the only thing that matters is one’s end intention to do something good.
As Hitler, before Alinsky, proclaimed, “Our program is to govern,” not delve into theory and dogma. This is in itself very appealing, especially to an electorate sick of the contentiousness of the past decade. This undefined “ideology of change” for the sake of change, for some action that will break through the roadblocks of polarization, has tremendous allure.
But Goldberg bursts that bubble:
The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices -‘I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly utopian because they - like communist and heretical Christian movements — assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified. (Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 130)
Of course, thinking people — when they are indeed thinking — know this is an utterly false promise. Life will never be made perfect because all human beings are imperfect.
Unity, the Diabolical Lure
What of this longed-for unity then? Barack Obama proclaimed he was leading a movement of people “united for change.” What is the appeal of unity?
The modern liberal fascist seeks that state between mother and child which exists early on before the child seeks his own independence, before mother must set herself at odds with him. It is the perfectly secure state of childhood where all is lovely and peaceful and nurturing, but cannot continue indefinitely if the child is to be prepared to face a world of difficulty and hard choices. Nevertheless, the yearning continues. It is this primordial yearning which sets itself in the crosshairs of the fascist demagogue.
But in adult life, this type of unity is anything but desirable, anything but virtuous. As Goldberg states, however, “elevation of unity as the highest social value is a core tenet of fascism and all leftist ideologies.”
The allure of this mystical unity is so great that its demand to sacrifice reason and thought on the false altar of infantile security is seemingly lost to many. But as Goldberg also reminds us, “unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink.”
Rampaging mobs are unified. The Mafia is unified. Marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified. Meanwhile, civilized people have disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments. Classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always anti-liberal.
Liberalism rejected the idea that unity is more valuable than individuality. For fascists and other leftists, meaning and authenticity are found in collective enterprises - of class, nation, or race - and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate. (Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 172)
Just as the healthy relationship between parent and developing child demands friction, so does the healthy relationship between truly liberal citizens. Unity is the siren song of tyranny, not the call to genuine progress.
Fascism: The Two Birds with One Stone Approach
I think of Obama’s liberal fascism as a cancer that attempts to kill the two birds of American exceptionalism with one stone. It is a deviously appealing Third Way that in the end, if allowed to triumph completely, kills both individual liberty and Judeo/Christian religion with its single stone.
And, indeed this was the precise goal of Adolph Hitler. Unlike the outspoken hatred of private property and religion espoused by communists under Lenin and Stalin, Hitler preferred the more moderate-seeming incremental takeover of private enterprise in the interest of the “common good,” and the slow-death of Judeo/Christian religion by chipping away at it and replacing the people’s dependence upon God gradually with reliance on the state (Hitler).
[Note: Hitler’s Holocaust was based on the Progressive Eugenics principles set forth by Social Darwinist scientists and social engineers of the 1920s, widely accepted both in Europe and in the United States. Religion was not at the core of the Holocaust; race was. However, Hitler’s other chief aim was to destroy the Judeo/Christian religions, which he believed had ruined the Germanic race’s world predominance.]
Of course, as the German people were duped into giving Hitler totalitarian powers to work his magic “change,” he took off the kid gloves and accelerated the program.
In the end, however slow the process, however seemingly benign the growth of the state may seem, liberal fascism has the same result of all tyrannies before it: hell on earth for most and a self-indulgent feast for the Statists in power.
As Barack Obama speaks, thinking Americans ought to hear the echoes of past fascist demagogues and remember. Remember.
When Barack Obama promises “collective redemption” through his profligate spending programs and vast overtures to a new world order built on love for our fellow man, we ought to shudder not swoon.
We ought to remember that healthy global relationships are built upon respect, not all-encompassing love, and that redemption for one’s soul is a commodity the state is not empowered to offer.
As Pope Benedict XVI has so presciently warned:
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
Be not fooled, America. The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil. It’s a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesn’t change a thing.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com.
****************************************
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
But we also had an Administration in George Bush that who was persuaded by the land owners in southern Texas NOT to build the double border fence in South Texas, which was desperately needed, especially in this drug corridor attending Laredo and Nuevo Laredo.
AJM: Exactly where you called out for the Fence to be built.
DH: Yeah. We had specific designated areas, precise areas. And precise descriptions and precise time limitations on the construction of that fence. And the Bush Administration did not want to build that border fence.
Thank you, Jorge!
Not a high moment for GWB.
Thanks very much. I saved your entire post for posterity.
I save very few.
Spread it far and wide. Those who read it get an understanding which is necessary if we are to win this battle.Thanks Steve!
THough I like the passion, Obama, IMO is a rank marxist. National Socialists, at least historically, also wrap themselves in nationalism. Obama is about as nationalistic as Cindy Sheehan.
