Muslim Brotherhood: ‘Prepare Egyptians for war with Israel'

By YAAKOV LAPPIN 
02/01/2011 02:00

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”

Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they “would not kill their brothers.” He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after “seeing millions head for the streets.”

Source: The Jerusalem Post  

RELATED POSTS:
Cairo: Anger starting to focus on US and Israel 
Thousands Protest In Jordan, Demand PM To Step Down
 

EDITORIAL: Obama channeling Reagan? Hardly

Frances Fox Piven vs. Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell

For more great videos of Milton Friedman, check out his website: Free To Choose










In these clips from the 1980 Free To Choose, socialist Frances Fox Piven tangles with Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. Sowell, in particular, is incisive with his discussion of "process" versus aspiration -- concluding that whatever the purported social goals, liberty suffers.

POWERFUL~PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN ENDORSES PERSONHOOD FROM THE GRAVE

POWERFUL~"President Ronald Reagan gives a short speech on the sanctity of human life from conception. Many people have forgotten that Ronald Reagan wrote Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation (1984). As far as I know, no other president has published a book on the abortion issue, either pro or con."

H/T Janette Scarborough

Emancipation Proclamation of Preborn Children

NOW THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare that I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America's unborn children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. I also proclaim Sunday, January 17, 1988, as a national Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon the citizens of this blessed land to gather on that day in their homes and places of worship to give thanks for the gift of life they enjoy and to reaffirm their commitment to the dignity of every human being and sanctity of every human life.

Ronald Reagan
Presidential Proclamation
January 14, 1988

For information on this go to the Personhood USA website to learn more and sign the petition.

OBAMA THE CENTRIST? BY Mark Levin

The following is the audio from Mark Levin's radio show from 1/24/11. This is in response to the dishonest reporting that Obama's State of the Union Address will show that he's suddenly become a centrist.

Mark breaks down the destructive radical left positions of this president and reminds America of the "real Obama agenda."

The MSM thinks we are all stupid. Obama and the MSM are liars that will do or say ANYTHING TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY and try to get Obama re-elected.

Here's Mark~Check out the first 15 minutes of this audio~

http://rope.zmle.fimc.net/player/player.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpodloc.andomedia.com%2FdloadTrack.mp3%3Fprm%3D2069xhttp%3A%2F%2Fpodfuse-dl.andomedia.com%2F800185%2Fpodfuse-origin.andomedia.com%2Fcitadel_origin%2Fpods%2Fmarklevin%2FLevin01242011.mp3

Shelia Jackson Lee Squares Off With Cavuto

 Before the House of Representatives voted to repeal the year-old health care law, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, — who yesterday claimed repealing the measure was “unconstitutional” — appeared on Fox News’s Your World with host Neil Cavuto. In a very heated exchange, Jackson Lee argued that a repeal of President Obama’s signature health care law meant more Americans without insurance would die.

But when Cavuto challenged her narrative — the story of an elderly woman who already receives Medicare — the Texas Democrat fired back, accusing Cavuto of being blinded by his opinion and ignorant of logic:

Shelia Jackson Lee Squares Off With Cavuto

Jan 19, 2011

- 5:36 - 

Part 1: Democratic lawmaker on impact of Obamacare repeal

 

Shelia Jackson Lee Squares Off With Cavuto, Part 2

Jan 19, 2011

- 3:43 - 

Democratic lawmaker on impact of Obamacare repeal

H/T The Blaze

Paradigm Shift

I saw this posted on the ReFounders page of Facebook and thought it was well worth sharing.....The original post on FB looks like it may belong to David McLain  Very powerful. When I went to You Tube to see it, it had 43,330 hits.

.

Are You Feeling A "Nudge" From This Administration?

Glenn Beck has been saying for quite some time that Cass Sunstein is one of the most dangerous associates of President Obama. The following are some articles and videos of Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler that explain their "nudge" theory and how it can be applied to force people to make decisions THEY think YOU should make.

