So here is a man whose rule book is the standard for l*****t community agitation: I love Ben Carson. He may not be up on his Egyptology (which we all know now is a requirement for the...

cold iron Loc: White House

I love Ben Carson. He may not be up on his Egyptology (which we all know now is a requirement for the presidency, thanks to the Left), but he calls things as he sees them.
This trait, plus the facts that he is a brilliant surgeon, a conservative and a black man are the reasons the Left h**es him so, and the reasons they try so desperately to make him appear wrong, uneducated or ignorant.
This morning, the Left and its media cohorts are working double time to slam Carson because he made a damaging and very correct observation about Democratic p**********l candidate Hillary Clinton during his appearance at the Republican National Convention.

That observation is that Clinton in her college years was heavily influenced by the works of Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, who offered her a job, which she declined after interviewing him for her senior thesis at Wellesley College.
Although her thesis suggests she didn’t embrace all of Alinsky’s strategies, it also makes clear that she held him up as a role model, and mainly just disagreed over his belief that it was not possible to change the system from within.
The reason any of this matters is not just because of Alinsky’s self-described radicalism that helped shape Clinton’s views of how to wage politics, but because of what Alinsky said in the acknowledgement section of Rules for Radicals.
Carson said at the RNC, Now, one of the things that I have learned about Hillary Clinton is that one of her heroes, her mentors, was Saul Alinsky. And her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky this was someone she greatly admired. And let me tell you something about Saul Alinsky. So he wrote a book called Rules for Radicals. It acknowledges Lucifer, the original radical who gained his own kingdom.
The various denials and excuses being spread by the liberal media today will tell you things like, oh, it wasn’t really an acknowledgement, it was just a funny thing to say, meant humorously; or, it’s just quote taken out of context; or, Alinsky didn’t really believe in Lucifer; etc. In short, don’t believe your own eyes.

Because this is what Alinsky actually wrote:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom Lucifer. SAUL ALINSKY
He quotes himself (using the word acknowledgement) speaking admiringly of how Lucifer (aka Satan) rebelled (against God) and won his own kingdom, which most people know as Hell.
One of the many, many, many failings in Alinsky’s thought processes is that he fails to see any distinction between being a radical as he calls himself, and being a rebel like Thomas Paine, to whom he compares himself. Paine, obviously, was rebelling against a corrupt dictatorship in order to restore the inalienable rights of mankind.
Lucifer’s r*******n, according to tradition, was based solely on his own uncontrollable p***e and selfishness (and it ended with the Fall, in which Satan was expelled from Heaven and d**gged all his friends and allies down with him). That more accurately describes the character of the radical as Alinsky portrays it in his book.
Alinsky lacked the wit to see the difference, and so, too, does Clinton, as her career and now her campaign have shown an embrace of the Alinsky strategies she adored in college.

So here is a man whose rule book is the standard for l*****t community agitation, a man Clinton obviously held as a role model for herself, and his role model is Satan.

Draw your own conclusion.

http://constitution.com/carson-points-clinton-lucifer-connection/

Glaucon

cold iron wrote:

I love Ben Carson. He may not be up on his Egyptology (which we all know now is a requirement for the presidency, thanks to the Left), but he calls things as he sees them.
This trait, plus the facts that he is a brilliant surgeon, a conservative and a black man are the reasons the Left h**es him so, and the reasons they try so desperately to make him appear wrong, uneducated or ignorant.
This morning, the Left and its media cohorts are working double time to slam Carson because he made a damaging and very correct observation about Democratic p**********l candidate Hillary Clinton during his appearance at the Republican National Convention.

That observation is that Clinton in her college years was heavily influenced by the works of Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, who offered her a job, which she declined after interviewing him for her senior thesis at Wellesley College.
Although her thesis suggests she didn’t embrace all of Alinsky’s strategies, it also makes clear that she held him up as a role model, and mainly just disagreed over his belief that it was not possible to change the system from within.
The reason any of this matters is not just because of Alinsky’s self-described radicalism that helped shape Clinton’s views of how to wage politics, but because of what Alinsky said in the acknowledgement section of Rules for Radicals.
Carson said at the RNC, Now, one of the things that I have learned about Hillary Clinton is that one of her heroes, her mentors, was Saul Alinsky. And her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky this was someone she greatly admired. And let me tell you something about Saul Alinsky. So he wrote a book called Rules for Radicals. It acknowledges Lucifer, the original radical who gained his own kingdom.
The various denials and excuses being spread by the liberal media today will tell you things like, oh, it wasn’t really an acknowledgement, it was just a funny thing to say, meant humorously; or, it’s just quote taken out of context; or, Alinsky didn’t really believe in Lucifer; etc. In short, don’t believe your own eyes.

