Rules for Rightwing Radicals


The dragging manacles scrapping along the halls of power belong to the ghost of Saul Alinsky. He is the phantom influencing the tenor of the politics insuring that left-wing policies are implemented, unobstructed by dissension. Alinsky taught his mentee well and now Barry is able to apply the principles of Rules for Radicals to every person or group who disagrees with him in any venue of governance.

The President is a textbook narcissist. He presents himself as being secure and having high self-esteem but instead has crossed the “border of healthy confidence into thinking so highly of himself that he has put himself on a pedestal.” Obama’s deluded impression of himself causes an inability to handle criticism or disagreement. Narcissists demand constant praise and admiration, expect others to concur with their ideas and plans and are easily hurt and rejected.

Alinsky’s tactics work to Obama’s advantage. He repeatedly utilizes the tenets of Rules for Radicals attacking and targeting those, be they individuals or groups, who do not agree with or approve of his political policy initiatives. Obama appears most content orating between two Greek columns, at an elevated podium, in a stadium full of weeping, cheering devotees, smoke machines puffing away while soaring violins play Handel’s Messiah at his entrance.

Since Election Day, Obama has been acting the part of a narcissistic, alpha-male, marking territory like a dog racing around a hydrant claiming it as his own. If anyone tries to impede him, he shifts into bullying, aptly applying Alinsky Ghost of Radicals Past methods, insuring those perceived as a threat are aware he alone is the leader of the pack.

Alinsky scholar, Barack H. Obama, doesn’t take well to other dogs coming around his telephone pole barking and baring their drooling fangs demanding he back off.  It appears Obama has decided, in true Alinsky style to… target, freeze, personalize and polarize” his political opposition.

One shocking example of this is the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS), presently identified as The Department of Haughty Socialists, “Intelligence” Analysis Report. Unclassified and widely distributed entitled, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. This 10-page atrocity is devoid of facts and based solely on discriminatory, political profiling-type supposition whose presentation illustrates typical Saul Alinsky technique.

The anti-capitalist spirit of Alinsky is goading Obama to take a sword to the reputation of rightwing conservatives, instructing him to target them, freeze negative public perception, personalize the attack and polarize all people on the right without distinction. “The Radical may resort to the sword … He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people. In this case, this method is being used as patent intimidation and chastisement, resulting from the Rights lack of support for Obama’s narcissistic plans to radicalize and socialize our entire nation.

The Intelligence and Analysis Assessment warned law enforcement officials of the threat of rightwing extremists. After its worldwide release, the information specified that the supposed impending terrorization is “largely rhetorical”and there are no “…indicated plans to carry out violent acts.” Translation: the report is based on pure speculation and has no specific information to back up accusations. Nonetheless, symbolism, although errantly applied, does give substance to the impressions and thoughts of the uninformed masses, which is precisely its purpose.

The groups, under attack, include anyone who disagrees with big government, those who favor federalism, anyone who opposes illegal immigration, second-amendment rights advocates, pro-lifers, service men and women returning from war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether they are individuals or groups like the military, NRA or Birthright, all are now considered a potential terrorism concern to the Obamalinsky administration. It seems as if the specter of Saul Alinsky is whispering to his apprentice reminding him that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

This administration wants to steer the public away from what they call the “politics of fear” by rejecting the terrorism moniker as fear based, renaming terrorists, man-caused disaster-ists. They then assign the name “terrorist” to Americans in hopes of cultivating an environment of trepidation among the citizens of this nation one-toward-another. Alinsky has taught Obama well that the “…morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.” Through the misrepresentation of many upstanding Americans this administration has targeted as a threat to the nation innocent private citizens.  Even referring to conservative political banter, on the Internet, as “chatter,” which is the language used to describe intercepted terrorist communication.

Shamelessly, the Intelligence Based on Ignorance Report amassed returning veterans together with, ex-military man turned, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and a pro-gun, Philadelphia shooter who killed three police officers. What better way to cultivate the soil for a paramilitary group than to wear away the nation’s trust and foundational confidence in the United States military? An Obama paramilitary organization can be counted on to abide by any command from their leader, made-up of illegal immigrants and scores of people made dependent for survival upon his policies. A band of yahoos who are willing to apply the Alinsky principal that, “In war, the end justifies almost any means.