Meet Richard Thaler~the coauthor of "Nudge"~

RICHARD THALER BIO:
Richard Thaler bio:

Books

Thaler has written a number of books intended for a lay reader on the subject of behavioral finance, including Quasi-rational Economics and The Winner's Curse, the latter of which contains many of his Anomalies columns revised and adapted for a popular audience.

Most recently Thaler is coauthor, with Cass R. Sunstein, of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale University Press, 2008). Nudge discusses how public and private organizations can help people make better choices in their daily lives. "People often make poor choices - and look back at them with bafflement!" Thaler and Sunstein write. "We do this because as human beings, we all are susceptible to a wide array of routine biases that can lead to an equally wide array of embarrassing blunders in education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, happiness, and even the planet itself." Thaler and his co-author coined the term choice architect.

Other writings:

Thaler gained some attention in the field of economics for publishing a regular column in the Journal of Economic Perspectives from 1987 to 1990 titled Anomalies, in which he documented individual instances of economic behavior that seemed to violate traditional microeconomic theory.

In one of his most recent papers, Thaler and colleagues analyzed the choices of contestants appearing in the popular TV game show Deal or No Deal and found support for behavioralists' claims of path-dependent risk attitudes.

As a columnist for the New York Times News Service, Thaler has begun a series of economic solutions for some of America's financial woes, beginning with "Selling parts of the radio spectrum could help pare US deficit," with references to Thomas Hazlett's ideas for reform of the FCC and making television broadcast frequency available for improving wireless technology, reducing costs, and generating revenue for the US government. 

This video is from the Scientific Council for Government Policy Conference held September 11, 2010. The Government as Choice Architect?  

Public Policy Nudges: the Government as Choice Architect by Richard Thaler 






The following are some interesting excerpts from the video: 

"The approach Cass & I take are what we call "Libertarian Paternalism" or "Liberal Paternalism."  "At least in the US, both halves of this are unpopular."  "Why do we combine 2 unpopular contradictory terms and write a book about that?"

"We think when combined, the terms are both compatible and maybe even lovable"

9:20 of the video~"So by Libertarian or liberal all we mean is we try to devise policies that maintain freedom of choice.  "So we don't tell people you must do this or you must not do that." "We try to give them a choice."

9:50 of the video~"By Paternalism, we simply mean devising policies that are aimed at making people better off as judged by themselves so it's not that Cass and I think we know best for other people or that we think Barack Obama or David Cameron know what's best for other people.  We think we can help people make the choices that they would make if they had all the information and time necessary to make a good choice."

10:30 of the video~"How do we do it? We do it using "CHOICE ARCHITECTURE" which is a phrase we coined while writing this book."

10:45 of the video~"So what is CHOICE ARCHITECTURE?" A choice architect is anyone who designs an environment in which choices are made."

16:38~What is a 'NUDGE'?" "Some small feature of the environment that attracts our attention and influences our behavior.  Now it's important to stress that nudges work on humans but not on econs.  Econs choose optimally without nudges but humans sometimes need a nudge."

 *****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

The following is an article that was written in 2008: 

Nudge, nudge: meet the Cameroons’ new guru

The economist Richard Thaler — a favourite of the Cameron and Obama camps — talks to James Forsyth about the power of ‘nudging’: small transformative acts of persuasion

James Forsyth

16 July 2008

No one likes to be pushed, prodded or shoved. But no one objects to a nudge in the right direction. The idea that people can be nudged into making better choices is the brainchild of Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, two whip-smart University of Chicago academics. The two professors see nudging as the ‘real third way’, an alternative to both government regulation and laissez-faire liberalism. The idea is the new big thing; the two politicians of the moment — Barack Obama and David Cameron — are both keen on it.  

