During his victory speech on Saturday night in South Carolina and his appearance on Meet The Press on Sunday morning, Newt Gingrich mentioned Saul Alinsky and how evil, dangerous, and un-American his influence is on America and American politics. He also tried to associate President Obama with him. But, who IS Saul Alinsky and why is Newt Gingrich so frightened of him?

Well, it’s pretty simple: Saul Alinsky was a writer and community organizer who empowered the poor no matter their race. He strove to give a voice to the voiceless by organizing them into a body capable of massive protests, believing that the poor and disenfranchised would have more power to make their voices heard if they would come together and speak as one. In other words, he added the voices of the poor to our democracy.

Saul Alinsky grew up in a Jewish household and always identified himself as a Jew when asked about his religious views. His political views are harder to pin down, since he refused to join any party or subscribe to any ideology. I suspect Newt thinks that Alinsky is a communist but he would be wrong. Alinsky was appalled by political extremes. He hated the Nazis on the right and the Communists on the left. When asked if he would join the Communist Party, Alinsky replied,

“I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it’s Christianity or Marxism… The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.”

Alinsky believed people could make their lives better if they became more politically active and joined together for that purpose. In the last years of his life, during the Nixon Presidency, Alinsky saw the coming extreme conservative movement and planned to organize white middle class citizens to fight for their futures. Alinsky feared the middle class would be driven to a right-wing viewpoint, “making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday.” That guy on horseback sounds like Newt Gingrich and every other Republican who wants to take America back to a time when corporations and the wealthy had all the power, when regulations that protect consumers and workers didn’t exist, when racial minorities were second class citizens, when women were confined to the home, and when there were no protections for the disabled and the elderly.

It makes sense that Newt Gingrich fears Saul Alinsky. Alinsky helped give the poor and downtrodden a voice in this country. In fact, if Saul Alinsky were still alive, he’d be proud of the Occupy movement and would more than likely be helping to organize it. Newt Gingrich once mentioned Alinsky’s book, Rules For Radicals, and how bad for America it is. But the book just details how to organize and push for an idea and pressure the government to listen to the will of the people. In the first paragraph of the book Alinsky wrote, “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

I wrote earlier that Alinsky’s political views are hard to pin down. I believe he was just left of center like President Obama is. And that’s another reason why Newt Gingrich tries to tie the two together. Barack Obama was a fantastic community organizer in Chicago, where Alinsky began his own organizing efforts. Alinsky was so effective that he drew criticism from those who feared the wrath of the masses, but he also drew praise from progressives like Adlai Stevenson who said Alinsky’s efforts “most faithfully reflect our ideals of brotherhood, tolerance, charity and dignity of the individual.” Even conservative William F. Buckley said he was “very close to being an organizational genius.” That being said, if Newt Gingrich says President Obama is like Saul Alinsky, Obama should wear that comparison like a badge of honor.

Newt Gingrich fears a Jewish, politically independent community organizer who helped the poor, improved democracy, helped both blacks and whites, and hated Nazis and Communists. Can we then assume that Gingrich is an ultra-conservative Christian extremist and white supremacist who wants to bring corporate and religious fascism down upon America? Because that’s the only reason why Newt Gingrich would be so frightened of Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky changed American democracy by adding the voices of the previously ignored and unheard, which only makes our democracy stronger and more inclusive. This is what makes our system the envy of the world. This is why people come here to build themselves a better life and to be included, counted, and heard. Apparently, Newt Gingrich hates the fact that the poor have a voice in America. If Gingrich or any other Republican candidate were to become President, the poor would once again be quashed under the boot heel of a conservative corporate coalition whose only goals are to fleece the American people and dismantle the Constitution. The people have the right to organize and protest. That right is protected by the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, whom conservatives claim to revere. So why do they hate poor people so much when they protest? Why do they seek to limit democracy to only the white, wealthy few? Conservatives have no clue what real democracy is. They only want power and greed and that means they have to attack the masses and strip them of their voice and their vote. That’s why we, as Americans, must rise up and make our voices heard. That’s why we, as Americans, must vote. So I believe I speak for a majority of Americans, including the poor, when I say, in the words of Saul Alinsky, we “love this goddamn country, and we’re going to take it back.”

source

UPDATE

ED NOTE: While we here at HatingItMagazine.com think this writer is a completely brainwashed right winger, his perspective is rather telling.

By Brett Stephens of the WSJ

Let’s just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.

It doesn’t matter that Mr. Obama can’t get the economy out of second gear. It doesn’t matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn’t matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn’t matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn’t matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn’t matter that the result of his “reset” with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn’t matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn’t matter that his wife thinks America doesn’t deserve him. It doesn’t matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn’t going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.

Above all, it doesn’t matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won’t be another fiasco. But they can’t be reasonably sure, so it’s going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.

Is this the best they can do?
As for the current GOP field, it’s like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.

That’s my theory for why South Carolina gave Newt Gingrich his big primary win on Saturday: Voters instinctively prefer the idea of an entertaining Newt-Obama contest—the aspiring Caesar versus the failed Redeemer—over a dreary Mitt-Obama one. The problem is that voters also know that Gaius Gingrich is liable to deliver his prime-time speeches in purple toga while holding tight to darling Messalina’s—sorry, Callista’s—bejeweled fingers. A primary ballot for Mr. Gingrich is a vote for an entertaining election, not a Republican in the White House.