The extremist report repeatedly mentions this, “historical election” as recruitment tool for the Right. It clarifies that “most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.” One problem is that the assessment fails to give examples. It is replete with conspiracy theory, accusations and long-shot associations but extremely deficient in facts, examples or references. Even going so far as to say that “…in the run up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the democratic nominee,” once again no citation or proof, failing to identify the extremists.

Obama, under Alinsky’s tutelage, managed to stir up a good dose of racial suspicion and division, accomplished through personal pit-bull, Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano. Napolitano implicated individuals with policy beliefs adhering to less government, faithfulness to the Constitution, right-to-life, respect for law and opposition to illegal immigration. She did this through nuances implying these values are somehow connected to racial bigotry.

This suspect examination of rightwing extremists naturally brought up the illegal immigration issue, highlighting “prominent,” unnamed civil rights organizations having “observed” an increase in anti-Hispanic crime. Unfortunately, neither was the Hispanic civil rights groups identified, nor was there any statistical data offered to back up the statement. The opportunity to bring balance was curiously overlooked by failing to mention that Hispanic crime is on the rise in our country, or the obvious terrorist aspect of marauding Latino street gangs.

The assessment analysis doesn’t waste an opportunity to intimate that Christianity may play a role in extremism by mentioning “end times” prophecy in the same breath as racist, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial, violent Christian Identity groups. The goal here has an obvious justifiable agenda.  Liberal author Mary Beth Rogers said there are, “Only two kinds of people who can afford the luxury of acting on principle, those with absolute power and those with none and no desire to get any…everyone else who wants to be effective in politics has to learn to be ‘unprincipled’ enough to compromise in order to see their principles succeed.”

This report is an effort to convince the public that DHS is concerned with protecting the general public from the danger of potential home-grown terrorist organizations and then morphs into a terrorist extremist itself. The definition of terrorism is the threatened use of force by a person or organized group against people with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments often for ideological or political reasons. The rightwing of this nation is the group being terrorized by the President’s administration. Conservatives are being threatened by the force of words with the intention of menacing and coercing us into surrendering to a left-wing, liberal narcissists ideology and political persuasion.

Saul‘s protégé knows that “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” The danger of being viewed as a terrorist, extremist, being grouped together with militia men who threatened to kill illegal immigrants, domestic terrorists, Ku-Klux Klansmen and White supremacists, is being used as an Alinsky inspired means of control to daunt and smother political opposition.

Barry Soetero, ACORN community organizer, sees us as his own large scale neighborhood and he is applying Alinsky organizing techniques on us to pressure us into submitting to his socialistic plans for this nation. The Narcissist-in-Chief is lifting his leg on a group of people who refuse to allow him to mark us as his own or transform us into the prescription he needs to address his self-absorbed issues by defining us as terrorist extremists instead of the patriotic Americans we are!

Obama’s desire to target, freeze, personalize and polarize fifty-percent of the population and make conservatives or rightwing political adherents a bigger threat to the safety of this nation than true Islamic extremists that desire to see us destroyed. His view of those who disagree with him has been exposed in this report, as well as his pathetic clutching at obscure, pitiable, rare examples in an effort to isolate and shut down opposing political dissent.

Copyright 2009 Jeannieology. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed


  1. The Pirate-In-Chief does not have one original thought in his simple mind. The Rules of Radicals is his bible and his roadmap to Socilaism in America. The Pirate-in- Chief campaign slogan “Change” comes from the book Rules Of Radicals. The Conservatives in america will have to understand that we are in “Civil War” for the heart and soul of America.

  2. Proud right wing radical

    Right before the Civil War in America took place, the rhetoric was similar to what we see today. The country is so divided and we are constantly demonized. Politicians that believe as we do are demonized by the Fifth Column and, therefore, the rest of the country is spoon fed this garbage. We have an uphill battle to fight but I’m ready!

    What can be done?

  3. mainaid

    Enjoyed your site. Good to see someone posting info like this .There are a lot of us out here in “net-land” that are new to the scene so we mostly just search and read. Most of us don’t know how to do much else, but we are learning. It would be great if someone with your talents could start an “instructional” site so we could practice.:) The “libs” are really aggressive! Sites like yours help arm us with information. Thanks

  4. Bill Sumruld

    It was so frustrating last year. I kept trying to get people to notice the man’s background and training, even his own words from his own books that showed where he was headed but all I got was how wonderful it would be to elect a black president and get all the racial turmoil behind us. That sure worked out well didn’t it. Like Hillary Clinton, who wrote an approving thesis on Alinsky in college, Obama is informed by Alinsky.