Thaler and Sunstein, though, have no more discovered nudging than Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity. Thaler, who is currently in London teaching a summer school and having his brain picked by Conservative high command, gladly admitted to me that nudging was as old as time, quipping that ‘religion at its best is all about nudging’. But what Thaler and Sunstein have drafted is a guide to how the power of nudging can best be harnessed. In this ‘post-ideological’ age, this is something that politicians are eager to understand. Indeed, the Tories are so keen on Thaler’s ideas that George Osborne wrote an op-ed for the Guardian this week praising him and saying that Brown’s failure to appreciate his insights will lead to the PM losing power. There is also an away-day planned, where the shadow Cabinet will work with Thaler and other behavioural economists to develop policies.

A nudge can come in many forms. Sometimes it is about providing the consumer with more information. For instance, what Thaler — with a grin playing across his affable, intellectual features — calls ‘the new nudge Cameron’ might require shops that sell Chocolate Oranges at the counter to label them prominently with their calorific content, which should help more of us to make the right decision. Then there is the power of social norms; letting people know what other people do. Informing them that most of their peers are organ donors leads to more registered donors. Another kind of nudge is making the default option the more socially desirable option. One example of this advocated by Thaler and Sunstein in their book Nudge — and adopted by the Obama campaign, to which Thaler and Sunstein are informal advisers — is automatically enrolling people in a pension plan. Those who want to can still opt out, but the default position is that you contribute. Such schemes have been proven to raise the savings rate.

These nudges work as they chime with human nature; a gentle reminder can dissuade us from doing something we know we shouldn’t; we want to fit in and inertia is a powerful force. We understand these forces all too well. I complain to Thaler about how I still have the same mobile phone price plan as when I was at university and so now get stung with horrendous bills for making international and peak-time calls, yet the fact that I pay by direct debit means that I never get round to actually changing it. Thaler advises that direct debit is ‘the right way to save and the wrong way to pay’. He makes me feel a lot better about my own failure to update my phone plan by telling me that he and his wife had not cancelled their monthly NetFlix subscription despite being away for the summer. (The power of social norms, though, means that I now feel too relaxed for my financial good about my failure to move to a more efficient phone plan. I had been nudged back to where I started.)

Understanding why nudges work requires doing something quite difficult for an economist: jettisoning the idea of homo economicus. Thaler thinks that man never was a purely rational economic actor, that the idea was a ‘useful figment’. He explains the economist’s traditional belief in him as a way to make the discipline work: ‘Economics started to get mathematical in the 1940s and especially in the 1950s and when it got mathematical, the math got hard very quickly. The only way to make the math easy is to make the people very smart.’ Thaler thinks that economists under 40 accept that homo economicus is a flawed concept while those older than that cling to the old certainties. But this problem is self-correcting. With a hearty laugh, Thaler recalls Max Planck’s adage: ‘science marches on, funeral by funeral’.

This, perhaps, explains Brown’s lack of interest in Thaler’s thinking and behavioural economics more generally. He is both of the wrong generation and quite close to actually being homo economicus. Somehow one suspects that Brown does not have direct debits for a gym membership that he never uses or anything like that.

Thaler thinks the most potent of his ideas is complete electronic disclosure which he claims would ‘completely change the way we think about regulation’. Thaler gives the example of credit cards. Your card issuer would be obliged to send you two files each year, one explaining every charge they make — e.g. interest charged, late fees, currency conversion — while the other file would list every time you incurred a charge. This would lead, Thaler argues, to websites springing up telling us what credit card was actually best for us. The knowledge of how and when we had been charged would leave us forewarned and fore-armed. Thaler believes this would ‘eliminate the need for credit card regulation’. Politically, this allows you to square the circle: consumers would welcome the increased transparency while it would allow for the bonfire of regulation that business is always demanding and that politicians are always promising but never delivering.

The speed with which the nudge agenda has been adopted by both Cameron and Obama tells us that they are both pragmatists, not ideologues. For nudge is all about what works. Indeed, Thaler sees similarities between the Obama and Cameron campaigns, remarking that the Cameroons he has met remind him of Obama’s people in that they are ‘smart, curious and pragmatic’. Nudge also requires an appreciation of the limits of government. Thaler, who has known Obama since his Senate primary campaign, disputes the characterisation of Obama as a big-government-style liberal, saying that ‘deep down he is a pragmatist’, and arguing that ‘you can’t spend 10 years at the University of Chicago Law School, even part time, and not get an appreciation for markets. It is just not possible.’