Because this is what Alinsky actually wrote:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom Lucifer. SAUL ALINSKY
He quotes himself (using the word acknowledgement) speaking admiringly of how Lucifer (aka Satan) rebelled (against God) and won his own kingdom, which most people know as Hell.
One of the many, many, many failings in Alinsky’s thought processes is that he fails to see any distinction between being a radical as he calls himself, and being a rebel like Thomas Paine, to whom he compares himself. Paine, obviously, was rebelling against a corrupt dictatorship in order to restore the inalienable rights of mankind.
Lucifer’s r*******n, according to tradition, was based solely on his own uncontrollable p***e and selfishness (and it ended with the Fall, in which Satan was expelled from Heaven and d**gged all his friends and allies down with him). That more accurately describes the character of the radical as Alinsky portrays it in his book.
Alinsky lacked the wit to see the difference, and so, too, does Clinton, as her career and now her campaign have shown an embrace of the Alinsky strategies she adored in college.

So here is a man whose rule book is the standard for l*****t community agitation, a man Clinton obviously held as a role model for herself, and his role model is Satan.

Draw your own conclusion.

http://constitution.com/carson-points-clinton-lucifer-connection/

I love Ben Carson. He may not be up on his Egyptol... (show quote)

CDM Loc: Florida

cold iron wrote:

I love Ben Carson. He may not be up on his Egyptology (which we all know now is a requirement for the presidency, thanks to the Left), but he calls things as he sees them.
This trait, plus the facts that he is a brilliant surgeon, a conservative and a black man are the reasons the Left h**es him so, and the reasons they try so desperately to make him appear wrong, uneducated or ignorant.
This morning, the Left and its media cohorts are working double time to slam Carson because he made a damaging and very correct observation about Democratic p**********l candidate Hillary Clinton during his appearance at the Republican National Convention.

That observation is that Clinton in her college years was heavily influenced by the works of Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, who offered her a job, which she declined after interviewing him for her senior thesis at Wellesley College.
Although her thesis suggests she didn’t embrace all of Alinsky’s strategies, it also makes clear that she held him up as a role model, and mainly just disagreed over his belief that it was not possible to change the system from within.
The reason any of this matters is not just because of Alinsky’s self-described radicalism that helped shape Clinton’s views of how to wage politics, but because of what Alinsky said in the acknowledgement section of Rules for Radicals.
Carson said at the RNC, Now, one of the things that I have learned about Hillary Clinton is that one of her heroes, her mentors, was Saul Alinsky. And her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky this was someone she greatly admired. And let me tell you something about Saul Alinsky. So he wrote a book called Rules for Radicals. It acknowledges Lucifer, the original radical who gained his own kingdom.
The various denials and excuses being spread by the liberal media today will tell you things like, oh, it wasn’t really an acknowledgement, it was just a funny thing to say, meant humorously; or, it’s just quote taken out of context; or, Alinsky didn’t really believe in Lucifer; etc. In short, don’t believe your own eyes.

Because this is what Alinsky actually wrote:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom Lucifer. SAUL ALINSKY
He quotes himself (using the word acknowledgement) speaking admiringly of how Lucifer (aka Satan) rebelled (against God) and won his own kingdom, which most people know as Hell.
One of the many, many, many failings in Alinsky’s thought processes is that he fails to see any distinction between being a radical as he calls himself, and being a rebel like Thomas Paine, to whom he compares himself. Paine, obviously, was rebelling against a corrupt dictatorship in order to restore the inalienable rights of mankind.
Lucifer’s r*******n, according to tradition, was based solely on his own uncontrollable p***e and selfishness (and it ended with the Fall, in which Satan was expelled from Heaven and d**gged all his friends and allies down with him). That more accurately describes the character of the radical as Alinsky portrays it in his book.
Alinsky lacked the wit to see the difference, and so, too, does Clinton, as her career and now her campaign have shown an embrace of the Alinsky strategies she adored in college.

So here is a man whose rule book is the standard for l*****t community agitation, a man Clinton obviously held as a role model for herself, and his role model is Satan.

Draw your own conclusion.

http://constitution.com/carson-points-clinton-lucifer-connection/

I love Ben Carson. He may not be up on his Egyptol... (show quote)

I like this sentence; "One of the many, many, many failings in Alinsky’s thought processes is that he fails to see any distinction between being a radical as he calls himself, and being a rebel like Thomas Paine, to whom he compares himself." It points to an important distinction ... Alinsky associates himself with Paine because Paine was a patriot, a concept of ideology that Alinsky was diametrically opposed to. All sociopaths rationalize their schisms through association with people who were seen for some greatness in the battle for right and justice or wh**ever the core of their particular imbalance. Like all people living or dead, Paine is a victim in this.