Then there is Mitt Romney, even now the presumptive nominee. If Mr. Gingrich demonstrated his unfitness to be a serious Republican nominee with his destructive attacks on private equity (a prime legacy of the Reagan years), Mr. Romney has demonstrated his unfitness by—where to start?

Oh, yes, the moment in last week’s debate when Mr. Romney equivocated about releasing his tax returns. The former Massachusetts governor is nothing if not a scripted politician, and the least one can ask of such people is that they should know their lines by heart. Did nobody in Mr. Romney’s expensive campaign shop tell him that this question was sure to come, and that a decision had to be made, in advance, as to what the answer would be? Great CEOs don’t just surround themselves with consultants and advance men. They also hire contrarians, alter egos and at least someone who isn’t afraid to poke a finger in their chest. On the evidence of his campaign, Mr. Romney is a lousy CEO.

But it’s worse than that. The usual rap on Mr. Romney is that he’s robotic, but the real reason he can’t gain traction with voters is that they suspect he’s concealing some unnameable private doubt. Al Gore and George Bush Sr. were like that, too, and not just because they were all to the proverbial manor born. It’s that they were basically hollow men.

Thus the core difference between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama: For the governor, the convictions are the veneer. For the president, the pragmatism is. Voters always see through this. They usually prefer the man who stands for something.

What about Rick Santorum and Ron Paul? They are owed some respect, especially for the contrast between their willingness to take a stand for principle against the front-runners’ willingness to say anything. But Messrs. Santorum and Paul are two tedious men, deep in conversation with some country that’s not quite America, appealing to a devoted base but not beyond it. Sorry, gentlemen: You’re not going anywhere.

Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn’t because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up. Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd. If Mr. Obama wins in November—or, rather, when he does—the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee.

What should readers who despair of a second Obama term make of all this? Hope ObamaCare is repealed by the High Court, the Iranian bomb is repealed by the Israeli Air Force, and the Senate switches hands, giving America a healthy spell of Hippocratic government.

All perfectly plausible. And the U.S. will surely survive four more years. Who knows? By then maybe Republicans will have figured out that if they don’t want to lose, they shouldn’t run with losers. (source)

While this one makes you say “WOW WHAT A TOOL!”

“And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,” Gingrich said earlier today in Plymouth, N.H.

What can I say about the arrogant prick? I guess I’ll just talk to the little boys. Don’t grow up to be like this man. Look at him. A hollowed out fat, hungry ghost with nothing more than a massive, rotting ego inside. Running — no longer for President, no no — but just to wound at all costs the only guy with half a chance. Just because he’s pissed that someone simply used the fascist Citizen’s United decision (that he himself praised as a “victory for free speech”) to end his ridiculously arrogant bid for an office he has absolutely no business even entering much less possessing.

His downturn came when he surged to 30% in the polls and simply assumed not only that he was the nominee, but that he was THE ORDAINED HEIR TO THE THE AMERICAN CORPORATE MONARCHY. Immediately, he declared his intention to arrest judges who decided cases he did not agree with. And with that, the poisonous, vile air began to seep out of this hot air ball of old like a sad, punctured float. Indeed, what a nightmarish parade it has been so far.

An odd sort of idiot is this Gingrich. Appearing quite learned at times but never fully pulling off the con for anyone above the age of 12. The guy should just quit and endorse Santorum. Maybe with their combined supporters they can derail the inevitable nominee. Doesn’t much matter. There is simply no way for Obama to lose to any one of these ass clowns. And that’s the hating it truth nobody on the right is willing to face. Except for Pat Robertson of course. It seems God told him about the Obama victory in 2012. I swear his hairline receeded a full inch as he told the 700 Club h’s “not allowed to tell.”

A Republican congressman from Wisconsin has offered a personal apology to First Lady Michelle Obama after he was overheard at an airport lounge criticizing her “large posterior.”

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner was overheard loudly complaining on the phone in the Delta Lounge at Reagan National Airport outside Washington about Obama’s healthy food initiative.

According to Fishbowl DC, which first reported the lawmaker’s remarks, Sensenbrenner was recounting a recent conversation he’d had at church event in Wisconsin.

Obama, Sensenbrenner said loudly, “lectures us on eating right while she has a large posterior herself.”

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s Daniel Bice, Sensenbrenner made a similar remark at the Wisconsin church he was referencing in his phone call, telling attendees there that Obama has a “big butt.”

The Wisconsin lawmaker—who, it must be noted, is a bit rotund–sent a personal note to Obama apologizing for his remarks, his spokeswoman Amanda Infield tells Yahoo News. She declined to go into detail about what the note said.

In a statement to reporters, the lawmaker reiterated his apology. “I regret my inappropriate comment, and I have sent a personal note to the First Lady apologizing,” he said.

A spokesman for Obama did not respond to a request for comment.

It’s not the first time Republicans have mentioned Obama’s looks in criticizing her campaign to end childhood obesity. Earlier this year, Rush Limbaugh trashed the initiative, suggesting Obama doesn’t physically appear to practice what she preaches.

source

This supposedly neutral organization has just exposed itself in a BIG way. They’ve eagerly relenquished that which gives them ANY VALUE WHATSOEVER just to pander to Paul “Ayn Rand” Ryan. Calling the statement “the Paul Ryan Medicare plan ends Medicare as we know it” the biggest lie of the year would make the Ministry of Truth from 1984 blush.

Their complete in-denial response to the onslaught of criticism