Perhaps the reason Thaler’s work resonates so much with the Tories is that both are trying to achieve the same thing. Thaler says that he wants to ‘see how far we can go using classical liberalism in directions favoured by the Left’, which sounds awfully close to Oliver Letwin’s definition of Cameronism as taking ‘Conservative approaches to achieving progressive goals’. Maybe it is this that is the real third way.

Source: Spectator.co.uk

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

Fast forward to 2010...............

Nudge guru touts 'fast and fun' green revolution

Head of behavioural insight team advises green businesses to promote instant benefits of products over long-term gains.

By Jessica Shankleman 

26 Nov 2010

The head of the government's so-called "nudge unit" has urged green businesses to publicise the immediate and fun benefits of their products instead of longer-term environmental gains if they want to drive environmentally friendly behaviour change among customers.

David Halpern, head of the Cabinet Office's Behavioural Insights Team, told delegates at Fiat's eco-driving event in London this week that people were more likely to adopt green practices such as more fuel-efficient driving if they could see the short-term benefits.

 Speaking about both Fiat's eco-drive technology and behaviour change more generally, Halpern said humans naturally want instant gratification and as such  are less attracted by long-term environmental or even financial gains.

"One of the dilemmas we have is that in our behaviour, we heavily discount all these future gains, particularly gains for others," he said. "A challenge facing designers [of eco-drive technology] is that saving the environment or saving a bit of money is not very salient. That it could be fun and people will get there faster is actually far more important, and that's a recurrent theme in many areas."

According to research from Fiat, fuel-efficient driving habits such as accelerating and braking more smoothly help reduce journey times.

Halpern also argued that focusing on how people's actions affect others could help drive positive behaviour change. For example, people would brake more smoothly if they thought about the fact that braking sharply could jolt other people in the car, or force the car behind to brake sharply.

"Often behavioural change doesn't only affect us, it has these externalities, these knock-on effects," he said.

Defending the wider behavioural economics or "nudge" theory from critics who warn it could lead to "nanny-state" policies, Halpern said it was crucial to ensure people feel in control of their actions.

The theory, which has helped shape David Cameron's "big society" agenda, is likely to become increasingly prevalent as the environmental demands on people to change their behaviour intensify.

"We're very aware, as we wrestle with these issues across a number of areas, that you also have to maintain legitimacy," he said. "And going forward, as we get on to more difficult issues it's absolutely essential that we maintain that by involving the public quite heavily."

For example, while Halpern agreed Fiat's existing eco-drive technology was not inherently unacceptable, he wondered if people might object if they were asked to compare their driving skills with other drivers.

"We need to keep the public with us, and they need to give us permission to do these kind of approaches," he said.

BusinessGreen has also learned that the Department for Transport (DfT) is in talks with Halpern's team to come up with ways of promoting eco-driving practices.

Speaking at the Fiat event, Rupert Furness, head of environment policy and delivery at DfT, said his department was trying to raise public awareness about eco driving and urged businesses to enroll their employees in subsidised "smarter driving" courses.

Consumer behaviour is an increasing concern for a wide range of businesses trying to cut their carbon footprints. Research has shown that it is not enough for some firms to solely change their products without asking their customers to also adapt.

It has led to campaigns such as Procter & Gamble's "turn to 30" advertisements, urging customers to wash their clothes at lower temperatures.

Source: Business Green

 *****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

In What Way Has This Administration "Nudged" You?

Rush: AZ Memorial T-Shirt Slogan Came From DNC’s Organizing for America

The presence of tee-shirts branded with the tragedy of last weekend’s Arizona shootings raised the eyebrows of many onlookers who worried the shooting was being subjected to politicization.  A group of Arizona students has taken credit for the tee-shirt design and motto, but many are suggesting the “Together We Thrive” motto actually came from Organizing for America, the campaign arm of the Democratic National Committee.