It's interesting to note the number of times Barack Obama has openly associated himself with Ronald Reagan over the past 8 years ... And of course, Reagan like Paine is not here to take exception.

Clinton is a walking, talking nightmare of 'sociopathic introversion'; she likens herself to no one. That is frightening beyond belief.

Glaucon

cold iron wrote:

I love Ben Carson. He may not be up on his Egyptology (which we all know now is a requirement for the presidency, thanks to the Left), but he calls things as he sees them.
This trait, plus the facts that he is a brilliant surgeon, a conservative and a black man are the reasons the Left h**es him so, and the reasons they try so desperately to make him appear wrong, uneducated or ignorant.
This morning, the Left and its media cohorts are working double time to slam Carson because he made a damaging and very correct observation about Democratic p**********l candidate Hillary Clinton during his appearance at the Republican National Convention.

That observation is that Clinton in her college years was heavily influenced by the works of Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, who offered her a job, which she declined after interviewing him for her senior thesis at Wellesley College.
Although her thesis suggests she didn’t embrace all of Alinsky’s strategies, it also makes clear that she held him up as a role model, and mainly just disagreed over his belief that it was not possible to change the system from within.
The reason any of this matters is not just because of Alinsky’s self-described radicalism that helped shape Clinton’s views of how to wage politics, but because of what Alinsky said in the acknowledgement section of Rules for Radicals.
Carson said at the RNC, Now, one of the things that I have learned about Hillary Clinton is that one of her heroes, her mentors, was Saul Alinsky. And her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky this was someone she greatly admired. And let me tell you something about Saul Alinsky. So he wrote a book called Rules for Radicals. It acknowledges Lucifer, the original radical who gained his own kingdom.
The various denials and excuses being spread by the liberal media today will tell you things like, oh, it wasn’t really an acknowledgement, it was just a funny thing to say, meant humorously; or, it’s just quote taken out of context; or, Alinsky didn’t really believe in Lucifer; etc. In short, don’t believe your own eyes.

Because this is what Alinsky actually wrote:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom Lucifer. SAUL ALINSKY
He quotes himself (using the word acknowledgement) speaking admiringly of how Lucifer (aka Satan) rebelled (against God) and won his own kingdom, which most people know as Hell.
One of the many, many, many failings in Alinsky’s thought processes is that he fails to see any distinction between being a radical as he calls himself, and being a rebel like Thomas Paine, to whom he compares himself. Paine, obviously, was rebelling against a corrupt dictatorship in order to restore the inalienable rights of mankind.
Lucifer’s r*******n, according to tradition, was based solely on his own uncontrollable p***e and selfishness (and it ended with the Fall, in which Satan was expelled from Heaven and d**gged all his friends and allies down with him). That more accurately describes the character of the radical as Alinsky portrays it in his book.
Alinsky lacked the wit to see the difference, and so, too, does Clinton, as her career and now her campaign have shown an embrace of the Alinsky strategies she adored in college.

So here is a man whose rule book is the standard for l*****t community agitation, a man Clinton obviously held as a role model for herself, and his role model is Satan.

Draw your own conclusion.

http://constitution.com/carson-points-clinton-lucifer-connection/

I love Ben Carson. He may not be up on his Egyptol... (show quote)

Alinsky was able to show us PEACEFUL ways to stop the terrible, futile war in Viet Nam I when the powerful wanted to continue it. Alinsky developed methods for we the powerless to deal peacefully, but forcefully with the oligarchy of politicians and munition manufacturers who supported it. His methods saved many American lives and much money.

I was active in protest against the war and I reread Alinsky's book about a year ago so I know what he taught as well as what was going on with America at the time, The problem with Alinsky's current critics and fear mongers is that they haven't read his book and are unfamiliar with what was going on in America at the time.

Our ruling oligarchy spreads the propaganda that Alinsky was a threat to us when he was one of the an influences we used that got us to FINALLY stop our war in Viet Nam.

Critics of Alinsky like Carson and commentators on OPP have TWO disadvantages: they haven't read Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals and they are not familiar with the great good his teachings were to override the propaganda our rulers spread and taught peaceful means to power for Americans.

I agree with one thing that iron wrote and that is, don't just believe the propaganda, READ THE BOOK and make up your own mind about Alinsky and his methods. don't rely, as iron has, completely on the propaganda we are fed.

