Larry Elder Interviews Chris Hayes of MSNBC

Larry took Chris Hsyes, of MSNBC, to the tool shed! A great working through many of the points of Chris’s book he was on the show for: “A Colony in a Nation.”

I don’t want the listener to lose sight of the influence of Saul Alinsky on Chris and his family at the beginning of the interview. Obviously socialists… maybe even a Communist (red-diaper-doper-baby)?

Mark Levin’s Tour de Force of Berwick, Obama, Gruber

Mark Levin points out that “health-care” isn’t the goal, but a means to a goal — power. Alinsky once boasted, “I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday.” Likewise, Obama has made healthcare mandatory and is enriching the coffers of the health insurance industry… only to get rid of them for single-payer health-care, the real goal of Democrats. How do they do this? By lying to the electorate!

Quoting Donald Berwick, Jonathan Gruber, and Obama, Levin shows that these elites love single-payer health-care.

One of my FaceBook friends challenged me with this:

  • “Yeah the republicans have never lied to America.”

To which I responded with:

  • “Can you p-l-e-a-s-e tell me a lie from Repubs that took over a sixth of the economy?”

You must compare apples-with-apples.

For more Levine, listen to him here:

Democrats See Racists Under Every Bed (Sen. Rockefeller vs. Sen. Johnson)

Via HotAir:

Two noteworthy details here. One: Rockefeller couldn’t be more casual in lobbing his grenade. He’s not out at a fundraiser with a drink in his hand, mindlessly babbling to some reporter with his guard down. He’s at an actual Senate hearing with a Republican senator sitting right in front of him, and yet it’s bombs away — and not for the first time. Congressional rules of decorum forbid swearing and personal insults, but if you want to charge the other side with racism for questioning Obama’s pet boondoggle, fire away. Two: Unlike most instances where this accusation is made, the target was present and eager to respond. Watch the very beginning and then the last few minutes of the second clip to see Johnson hit back. I would have walked out if I were him, but admittedly, his approach is smarter.

Listening to Dr. Ben Carson on the talk show circuit, and he said something interesting, which we see an over-doing of via the above video:

…this type of infantile adolescent behavior is still quite prevalent in our current political environment. Instead of “capping” their opponents, many in the political class engage in hyperbolic demagoguery in an attempt to demonize those who disagree with them. This is not surprising, because in his book “Rules For Radicals,” Saul Alinsky, the original radical community organizer and societal change agent, says you should never have a rational discussion with your opponent. Doing so would humanize him, and your goal is to demonize him. With this tactic, he states that you can incur your opponent’s wrath, causing him to respond angrily, and in many cases, irrationally, which then provides an opportunity to use that irrational response against him.

What was Doc Carson speaking of? in part, one of the 12-Rules of Radicals is used by Democrats, here is the rule:

  • RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions (Glen Beck);

Here is more of it explained… and exploited:

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Conservatives have a tendency to try to win every debate with logic and recitations of facts which, all too often, fail to get the job done because emotions and mockery are often just as effective as reason. The good news is that liberals almost never have logic on their side; so they’re incapable of rationally making the case for their policies while conservatives can become considerably more effective debaters by simply adding some emotion-based arguments and sheer scorn to their discourse. This has certainly worked on Twitter, where conservatives keep making the Obama campaign look like buffoons by taking over its hashtags. (TownHall)

We see Democrats and liberals using this tactic all the time, in more-and-more frequency in fact. Well, that aside, here is the response by Republican Senator Ron Johnson to this smear:

Chris Matthews/Media Mistruths About Whom Commits the Violent Acts — The “Right” Or the “Left”

David Horowitz comes right out and says it: “Chris Matthews’ ‘Rise of The New Right’: Delusional Neo-Communist Propaganda Which is true, in that, Chris Matthews has said a hero of his/the Left is Saul Alinsky, a self-purported Marxist. I have posted on this phenomena in the past, both at my old site and this newer .com:

But this list of activities from progressive leftists/Democrats posted over at News Busters is much more informative:

There is a disturbing chill in the air according to the leftist media. Threats of violence and rumor of murder are taking center stage instead of reporting legitimate public outrage about the passage of Obamacare. You need not click far online to hear another person refer to Glenn Beck as “dangerous”, yet they can never claim specifically why. Despite their rhetoric, the media refuses to follow up with what makes a man, who has spent hours just this year begging people to remain peaceful, so obscenely dangerous.