During his Friday radio program, conservative host Rush Limbaugh noted the coincidence (h/t DailyRushbo):

Indeed, on the Obama for America 2008 campaign site, the slogan was used by one Obama supporter to

rail against American capitalism:

For too long Americans have been set one against the other, it is a side affect of a free market society. How can profits be maximized, how can I get the work done for the lowest possible costs. This continually sets one group against the other, especially in the blue collar sectors of America. It has become a part of the American Business model, whether it was indentured servants, slaves picking cotton, sharecroppers, the industrious people that built the railroads or todays migrant workers. As long as we remain divided, fighting for the scraps that America has to offer it will be one group against the other.

What I see in Obama is a chance for a revolution. A chance for every group to participate and be heard; A chance to live the American dream that has been denied to so many. Together we can and will change the world and return America to the shining beacon of Hope and Prosperity that we were and that we can be again. Only when we work together do we accomplish feats that rival any ever accomplished in the history of mankind. Diversity is our strength, that is what this campaign brings us a promise of. For many this is a scary prospect and thought, getting to know someone different from myself. We all want the same basic things for example a safe place to live, health and a quality education for our kids.

In a previous career, I was the global leader of Diversity for a global fortune 500 corporation, I have studied the affects of diverse groups working together and the results can not be denied. Together we Thrive!!!!!!!!!!!

The My.BarackObama blog site does include this note:

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.

So, is a blog post from an individual blogger/Obama supporter enough to link the Tucson shooting tragedy to liberal politics?

Source: The Blaze

To Beat the Enemy, You Must Understand Him

To Beat the Enemy, You Must Understand Him

 Beat Your Enemy by Knowing Him

Military genius Sun Tzu (The Art Of War) said:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

That is why it is important to know and understand exactly what we are up against.  We can't defeat what we don't know and understand.

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

In light of the recent massacre that took place in Tuscon, Az this past Saturday, it is important to remind those that still believe the MSM, Left Wing websites, blogs and tweeters that they must wake up to the lies the MSM is feeding them. Within 2 hours of the shooting the Left seized on this crisis to manufacture a story line that would fit their agenda.

Before they had ANY credible evidence about the shooter, the Left Wing Radicals were blogging, writing in major newspapers and hitting the MSM airwaves with "news" that this was the fault of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Glenn Beck, talk radio, The Tea Party and Conservatives.

The most astounding example of jumping to conclusions came from none other than the Sheriff of Pima County, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who is in charge of the case! Of course when the Sheriff was interviewed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News, the truth came out.  He had NO evidence that the shooter even listened to Rush Limbaugh or watched Fox News Channel!!  This was all his OPINION!

HOW IRRESPONSIBLE IS THAT? What they all did is indefensible! Their outright lies and fabrications are outrageous! This is further proof that they have no interest in "reporting" but are more interested in "contorting" the news. They will do and say ANYTHING with the ultimate motive of pushing their lies and their agenda.

After analyzing this, what came to mind is the Saul Alinsky "Rules For Radicals."  I decided to refresh my memory on the tenets of this Marxist's writing that is a favorite of all of the radical Left. What it confirmed is that the Left is well versed in these tactics and are continuing to use them to try to push their agenda.  As far as they are concerned, the end justifies the means at whatever or whoever's expense.

The tactics they used for political gain in this tragedy are appalling. The personal attacks on individuals that had NOTHING to do with this massacre are completely out of bounds. The MSM, bloggers, politicians, etc that used these lies should all issue public apologies to those they have besmirched.

Sadly, the victims of the shooting took a back seat in the reporting from the Left.  They were more consumed with smearing innocent people and trying to divide this country further and are obviously desperate for ratings.

