Obama's biggest problem, today, is Obama. The immigration crisis is absolute proof.

WASHINGTON — As Republicans blame President Barack Obama’s executive actions for the crisis along the border, the president assured members of his own party Wednesday that he won’t back down from his plans to ease deportations.

Editor’s notes:  Understand that he has already committed to this slowdown.  In 2008,  8,000 minors were caught crossing the border with 4,000 working through the legal system and sent back. 

In 2013,  20,000 minors came into this country with only 1600 making their way through the system and being sent back. 

In other words,  this should not be “news,”  and it certainly is not news to Obama.  There is simply no way he is this out of touch with reality,  at least,  as relates to the evolving crisis.  “Flooding the system” in the face of a system/legal weakness,  is a trick often used by community organizers and domestic social revolutionaries.  THAT is what is going on. 

Where he fails in this tactic,  however,  is his choice to ignore two important rules for radicals,  as defined by Saul Alinsky.  

The first is rule # 6 which reads:  “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it,  there is something very wrong with the tactic”  (p. 128 Rules for Radicals – 1989 printing).  Obama simply cannot sustain his radical reform without the will of the people,  especially in a society free to vote he and his Red Loving minions out of office.  In polls take over the past three days,  his approval rating for his handling of this border crisis is down to 28% in one poll and 33% in another  -  both network polling results. 

A second problem as defined by Alinsky is found at rule #12:  “You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy  (that would be conservatives and reasonable Democrats) in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying,  ‘You’re right – we don’t know what to do about this issue.  Now tell us”  (p. 130 , Rules for Radicals)

And the fact of this matter is clear:  Obama has no clue as to how to solve this problem.  Understand that the current migration is not the problem.  Rather,  the unsustainable issue is the notion of “open borders,”  itself. 

Obama's pledge to stand his ground is nothing short of a declaration of domestic suicide.  Already,  communities are having to move budgeted funds away from local,  domestic needs like education,  fire and police protection and the care of their indigent populations,  and redirecting those funds to the care of unwanted populations being forced up them by Obama.  

Sadly,  conservatives can thank Obama for his rank stupidity in this.  Obviously,  he is not the student of Alinsky,  many of us thought him to be.    Rather,  his arrogant dismissal as to “proven” revolutionary tactics may well prove to be his final demise. 

Thank gawd he is not an intelligent organizer.   

A tutorial on the New Utopian Society of Academic America - as Marxist as it gets, as insanely inadequate as its know-nothing designers care to dream.

47 share

<<<  Having a few communist type hippies sleeping around the house was "doable."  But, now,  the few are many,  they have political power,  and they want us all to live in cities such as this,  returning "the land" to Mother Nature.  

Before reading the following,  you should know (1) that the NSF is funded by tax dollars.  “We, the people,”  paid for this Utopian nonsense.  (2)  Utopian Science (aka Environmentalist Junk Science) is being used to redistribute wealth through aggressive/regressive taxation,  taking money earned by hard working Americans (not just from the rich) and assessed property evaluations. (3) The Wisconsin-Madison utopian scenario is one in which the world is taken over by the know-nothing X generation and its offspring,  returning modern day civilization to the stone age,  where man,  apparently,  lived in harmony with other nomad populations,  stopped building houses out of brick, motar,wood, and whatever,  and returned to tents, caves and sleeping under the stars  ---   you know,  back to a time when the blind,  the toothless,  the hard of hearing,  the crippled, and the under-educated  all died early deaths because they could not compete. 

Did I say “compete?!”  Indeed,  “competition” is hated by the hippie communal population,  but it will be the death of this nonsensical idea,  if it ever were to “get off the ground.”  Such is the innately existential problem with communalism, whether that be the Communism of the past or the Marxist inspired Progressive/socialism of the present.  There is no place for the "competitor,"  in a thorough-going,  Marxist inspired,  socialist, society.  

(4)     Further,  you should know that “sustainability” is fast becoming the most important concept in the world of redistribution.  If land use is not deemed “sustainable usage,”  someday,  in the not-too-distant future,  it can be taken from its rightful owners,  those who paid the taxes and purchased the property,  and given to the larger community.  Key to “sustainability” under Utopian Rule,  is the notion of the “greater good.”  Take a rural piece of  property, 500 acres in size,  for example, and a family of four living on that acreage.  That family has worked hard,  and now,  own their dream world  . . . . . . . . . .  but the property benefits only that family of four.   There is a time,  coming,  in which the local or state government may take that property,  under the rules of eminent domain, and give it (or sell it) to a manufacturing entity,  or a larger, farming complex, thus benefiting the larger community.  When the article (or the website,  if you should go there) speaks of “forcibly”  taking property from the wealthy, it envisions the radicalized use of eminent domain laws,  and,  all property owned by the comparative few,  “rich” or not.  “The rich,” under Utopian Rule, are individual property owners who are not producing for the common good. 

(5)     "Community building and sustainability,"  under Utopian Rule,  are key to the new society of “peace and love”  and the very opposite to all that this great nation,  has stood for, during its centuries-old existence.  The rub,  in all this,  is the fact that the United States of America is under attack by Academic, Theoretic,  America,  and the taxpayer is funding this imagined take-over.        

Here is an except from the article in question:  

The National Science Foundation (NSF) gave nearly $5 million to the University of Wisconsin-Madison to create scenarios based on America’s actions on climate change, including a utopian future where everyone rides a bike and courts forcibly take property from the wealthy.

The government has awarded $4,911,961 for the project, which is slated to run until March 2016 and for which the school has created a website suggesting different possibilities of what Yahara, a Wisconsin watershed, will be like in 2070.

In the scenario where Americans “shift our values,” people live in hippie-like communes after “youth culture” convinces the world to give up their cars and eat vegetarian.

“By the 2020s, the world seemed at the edge of environmental and political collapse,” the scenario says. “Despite this predicament, youth culture becomes empowered to shift the course of humanity. Disenchanted with the country’s highly consumptive culture, the younger generations embrace community building and sustainability and work together through grassroots action to get their voices heard.”

The youth bring about the “Great Transition” in the 2040s, establishing a “new normal” where “connectivity, community, and environmental sustainability pervade policy and cultural decisions.”

The protagonist of the story is Rosa, a “community organizer” for a United Nations youth group “Badgers for Our Future,” who presides over the only holiday celebrated in the community  . . . . .  you will want to read the full news article at the Free Beacon.