Glaringly obvious in this latest round of reports is that there are no specific examples of alleged threats of violence cited. I can only find one specific threat that caused the FBI to swoop in and ask a speaker to wear a bullet-proof vest on the tip that the speaker would be gunned down by an assassin. But that speaker was Glenn Beck.

Whether this is a shortcut to 2nd Amendment action, valid concern, or just a bunch of crybaby progressive politicians over reacting to criticism, it’s hard to tell. But Obama’s desire to continue ramming through the most divisive legislation — against his own creed — isn’t helping bring calm to even the most peaceful conservatives. And while the evidence of a violent right is scarce, there’s no limit to liberals attempting to make conservatives look evil.

Before letting the media continue to perpetuate a stereotype that may not actually exist at all, let me give you the facts that U.S. journalists refuse to cite. Let me show you where real violence comes from, and I don’t even need to mention the millions of babies killed every year by progressives or even the tens of millions of people murdered by their communist heroes.

I could literally go on and on, but let’s try to have some perspective here. Violence is a product of the fringe, on either side, and it’s sickening to try to use it for political advantage. Those who commit violence in the name of politics deserve political change no more than they deserve leniency in sentencing. Violence furthers no cause. The only call to action that violence has ever motivated Americans to is the retaliation on attackers. Somehow I think the liberals know that very well….

  • Every time the G20 gets together, it’s not conservatives who destroy property and cause chaos.
  • It was not the fear of conservative violence that caused Ann Coulter’s speech to be cancelled this week.
  • It was a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on healthcare.
  • It was Obama-loving Amy Bishop who took a gun to work and murdered co-workers.
  • Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building after writing an anti-conservative manifesto.
  • It was liberals who destroyed AM radio towers outside of Seattle.
  • It’s liberals who burn down Hummer dealerships.
  • It was progressive SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man who spoke his mind.
  • It’s doubtful that a conservative fired shots into a GOP campaign headquarters.
  • In fact, Democrats have no monopoly on having their offices vandalized.
  • Don’t forget it was Obama’s friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change. SDS is still radical, with arrests in 2007 and the storming of the CATO Institute in July 2008.
  • It was a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields to the Republican National Convention in 2008.
  • It was a liberal who threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated her Austin-based group that planned to bomb the RNC.
  • It was liberals who assaulted police in Berkeley.
  • It was liberals who intimidated and threw rocks through the windows of researchers.
  • The two Black Panthers who stood outside polls intimidating people with nightsticks were probably not right-wingers.
  • …(read more)…

    HotAir has the story as well.

    Since this site is called Religio-Political Talk, I will post a sermon on Obama and Saul Alinsky by a pastor.

    Chris Matthews Unknowingly Shows Obama Teaching Alinksy’s “Rules for Radicals” As A Professor… NOT The Constitution

    Via Gateway Pundit (GP’s link is gone So Presto becomes default). In Chris Matthews special, The Rise of the Right, he shows a photo of Obama drawing on a chalk board while mentioning he was a Constitutional professor. Touting Marxist ideals like Chris Matthews does is what is at issue here.

    Actually the photo used by MSNBC shows Obama teaching Alinsky principles not the US Constitution. PrestoPundit discussed this photo of Barack Obama in Chicago teaching the principles of Saul Alinsky back in February 2008. Notice the flow chart indicating the flow of money and power out of productive businesses (“CORP”) and into the political class (“MAYOR”)…

    The heading at the top reads “POWER ANALYSIS”. The sub-heading reads “RELATIONSHIPS BUILD ON SELF INTEREST”. The symbol on the arrow between “CORP” and “MAYOR” is the “$” sign.Saul Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on self-interest between corporations, banks and utilities. Barack Obama was teaching students in Chicago the Alinsky Principles.

    1. Mark Levin – Oct 14th – Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – Part 1

    2. Mark Levin – Oct 14th – Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – Part 2