Because of the personal attacks on Sarah Palin, an aide has said the number of death threats against her have skyrocketed. I hope the left is concerned about this. It is incumbent upon all of them to issue a public apology for inferring that she or any other Conservatives they "targeted"  in their "reporting", blogging or tweeting had anything to do with the shooting. The gunman appears to be a psychotic mentally ill individual with a history of bizarre behavior.  They should admit to their viewers and listeners that they were out of line and are sorry for slandering them.  They are a disgrace to their professions.

I won't hold my breath.

I believe you will find the tactics used by the Liberal MSM and  "The Usual Suspect" bloggers, politicians, etc follow this playbook to a "T". (Chris Matthews of MSNBC admits that Saul Alinsky is his hero.) It is truly uncanny~

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

In 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote a classic playbook on grassroots organizing titled Rules for Radicals. Those who prefer cooperative tactics describe the book as out-of-date. Nevertheless, it provides some of the best advice on confrontational tactics. Alinsky begins this way:

What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

His “rules” derive from many successful campaigns where he helped poor people fighting power and privilege.

For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting what is wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. If people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, they stop thinking about it.

According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility.

Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a bad situation.

Alinsky would say, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.”

Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation. 

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn't ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.

2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

3. In war the end justifies almost any means.

4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.

5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.

6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.

7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.

9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.

10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments. (A left tactic)

11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."    (something the Left does All the time)

Source:   The Union News

Related Links:

Saul Alinsky's Rules Guide Obama

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

Are You Committed To A Peaceful Revolution To Restore This Country?

The Passing of the Gavel 2011

Oh...I wish!

Steve Malzberg Interviews Jeff Kuhner - If The Truth Got Out About Obama There Would Be A Civil War 

Check out  what The Washington Time’s Jeffrey Kuhner had to say on the Steve Malzberg Show re Obama’s fake Christianity, and the birth certificate controversy…

This interview is from Dec. 30:

 

Malzberg articulated my thoughts on the BC issue. Frankly I’m smelling a rat – some collusion between Obama and fellow Marxist, Abercrombie. My own feeling is that there’s something definitely embarrassing on the birth certificate, like his given name is Barry – not Barack – as he has said on so many many occasions. But we will probably never know.

As for the Muslim attacks on Christians over Christmas, Gabe notes over at Ace O Spades HQ, that the President has broken his silence: Obama Now Lying About Fictitious Muslim Victims of the New Years Attack on Christian Church

What is wrong with this man? Is his worldview so dependent on believing that Muslims are a victim class that he simply cannot help but create Muslim victims in an attack on Christians?

Gee, why do people continue to doubt this man’s Christianity?

UPDATE:
See also: Jack Cashill at The American Thinker: Will Obama Silence Blundering Abercrombie?

Cashill thinks Abercrombie is off the reservation – opening his big piehole on the BC issue – clearly not appreciated by the powers that be:

Obama and his operatives would invest enormous political capital in what sympathetic biographer David Remnick calls his “signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal.”  From the beginning, they worked hard to protect the investment and did what they had to do to keep the storytellers in line.

Abercrombie may not have gotten the memo.  Although the president was likely born in the United States, he may not have been born in Hawaii, he may not have been born in August 1961, he may not have been the son of Barack Sr., or he may have simply been listed as “white” on his birth certificate.

The truth is that the storied little family never lived together.  Any fact that blew the storyline could have derailed Obama’s candidacy before it got going.  Expect the Abercrombie fuss to just sort of fade away.

Linked by Michelle Malkin, and DougRoss , Theo Spark, and GOP USA, thanks!

SOURCE: Nice Deb

 

MEXICO'S CONSTITUTION DECLARES ANCHOR BABIES BORN IN USA ARE CITIZENS OF MEXICO!

MOTHERS AGAINST ILLEGAL AMNESTY and Founder of Mothers Against Illegal Aliens; USAF Veteran The Rule of Law is the Law that Rules!

By Last month, U.S. Senator Harry Reid’s anchor baby Dream Act amnesty burned down in flames.  But Washington DC insiders predict the bill will surface again in the future.