I have always believed that Bush was doing everything he could behind the scenes to make sure no fence was built, and put his personal stooge, Chartoff out there, to take all of the punishment. Liz and I used to joke about it often.
Bush pushed amnesty as hard as McCain is fighting to defeat J.D. Hayworth....as if their very lives depended on it.
I like GWB. Unfortunately, he had some major policy flaws. But he’s not a back stabbing weasel liek McCain. And IMO, he is not a globalist, like McCain or his dad.
This may be my favorite interview out of many. Hunter lets his guard down and exposes Bush. More importantly he also proves that Obama is running a rogue,fraudulent, bogus administration, and is a traitor to the United States of America.
He exposed Bush at the time during the debates on amensty. As well as contemporaneously on his “case of the slows” in building the border fence. He crucified Chertoff as well. He was an unhappy camper during the last 2 years of the Bush admin.
But the real culprits, who Hunter called out in one of these earlier interviews, with regards to gutting the Secure Fence Act that allowed Chertoff to do what he wanted, was Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jon Cornyn, and Rick Perry (Who Hunter does not seem to like much).
DUNCAN HUNTER
B U M P
I spent 30 years in Los Angeles. (1976-2006). I WATCHED HEAVEN ON EARTH TURN INTO A 3RD WORLD HELL HOLE. Amnesty with chain migration will destroy the United States within 5-10 years, via “ family reunification “ Bush still is the all time champion of amnesty, and is STILL pushing it. This alone nullifies whatever good he did, at least for me. The sad thing is most Americans don’t know how damaging illegal immigration is. Only people in about 10 states know the truth. Hunter was right here in the thick of it, and the Chamber of Commerce couldn’t buy him like they did with McCain.
” But the real culprits, who Hunter called out in one of these earlier interviews, with regards to gutting the Secure Fence Act that allowed Chertoff to do what he wanted, was Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jon Cornyn, and Rick Perry (Who Hunter does not seem to like much). “
I’m well aware of them. The secure Fence Act was just one of many obstacles . Bush promoted illegal immigration in many of his speeches.
My inlaws still live in LA. My wife is from there. It is as corrupt as Chicago. And the average IQ of the local elected politician is single digits. It’s going to be extremely difficult to recover from the last 15 years or illegal immigration and grotesque mismanagement.
My point was that regardless of what Bush thought, he did sign the SFA and he actually started to build that double fence. Until KBH, Cornyn gutted it, with Perry cheerleading for them. That gave Chertoff the cover he needed to NOT build what Hunter had worked so hard to specify in the SFA.
Listen, Bush was awful on illegals. But that, my friend, is the GOP in a nutshell. Hunter, with a handful of conservative allies, were always fighting against the GOP as much as the dems on this topic.
Its horrible. And it needs to not only be stopped but reversed.
Only a fascist government bent on the destruction of America would pursue the present policy of refusing to enforce the laws that we have passed to protect our nation. For that they need not only to be held accountable, but punished as the treasonous ba$tards they are. Treasonous to the Constitution, treasonous to their oaths of office, and treasonous to the foundation of freedom that should beat in the heart of every human being in America.Illegal aliens are not free. They are slaves to the next idiot who wants to troll the bleeding heart schtick and hand them benefits that WE pay for. Consequentky the lick the hands of their own sordid fascist masters, and can never BE Americans.
OUR treasure, that of the American people, used to destroy our own culture and nation? IT HAS TO STOP!
No more illegal immigrant slaves. Out with them. This is a nation of only free men and women! That freedom needs to be cultivated and continuously maintained, illegal aliens cannot do that, and so the government will use them to enslave us all. It has already begun. The United States of Zimbabwe.
That is the real problem. Soon every American will be treated like a slave by their government, we will descend to the lowest common denominator of freedom.
Every state in the union must follow the example of Arizona. And the duty of the government to protect its people from invasion must be realized, or ladies and gentlemen, we will no longer have a country, let alone a Republic.And genocide will eventually be the wage of such policy.This Obama well knows. He helped create genocide in Kenya in 2007 with Odinga.
When these illegal immigrant slaves reach critical mass, they will try to kill every man,woman and child who is American and free. That is the way of the cultures from which they spring,and it is the way of their own communities.
Just look across the border at towns controlled by Drug Lords that the Mexican government cannot even stop.The people do not rise up against the drug lords, they lick their hands in defeat. In a few years they will be on our doorsteps, into our hinterland, destabilizing and balkanizing America to fuel the liberal fascist agenda of divide and conquer,and enslave us all.
Free America will never accept that. And Obama wants that social disorder so he can use it as an instruent of conquest.. This is why the border MUST be sealed, and all illegal aliens sent back to their origin, on their dime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.