What does Barak Obama mean by change?
To fully understand what Barack Hussein Obama means when he talks about "change," one must look to his background because when questioned directly he always dodges the question.
Where did he get his mantra of change?
To determine the answer to that question one has to find out whom Saul Alinsky was and what made him a factor in Obama’s life. Why did Hillary Clinton write her senior thesis on the man, a 75-page paean?
Years before Barack Obama appeared on the scene Saul Alinsky had been defining the term change to radicals in his book, Reveille for Radicals.
As Alinsky defined it, change meant radical socialism and the redistribution of wealth. Obama means the same, however, the difference is that Obama hides the meaning by dodging the question of specificity about the radical goals he has behind his issue.
Alinsky sought to create change by carefully calculated power politics where the ends always justified the means. In another book, Rules for Radicals, he set forth his tactic of "community organizing." Alinsky taught his disciples the critical nature of raising awareness of the economically depressed with a goal of stirring up discontent and moving those people toward political power.
He sought to create a peaceful revolution, using the ballot box rather than bullets, to yank power from the capitalist elites and business leaders then in charge. Capitalism was always the enemy. Is it really surprising then to see Obama promise to increase taxes on CEOs?
To Alinsky, "change" was a code word for a socialist revolution, even if the radicals had to don business suits, cut their hair, and seek political office. He wanted and taught his organizers to hide their true motives in the words they spoke, even if it meant lying. It was all a tactic with the main thrust being to advance the cause.
His lessons to his organizers included the tactic of ridiculing their opponents if their arguments could not be refuted by logic, or argument. He was a firm believer in the communist maxim that derision would trigger laughter at their opponents, rather than listening to what their opponents had to say. Do I see an Obama "lipstick on a pig" potential here?
The middle class to Alinsky was nothing more than a pawn in his pursuit of power because he realized that even if all the minorities – blacks, Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, the Appalachian poor – could be organized, this coalition would fail because it lacked the power to get significant change accomplished. So, his organizers had to stop rejecting their middle classness and build "bridges of communication and unity over the gaps, generation, values."
He envisioned himself and organizers like Obama as elitists by nature, because he realized the tactics they would use were, by their nature, lies. He did not want to be middle class, rather to grab the power from the corporate and business elites he hated. Alinsky was smart enough to realize he had to convince the middle classes to side with him in their own destruction.
Obama became a disciple of Alinsky and advanced to the point where he was able to teach Alinsky’s methods and theories to new organizers associated with the Gamaliel Foundation and the Industrial Areas Foundation. Senator Obama calls his years as an Alinsky community organizer in Chicago "the best education I ever had, and where I learned the true meaning of my Christian faith."
Alinsky advised his organizers to learn the local legends, values, how to speak the local language avoiding rhetoric foreign to the local culture. He advised them to avoid using terms like "white racist," fascist pig," and any other term that would potentially identify the speaker as a "nut," rather they should vocalize discontent, mobilizing the community from within. Alinsky’s philosophy was "ethics is doing what is best for the most." Stated another way, "ethics is doing what works" regardless of how it gets done or whatever means is necessary to accomplish the socialist end.
Perhaps a window into the soul of Saul Alinsky can be found in his book, Rules for Radicals, where he wrote before his death in 1972, "Let us not forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical … known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer."
Is this also a window into the soul of Barack Obama? At least now we know something about his definition of "change." The decision to be made is the question of whether or not it’s the kind of change for which America is ready. "Change We Can Believe In" is simply socialism and Marxist economics, which Americans have never believed in, wrapped in Alinskyesque camouflage, and threatening to inhabit the White House.