What does the bill advocate?  It allows an estimated 2.1 million Mexican anchor babies born to illegal alien parents within U.S. borders to enjoy instant citizenship.  That in turn would allow those ‘citizens’ to sponsor countless millions of their family into the U.S. via ‘chain migration’ or ‘family reunification’.

Long time activist, Michelle Dallacroce, director at http://www.mothersagainstillegalamnesty.com/ researched a little known fact about the Mexican Constitution.

What did you discover about Mexican children born in foreign lands and how does it affect the Dream Act amnesty for anchor babies?

“Liberation!” said Dallacroce. “Anchor babies and US Citizenship are not and never have been the direction we as a country should choose. But we have for the last five years because as usual the Americans are always reacting to the actions of the open border clan.

“It was staring us right in the face!  But we just didn’t look!  Instead of trying to defend and protect the 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution against children born to their illegal alien females while crossing our borders, we never looked at the Constitution of the country of these women who were birthing these children.

“That is where this story should begin and that is where it should end! The Mexican Constitution, Chapter II, Article 30, paragraph II, states that you are a Mexican by birth if born on foreign territory, sons or daughters of Mexican parents born in national territory. There you have it! Anchor Babies are not U.S. citizens! They are citizens of Mexico according to the Mexican Constitution.

“April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that “We will not tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US territory. Further, he states that “he was going to use all diplomatic and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the United States.”

“A birth certificate is not in itself anything but a piece of paper. Just like a marriage license! Until you go to the church and get the blessing from your church then and only then is that “Marriage License” a valid marriage. The birth certificates that these illegal alien mothers have acquired are nothing more than a piece of paper without the full authority of allegiance to the United States of America. These illegal alien infants born in the USA are unable to swear allegiance to the USA and are unable to be automatically bestowed and granted something that they have never sworn allegiance too!

“The real dangers here are two fold. One is that these children are nationals and citizens of another country and they are voting in our elections. If we thought voter’s fraud with the Black Panthers was a problem, get ready for the wave of voters from a country called Mexico that already believes the southwest was stolen from them and they are determined to reclaim it!

“Second and more threatening to the United States of America is this. One day, you may have an “anchor baby” elected as President of the United States.

“A President, who has NEVER taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, because as I’ve already pointed out, the infant child was not able to take that Nationality Oath of Citizenship because the mother  acquired a birth certificate. A mother that was illegally in the USA and who was a National Citizen of Mexico.

“And lastly, we have recently seen the President of Mexico get a standing ovation in our Congress and the day an “Illegal Alien Anchor Baby” sits in the seat as President of USA you will have the President of Mexico standing beside him as he takes his oath, AND ONLY OATH THAT KID WOULD EVER HAVE TAKEN to be the President of the United States of America.

“When and if that day comes, the USA will be no more. Mexico will have conquered the north and our borders will never be secure and every amnesty that will be granted will be granted to eternity!

“The 14^th Amendment is not on trial! The 14^th Amendment is clear! You have to be under the jurisdiction of the USA and under the Mexican Constitution, it’s clear, these kids and all those that came before since 1986 are citizens of Mexico!

“As John Lennon sang…..”Imagine”……looks like that is the direction they want to take us!

“The United States does not negotiate in hostage situations. Illegal Aliens and their children will no longer hold us hostage! Liberation is what Mothers Against Illegal Amnesty has found today.”

Contact Michelle Dallacroce at www.MotherAgainstIllegalAmnesty.com

Source: RIGHT SIDE NEWS

Here is a copy of the Constitution of Mexico for your review: 

MEXICO'S CONSTITUTION DECLARES ANCHOR BABIES BORN IN THE USA ARE CITIZENS OF MEXICO!

NETROOTS NATION'S PROGRESSIVE AGENDA TO TRANSFORM OUR COURTS AND ELECTION PROCESS

Another well funded organization with connections to George Soros is the  Communist aka Progressive group, NETROOTS NATION. They are at the forefront of the movement to get the Constitution amended in order to silence us.
 