ALINSKY TAUGHT HOW THE POWERLESS CAN COMPETE WITH OUR OLIGRACY FOR CONROL OF OUR COUNTRY. READ THE BOOK AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.

Glaucon

CDM wrote:

I like this sentence; "One of the many, many,... (show quote)

Read some of Paine and Alinsky's book and you will be able to sort out the propaganda we are fed. There are powerful forces that don't want us to use the powerful, PEACEFUL tactics Alinsky gave us that allow us to deal with the wealthy and politically powerful. READ THE BOOK.

Glaucon

CDM wrote:

I like this sentence; "One of the many, many,... (show quote)

READ THE BOOK. IT IS IN YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY. ALINSKY SHOWED US HOW TO HAVE POWER DEALING WITH THE OLIGARCY USING PEACEFUL, BUT POWERFUL MEANS.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Glaucon wrote:

Read some of Paine and Alinsky's book and you will be able to sort out the propaganda we are fed. There are powerful forces that don't want us to use the powerful, PEACEFUL tactics Alinsky gave us that allow us to deal with the wealthy and politically powerful. READ THE BOOK.

Haven't you claimed on this forum, to be wealthy? Are you scared?

Glaucon

archie bunker wrote:

Haven't you claimed on this forum, to be wealthy? Are you scared?

I am wealthy, but I haven't claimed to be wealthy. I am scared of ignorant people because they make decisions and form opinions based on their emotions rather than on information, reason and evidence and they are not conscious of or in control of that process. Their decisions are dangerous for all of us. Why do does it matter to you how much wealth I have and what would make you think I might be scared?

CDM Loc: Florida

Glaucon wrote:

READ THE BOOK. IT IS IN YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY. ALINSKY SHOWED US HOW TO HAVE POWER DEALING WITH THE OLIGARCY USING PEACEFUL, BUT POWERFUL MEANS.

Why do you find it necessary to yell? Did it ever occur to you that you may be suffering a psychosis? You sound like one of those characters from Law & Order locked up in the Bellevue psych ward shuffling around in a robe and slippers with a little drool at the corner of his mouth; read the book...read the book...read the book...read the book... read the book ... Classic symptoms. Tell me, do you ever see big rabbits?

Obviously the only way to get you to shut up about 'read the book' is to AGREE with you that Alinsky was a brilliant, peaceful man who loved America and was just looking out for the little guy. Any other interpretation, any disagreement, is intolerable and will only incite you to further chanting. Oh, speaking of chanting ...

"Pigs in a blanket - fry'em like bacon" no intended reference to IHOP pigs-in-a-blanket ... or how about "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? NOW." How many dead cops in the past 3 months? Or one of my personal favorites ... "hands up, don't shoot"... something Eric Holder said never happened by the way.

I guess these people don't understand Uncle Saul either. After all their professed guiding document is Rules for Radicals.

CDM Loc: Florida

Glaucon wrote:

I am wealthy, but I haven't claimed to be wealthy. I am scared of ignorant people because they make decisions and form opinions based on their emotions rather than on information, reason and evidence and they are not conscious of or in control of that process. Their decisions are dangerous for all of us. Why do does it matter to you how much wealth I have and what would make you think I might be scared?

If what you say accurately describes your concerns ... you must live in abject terror of the Democrat Party.

Glaucon

CDM wrote:

Why do you find it necessary to yell? Did it ever... (show quote)

READ THE BOOK - read the book - READ THE BOOK - read the book - READ THE BOOK You got side tracked and missed the point. You should have read a book before you offer an opinion on it. READ THE BOOK or STFU or read the book AND STFU.

Carol Kelly

Glaucon wrote:

Alinsky was able to show us PEACEFUL ways to stop ... (show quote)

As usual your head is shoulder deep in the sand.

Glaucon

Carol Kelly wrote:

As usual your head is shoulder deep in the sand.

That is as deep and thoughtful a response as you have? Since you only had a worn and overused insult rather than an adult response, I am guessing that your head is not in the sand, but in a warm, moist, dark, very smelly place. A nice bowl of prunes might raise you IQ. However you might be the world's first person to fail an IQ test. Hugs and keep in touch.

Glaucon

CDM wrote:

If what you say accurately describes your concerns ... you must live in abject terror of the Democrat Party.

I have some fear of both the Democratic and the Republican parties, but America is strong and we still have our marvelous Constitution. However, if you were a lot smarter, I might fear you. Don't play with sharp things.

Glaucon

CDM wrote:

Why do you find it necessary to yell? Did it ever... (show quote)

Sometimes I forget that it is useless to shout at deaf people and stupid people.