The degree to which Democrats ridicule and revile Sarah Palin is the measure of how much they fear her. (Why some Republicans are spreading lies about her to bring her into contempt I have no idea – its seems a foolish thing to do, she being important to their future.)

Austin Hill, radio talk-show host, writes today about an obviously organized campaign to mock critics of Obama’s leftist policies with accusations of racism. He concludes:

Conservative Americans in particular need to understand that in this new era, the rules have changed. And to understand this change, conservatives need to begin by reading “Rules For Radicals,” a book published in 1971 by noted “community organizer” (and a man who is said to have influenced Mr. Obama) Saul Alinsky.

Column space is limited here, so you’ll have to get a copy of the book for yourself. But consider this notion from Alinksy’s 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.”

And consider this language from rule #11, wherein Alinsky suggests that the main job of a “community organizer” is to bait his opponent into reacting in a certain way: “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

Welcome to the new era.

Fortunately, ridicule is a two-edged sword. Mock back, my hearties, mock right back! It’s only fair.

And take note: now that the ‘long march’ of the left has achieved the capture of the most powerful institution in the world, expect Saul Alinsky’s book to be consulted by your radical ruler much more than the Constitution of the United States, despite the oath he will swear at his inauguration. 

 David Limbaugh asks his fellow conservatives:

Could you tell me under what moral principle you would advocate, say, conservative cooperation with liberal legislation during Obama’s "honeymoon" period that would further dismantle America’s capitalistic system or undermine our national security?

Right before the election, I wrote that Obama worries me because of his leftist ideas and the Saul Alinsky (Chicago-style, thuggish) tactics his campaign and its surrogates were using to secure the election. Now adding to my concern is all this talk about a new day in America and the need for bipartisanship, which is just an effort at soft intimidation and a strategy to shame the opposition from exercising its vigilance and acting as the opposition party. But even that would be far less troubling if there were fewer gullible people on our side.

Perhaps it’s Obama’s messianic aura and rhetorical generalities of harmonic convergence that blind "intellectuals" to his radicalism and deceive them into believing he’ll govern as a centrist. Maybe it’s his fluency and mellifluous voice that separate pro-life advocates such as Doug Kmiec from their critical faculties to the point they could argue that this poster child for Planned Parenthood was the more pro-life of the two presidential candidates. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal editors must have taken a quick slug of the Kool-Aid before opining that Obama now faces "a much greater foe: Democrats on Capitol Hill," who will try to pull this presumed pragmatist to the left.

Dream on, boys. They’ll be headed west together as fast as their partisan legs can carry them. And we better be ready for them, believing our own instincts and powers of observation rather than relying on the lying eyes of our elites and the false assurances of our political opponents who will tell us that left means center and wrong means right.

What is it about Obama’s leftist past and record as the most liberal senator that so many intelligent people do not understand?

As the ‘mainstream media’ refused to publish facts about Barack Obama that might dissuade voters from voting for him, it  was up to the McCain Campaign to make them known. But apparently no one running the McCain Campaign thought of doing it until Sarah Palin came along and brought up the name of William Ayers in a speech that simply could not be ignored.

At last one of the clues to who and what Obama is, what the political opinions are of the man standing for the presidency of the United States actually are, was reaching the multitudes who knew nothing of him but his gift of the gab. That clue should have been followed by the rest. They’re all there, easy to find. His Kenyan father was a radical leftist. His mother, the 60s hippie, was a New Lefty. His grandfather got an ardent Communist named Frank Marshall Davis to mould the mind of young Barack, who went on eagerly to drink down the red ideology of Saul Alinsky. He sought a launch-pad for his political career among revolutionary leftists and America-haters (Ayers and Dohrn) in Chicago. When he attained the power to do so, he channeled funds to promote the activities and causes of the revolutionary left. He joined a church where revolutionary anti-American ideology was consistently preached. When he needed funds for his campaign in Illinois, they were raised for him in turn by his revolutionary leftist comrades. He trained ACORN staff in techniques of extortion, and ACORN is a radical red organization (see our posts on it) at the very root of the sub-prime meltdown.  

The old saying, ‘if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you can bet it is a duck’  applies here. Obama grew up with red radicals, learnt from red radicals, mixed with red radicals, worked with red radicals, churched with red radicals, strives to achieve the objectives of red radicalism, so what is he?

But even now that one of the clues has been outed with the name of William Ayers, Obama escapes being identified by the company he keeps. He says he just happens to live in the same neighborhood as this terrorist guy. He pretends to be hurt by unfair  ‘guilt by association’. Or if you won’t swallow the ‘just a neighbor’ line, then okay, at worst he  happened to have been washed up by coincidence on the same committees – which just happened to promote the indoctrination of the young with red revolutionary ideology. 

And the McCain people are letting him get away with it!

When they are asked: ‘What does it say about Obama that he associated with the terrorist William Ayers?’  – ‘It shows he has bad judgment,’ comes the reply.

No, it doesn’t. It shows that birds of a red revolutionary feather flock together.

It isn’t only that William Ayers was a terrorist; it’s what he was using terrorism for that needs to be taken notice of.  What was he trying to achieve with it? What was – and is – his ideology?  (Clues: He’s pally with Hugo Chavez; he admires Fidel Castro.)  

So it isn’t just that Barack Obama associates with red revolutionary radicals. Red revolutionary radicalism is his provenance. It’s where he comes from. It’s where he chose to put down his political roots.  It’s what formed his mind. It’s what lies behind his redistributionist, collectivist policies. 

Is it really possible that Americans could vote into power a red revolutionary radical without realizing what they’re doing?  It looks all too possible now, with Obama way ahead in the polls.

How many Americans would knowingly vote for a red revolutionary radical?  How can they be warned in time that that is what Obama is?

The only source of such information is the McCain Campaign, since the MSM – whose job it is – have iniquitously decided to conceal it.

But the McCain Campaign doesn’t seem to get it!

Hello over there! Anybody in the McCain Campaign doing any thinking?

It’s a poor choice for America between a man who thinks like a red revolutionary and a man who doesn’t seem to think at all. 

But – Oh dear! – better the boring guy who’s not too smart than the smart guy who will take America down the long hard slope into the socialist ditch where Europe now lies dying.   

Saul Alinsky was the Marxist whose doctrine has been learnt and followed by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Melanie Phillips has an excellent column about him and them in The Spectator.   

The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism. A master of infiltration, Alinsky wooed Chicago mobsters and Wall Street financiers alike. And successive Democratic politicians fell under his spell.

His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’.  

The whole thing is a must-read.