The following videos are from the Netroot Nation's convention in July 2010.  You can go to their website for a list of the videos available on a number of Progressive causes.  For the purpose of staying focused on our judicial system, I am only going to post videos that apply to that subject.

Check this video out.  The first 6 minutes is what you need to pay attention to as it sets the mood for what the purpose of this session is all about.  The video is worth watching in order to understand the mindset of this organization. By understanding what we are up against, we can be educated and armed with knowledge. Their mindset is about silencing those that are not on the Progressive bandwagon.

Don't be fooled by the warm and fuzzy language they use to lure you into thinking that this is to protect you from judges that may be motivated politically or by someone's contribution.  That's what they want you to believe.  They don't want corporations to be able to contribute to elections but they are ok with unions contributing to elections.

This is a VERY DANGEROUS GAME THESE PEOPLE ARE PLAYING WITH OUR COUNTRY! It is critical that you understand the TRUTH behind these agendas so you can act accordingly.  You must also make sure you are making everyone you know  aware of the deceit behind this agenda.

You must make your voice heard and demand that the Constitution is not amended! 

Undoing Citizens United: A Comprehensive Plan to Prevent Corporations from Buying Elections

Saturday, July 24th 9:15 AM - 10:30 AM

Panel, Brasilia 6

Time: Saturday, July 24th, 9:15am - 10:30am

Room: Brasilia 6

If you think corporations have too much influence in politics, just wait. In January, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that giant corporations can pour money directly into elections. They can spend billions on attack ads and robocalls to support or oppose candidates, all the while avoiding disclosure. Progressives cannot let this stand. The panel will present the full spectrum of remedies to Citizens United—including federal, state and local legislation to restrict corporate spending in elections, public financing of campaigns and a constitutional amendment—and a plan for implementing them.

The following is from Free Speech For People.org. On the panel from the session above is Rep. Donna Edwards. Ms. Edwards touted her introduction of an amendment to the Constitution that would violate the rights of corporations to contribute to elections. 

It is amazing that they are so brazen to focus on corporations as the evil greedy bastards contributing to campaigns, yet they are completely SILENT when it comes to unions excessive contributions. If corporations don't deserve to contribute, neither should the unions!  

Amendment language:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech. (Introduced in House)
HJ 74 IH



111th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES 74Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 2, 2010

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland (for herself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.

`Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.'. Progressive Rep Donna Edwards Files Constitutional Amendment to Push Socialist/Communist/Progressive Agenda

                                                  

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

Liberal Perspectives on the Kagan Supreme Court Nomination

Friday, July 23rd 9:30 AM - 10:45 AM

Panel, Brasilia 4

Time: Friday, July 23rd, 9:30am - 10:45am

Room: Brasilia 4

On May 10th, President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, his second opportunity to name a Justice to the High Court. This panel will examine a range of questions about her nomination, such as: What qualifications and experience will General Kagan bring to the Court? What impact will General Kagan have on the balance of the Court and future rulings? Panelists will also discuss how activists can help shed a spotlight on the Court’s repeated rulings in favor of big business at the expense of everyday.

Learn more at:
JUSTICE HIJACKED~YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE IS AT STAKE

JUSTICE HIJACKED~YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE IS AT STAKE

JUSTICE HIJACKED~Your Right To Vote Is At Stake

You can find out more at:
The American Justice Partnership
The American Courthouse 

Netroots Nation's Progressive Agenda To Transform Our Courts And Election Process

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

LINKS TO SITES FUNDED BY GEORGE SOROS THAT ARE TRYING TO TAKE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE AWAY:

THE JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE PROJECT 
JUSTICE AT STAKE 

*****~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*****

In the first report, the author made reference to Federalist #51.  

Here is a copy for your viewing:

The Federalist No. 51

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments

Independent Journal
Wednesday, February 6, 1788
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York: 

TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention. 

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. 

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department? 

If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test. 

There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. 

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. 

Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE. 

PUBLIUS. 

 

~KNOWLEDGE IS POWER~
~SPREAD THE WORD~