    Also, please note that he, like many others on the extreme Academic left are students and disciples of Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse is the father of “Repressive Tolerance.” Reading this essay of his will help you understand the rationalizations that lead to the double standard regarding free speech by many on the left, especially on college campuses. To understand their use of higher education as a center of indoctrination to begin the “long march through the institutions” of this society you need to see the works of Antonio Gramsci, who suggested this as the only strategy by which the Left could completely capture a successful democratically capitalist state. It is what they have come close to already achieving here.

  5. Dennis

    A thoughtful and well researched write. I simply cannot understand the small amount of responses in the comment area. Oh forgive me, most Americans don’t wish to be on the watch list. May the good Lord bless you for your part in making us aware of the real problems facing the American people today. Just how did you pull this off without the use of a teleprompter anyway?

  6. Rocky


    Your observations are right on the mark.

    What I find hypocritical are the sheer number of Obama administration defenders and advocates that are turning a blind eye to and going so far as to make excuses for so many of the similar kinds of things that they screamed about, often in very ugly ways, on the previous administration.

    I think what we are beginning to see now is many conservatives and Indeps, and even some Dems now too, that have been, for the most part, taking the Saul Alinksy style verbal attacks and ugly actions by those leaning to the left pushing their beliefs and agenda hard, finally speaking back and saying enough is enough. Not everyone is willing to succumb to bully tactics and repeated attacks. I know plenty of people that are sick and tired of it, as am I.

    The left has chosen to use soapboxes for more than 8 years all to themselves, mostly unchallenged, because most conservatives & Indeps believe strongly enough in free speech to say nothing in rebuttal, that has been their nature. Well, you get “punched enough”, you will defend yourself and protect yourself and your position, at least if one has an ounce of self-respect. This frightens the left. Their rhetoric and attacks are escalating with their angst at the prospect of conservative fighting back. After all we can read too, and now many of us know Saul Alinky’s Rules for Radicals too. Turnabout is fair play and it is long past due time to stick up for our beliefs and the Constitution.

    For the lefty’s that made scads of attacks to then turn around and whine that they think they have been treated harshly, right after that same accusing individual has “ripped conservatives a proverbial ‘new one’ and attempted to forcefully impose their will on someone else, is disingenuous and two faced, at a minimum; this has been standard behavior and procedure from the left. They also quite often resort to name-calling & pulling the ‘race card’ by accusing someone of the same. Look at what just happened to Miss California when she respectfully answered a question in the Miss USA pageant this week when Perez Hilton came unglued, for just one example. There are myriad more such examples.

    Has this left behavior fostered anger and retaliatory verbiage? Yes, it certainly has, and that should not be unexpected after such repeated examples of their poor behavior. Now that conservatives & Indeps have been “smacked” harder and harder, verbally and in written form, the Indeps & conservatives are saying “Enough”. Even so, most do behave reasonably, even still.

    The Left has proven to be very sore losers and continue to berate and batter conservatives, Indeps, and anyone that even slightly questions policies now being unveiled and implemented, and because of that, many are fed up. I saw how Juan Williams, an NPR liberal commentator & writer, was attacked visciously a couple of months ago himself when he dared point out an inconsistancy on the left’s reasoning, for just one more example, again there are many more.

    The recent Tea Parties are also a good example. How aggressively did the anti-Tea Party people come out? They came out swingingly excessively aggressive, negative, and scathing. Most of it is in black & white in the papers and in living color on TV & the internet. Susan Roesgen of CNN is a prime example of their idiocy and hypocrisy, as was Jeanine Garofalo’s interview on MSNBC calling the Tea Party ‘racist’, for starters.

    To date, there has been little two-way discussion, the left’s response often has been “We won, shut up.”, in one form or another. Look at the comments sections in on-line news articles to see some of the worst examples. If lefties wee honest with themselves, they would acknowledge that this is true; however, they never will.

    In summation, I believe that era has ended for turning the other cheek by conservatives, and now even Independents too; they feel they need to defend themselves and their beliefs as they are being aggressively undermined, maliciously ridiculed, repeatedly attacked by the left.

  7. michael jonak

    What are the plans for the 4th of July? more tea parties? I am new to this site. Congrats to the person posting Saul Alinski’s rules. Has anyone heard of a concerted effort to defeat these rules, to implement a stategy, a tactic, to defeat them? Thanks. cyrano645

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to Top